John Haldon. The feudalism debate once more: The case of Byzantium[J]. The Journal of Peasant Studies,1989(1). pp.5-40.

This article takes up one aspect of the debate on feudalism and non-European societies. Through a review of elements of the social and economic history of the late Roman and Byzantine states, it seeks to demonstrate, first, how and why these social formations should be considered feudal; second, that a broad application of the concept of the feudal mode of production as a concept of political economy is both theoretically more valid and analytically more fruitful than its restriction to the examination of types of society traditionally identified as feudal on the basis of their institutional and superstructural appearance. The crucial point in this context is the rigorous separation of concepts belonging to theoretical and heuristic categories such as mode of production from the forms which these concepts express in specific historical societies.

? ? ? ? ? 本文討論了關(guān)于封建主義和非歐洲社會(huì)的辯論的一個(gè)方面。通過(guò)對(duì)晚期羅馬和拜占庭國(guó)家的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)歷史要素的回顧，文章試圖證明：第一，這些社會(huì)形態(tài)如何以及為什么應(yīng)該被認(rèn)為是封建的；第二，將封建生產(chǎn)方式的概念作為政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的一個(gè)概念來(lái)廣泛運(yùn)用，在理論上更有效，在分析上更有成果，而不是將其限制在對(duì)傳統(tǒng)上根據(jù)其制度和上層建筑的外觀而被認(rèn)定為封建的社會(huì)類型的研究。在這種情況下，關(guān)鍵的一點(diǎn)是把屬于理論和啟發(fā)式范疇的概念，如生產(chǎn)方式，與這些概念在具體歷史社會(huì)中所表現(xiàn)的形式嚴(yán)格分開(kāi)。

第一部分

Debate among medievalists and others over the adequacy or not of concepts such as 'feudalism' has been part and parcel of the historiographical scene for decades. Between Marxists and their critics on the one hand, and among Marxists on the other, the discussion has focused on two themes. In the first place, do we need such categories? And in the second, on the basis of which criteria are they to be constructed, and how are they to be employed? In particular, the ways in which categories such as mode of production, or social formation, can be invoked to understand complex historical societies has been a central issue in the pages of this, as of many other, journals. In what follows, and bearing in mind the comparative nature of this debate and its relevance to understanding both the problems of transition in past social formations, as well as its own role in contemporary historical and political analysis, I shall concentrate on the second of these questions. And I shall have a specific historical problem in mind: namely, to what extent can the Byzantine empire, which dominated Asia Minor and the Balkans from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries, be described as feudal, and, concomitantly, what sort of state formation does it represent?

? ? ? ? ? 幾十年來(lái)，中世紀(jì)學(xué)者和其他人之間關(guān)于“封建主義”等概念是否充分的辯論一直是歷史學(xué)界的組成部分。一方面在馬克思主義者和他們的批評(píng)者之間，另一方面在馬克思主義者之間，討論集中在兩個(gè)主題上。首先，我們是否需要這種分類？其次，根據(jù)什么標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)構(gòu)建它們，以及如何使用它們？特別是，如何引用生產(chǎn)方式或社會(huì)形成等類別來(lái)理解復(fù)雜的歷史社會(huì)，一直是本刊和其他許多期刊的核心問(wèn)題。在下文中，考慮到這一辯論的比較性質(zhì)及其與理解過(guò)去社會(huì)形態(tài)中的轉(zhuǎn)型問(wèn)題的相關(guān)性，以及它在當(dāng)代歷史和政治分析中的作用，我將集中討論這些問(wèn)題中的第二個(gè)。我將考慮一個(gè)具體的歷史問(wèn)題：即從七世紀(jì)到十三世紀(jì)統(tǒng)治小亞細(xì)亞和巴爾干地區(qū)的拜占庭帝國(guó)在多大程度上可以被描述為封建帝國(guó)，以及隨之而來(lái)的——它代表了什么樣的國(guó)家形態(tài)？

For the first of these questions is, I believe, easily answered: conceptual categories are heuristic devices, and they both establish the ways in which particular sorts of evidence can be invoked and made relevant to a problem, and avoid the subjective and intuition-bound nature of ad hoc hypothesising - however valuable a role this plays in all historical work. Not only Marxists have concepts, of course. But Marxism - or historical materialism - more than any other mode of interpreting human society, past and present, does offer the possibility of a holistic interpretative framework within which certain general principles of social and economic analysis can be employed, principles whose primary function is to enable the historian to focus on causal relationships in respect of both structures and events. In short, such categories are enabling devices which link understanding to action, and thereby to the potential for change.

? ? ? ? ? ?因?yàn)槲蚁嘈?，這些問(wèn)題中的第一個(gè)很容易回答：概念類別是啟發(fā)式裝置，它們既確立了可以援引特定種類的證據(jù)并使之與問(wèn)題相關(guān)的方式，又避免了臨時(shí)假設(shè)的主觀和直覺(jué)約束的性質(zhì)——無(wú)論這在所有歷史工作中發(fā)揮多么寶貴的作用。當(dāng)然，不僅是馬克思主義者有概念。但馬克思主義（或歷史唯物主義）比任何其他解釋人類社會(huì)的模式——過(guò)去和現(xiàn)在，確實(shí)提供了一個(gè)整體解釋框架的可能性，在這個(gè)框架內(nèi)，可以采用某些社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的一般原則，這些原則的主要功能是使歷史學(xué)家能夠?qū)Ｗ⒂诮Y(jié)構(gòu)和事件方面的因果關(guān)系。簡(jiǎn)而言之，這些類別是將理解與行動(dòng)聯(lián)系起來(lái)的有利工具，從而與變革的潛力聯(lián)系起來(lái)。

The second question, and the one which chiefly concerns me, has been answered from the theoretical and conceptual perspective by attempts to define more rigorously the concepts of various modes of production through which the social, economic and political structures of ancient and medieval societies can best be understood. This debate has linked in with discussion both inside and outside Marxism on the nature of ancient and medieval state formations and on the structure of pre-capitalist societies, viewed from a social-anthropological perspective. From the historical point of view, attention has centred on the question of the nature of the transition between ancient and medieval socio-economic and political structures, notably - and with an obviously Eurocentric bias — that from the ancient or post-classical world of the late Roman state (and the various cultures throughout the Mediterranean region which it subsumed) to the medieval and 'feudal' world of Europe after the fifth and sixth centuries. And it is within the context of these debates that I wish to concentrate on the history of the East Roman, or Byzantine, state.

? ? ? ? ? 第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，也是我最關(guān)心的問(wèn)題，已經(jīng)從理論和概念的角度得到了回答，即試圖更嚴(yán)格地界定各種生產(chǎn)方式的概念，通過(guò)這些概念可以最好地理解古代和中世紀(jì)社會(huì)的社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治結(jié)構(gòu)。這場(chǎng)辯論與馬克思主義內(nèi)部和外部關(guān)于古代和中世紀(jì)國(guó)家形態(tài)的性質(zhì)以及從社會(huì)人類學(xué)角度看前資本主義社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)的討論聯(lián)系在一起。從歷史的角度來(lái)看，注意力集中在古代和中世紀(jì)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治結(jié)構(gòu)之間的過(guò)渡性質(zhì)問(wèn)題上，特別是（而且明顯帶有歐洲中心主義的偏見(jiàn)）從古代或后羅馬國(guó)家的古典世界（以及它所包含的整個(gè)地中海地區(qū)的各種文化）到五、六世紀(jì)后歐洲的中世紀(jì)和‘封建’世界。正是在這些爭(zhēng)論的背景下，我希望集中討論東羅馬或拜占庭國(guó)家的歷史。

Importantly for this discussion, Byzantium has come to represent for many, at least from the European perspective, the classic example of a social formation which failed conspicuously to develop 'full' feudal relations of production in the medieval period. Most western Byzantinists (the vast majority of them not being Marxists), indeed, refuse to concede that Byzantine society was ever feudal; or that, if it was, then only right at the end of its history, from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries on, and only as a result of western, that is to say, external, influence. In contrast, Soviet and East European historians have traditionally been divided into roughly two camps: those who see feudal relations already in the later Roman period (from the fifth century, but most clearly from the seventh); and those who find evidence for such relations only after the tenth and eleventh centuries. More recently, there has been some move towards accepting elements of the 'western' critique, and to push the development of 'full' feudal relations forward into the thirteenth century and after [Khvostova, 1980]. As we shall see, the premises upon which such reasoning is founded are open to criticism.

? ? ? ? ? 對(duì)這次討論較為重要的是，拜占庭對(duì)許多人來(lái)說(shuō)，至少?gòu)臍W洲的角度來(lái)看，是一個(gè)社會(huì)形態(tài)的典型例子，它未能在中世紀(jì)時(shí)期明顯地發(fā)展“完全”的封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系。事實(shí)上，大多數(shù)西方拜占庭主義者（其中絕大多數(shù)不是馬克思主義者）拒絕承認(rèn)拜占庭社會(huì)曾經(jīng)是封建社會(huì)；或者說(shuō)，如果它是封建社會(huì)，那也只是在其歷史的末期，從第十二和第十三世紀(jì)開(kāi)始，而且只是作為西方，也就是外部影響的結(jié)果。與此相反，蘇聯(lián)和東歐的歷史學(xué)家傳統(tǒng)上大致分為兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)：那些認(rèn)為封建關(guān)系在羅馬時(shí)期后期（從第五世紀(jì)開(kāi)始，但最明顯的是從第七世紀(jì)開(kāi)始）就存在的人；以及那些在第十和第十一世紀(jì)之后才發(fā)現(xiàn)這種關(guān)系證據(jù)的人。最近，有一些人開(kāi)始接受 “西方”批評(píng)的觀點(diǎn)，并將“完整的”封建關(guān)系的發(fā)展提前到13世紀(jì)及之后[Khvostova, 1980]。正如我們將看到的，這種推理所依據(jù)的前提是可以批評(píng)的。

For the western historian of the Byzantine world, feudalism is defined chiefly in terms of legal-juridical structures of vassalage, enfeoffment, and so on, together with the supporting elements of dependent tenant or serf peasantries, and the fragmentation of judicial and political authority and powers. In other words, Byzantium cannot be considered feudal because its institutional and superstructural appearance never approximates to the appearance of western European feudalism in the tenth century and after. Non-Marxist western Byzantinists who do favour a feudal stage are usually constrained to place its inception in the eleventh century, with the appearance of the pronoia system, whereby the state granted the revenue from certain taxes or dues in particular areas, and for limited periods, to individuals in return for (predominantly) military service. But once again, the crucial determinant for a feudal order is the secondary institution of pronoia, in its judicial form, rather than any relation of production.

? ? ? ? ? 對(duì)于拜占庭世界的西方歷史學(xué)家來(lái)說(shuō)，封建主義主要是指附庸制、分封制等法律-君主制結(jié)構(gòu)，以及附屬的佃農(nóng)或農(nóng)奴等支持性因素，以及司法和政治權(quán)威和權(quán)力的分散。換句話說(shuō)，拜占庭不能被認(rèn)為是封建的，因?yàn)樗闹贫群蜕蠈咏ㄖ耐庥^從未接近十世紀(jì)及以后的西歐封建主義的外觀。贊成封建階段的非馬克思主義的西方拜占庭主義者通常被限制在11世紀(jì)，隨著普洛尼亞制度的出現(xiàn)，國(guó)家將特定地區(qū)的某些稅收或會(huì)費(fèi)的收入在有限的時(shí)間內(nèi)授予個(gè)人，作為對(duì)（主要是）軍事服務(wù)的回報(bào)。但是，封建秩序的關(guān)鍵決定因素再次是司法形式的普洛尼亞二級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)，而不是任何生產(chǎn)關(guān)系。

Soviet and East European historiography has concentrated on the question of when Byzantine social relations became feudalised, and this has inevitably involved problematising the role and nature of the city in late Roman aad Byzantine society, as well as the ways in which the state and its institutions intervened at different levels of the social and economic formation. The two traditional positions, which are evident from the late 1950s to the present, can be represented most readily in the work of two scholars, Stajermann and Sjuzjumov.

? ? ? ? ? 蘇聯(lián)和東歐的歷史學(xué)集中研究了拜占庭社會(huì)關(guān)系何時(shí)變得封建化的問(wèn)題，這不可避免地涉及到對(duì)羅馬后期和拜占庭社會(huì)中城市的作用和性質(zhì)的問(wèn)題，以及國(guó)家及其機(jī)構(gòu)在社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)形成的不同層面上的干預(yù)方式。從20世紀(jì)50年代末到現(xiàn)在，這兩種傳統(tǒng)的立場(chǎng)是顯而易見(jiàn)的，可以在兩位學(xué)者Stajermann（E. M.?Stajerman）和Sjuzjumov（米哈伊爾·蘇祖莫夫，師從亞歷山大·瓦西列夫 ( Alexander Vasiliev )）的工作中得到最充分的體現(xiàn)。

Stajermann represents in many ways a Soviet version of Anderson's thesis, although pre-dating it by many years: namely, that feudalism in the West is the result of a synthesis of the Roman slave mode of production with the barbarian tribalism or primitive communalism of the Germanic invaders. In contrast, the Balkans and Anatolia moved directly from the slave mode to the feudal mode, without external stimulus, as the developing relations of landlord-tenant subordination were subsumed within the state's fiscal apparatus, so that the taxes raised by the state can in effect be seen as a centralised form of feudal rent [Stajermann, 1975].

? ? ? ? ? Stajermann在許多方面代表了安德森理論的蘇聯(lián)版本，盡管比它早了許多年：即西方的封建主義是羅馬奴隸生產(chǎn)模式與日耳曼入侵者的野蠻部落主義或原始公社主義綜合的結(jié)果。相反，巴爾干半島和安納托利亞在沒(méi)有外部刺激的情況下，直接從奴隸模式進(jìn)入封建模式，因?yàn)榘l(fā)展中的地主-佃戶從屬關(guān)系被歸入國(guó)家的財(cái)政機(jī)構(gòu)，所以國(guó)家籌集的稅收實(shí)際上可以被看作是封建地租的集中形式[Stajermann, 1975]。

Sjuzjumov, in contrast, argued that this position denied the concept of revolutionary change altogether, erecting in its place a notion of mechanical synthesis. At the same time, he argued that it broadened the concept of the feudal mode to include virtually all forms of dependency and rent-extraction, and rendered it in consequence too general usefully to be employed in any analysis. According to Sjuzjumov, synthesis of a sort did occur in the West, but only at a much later date; while in the East the strength of the institutions of the ancient state, its ability to extract taxes, and the destruction of the large landholding elite from the seventh century on, delayed the development of feudal relations of production until, in the tenth century, a new class of landed magnates had arisen to challenge the state's interests in respect of the surpluses generated by the agricultural population of the empire. But their rise was itself promoted by the 'war economy' of the imperial state, which succumbed to feudalism chiefly because of the debilitating effects of constant warfare and the requirements of defence [Sjuzjumov, 1973b].

? ? ? ? ? 相反，Sjuzjumov（米哈伊爾·蘇祖莫夫）認(rèn)為，這一立場(chǎng)完全否定了革命變革的概念，取而代之的是機(jī)械綜合的概念。同時(shí)，他認(rèn)為這擴(kuò)大了封建模式的概念，幾乎包括了所有形式的依賴和榨取租金，因此使它變得過(guò)于籠統(tǒng)，無(wú)法用于任何分析。根據(jù)Sjuzjumov的說(shuō)法，在西方確實(shí)發(fā)生了某種綜合，但只發(fā)生在更晚的時(shí)候；而在東方，古代國(guó)家機(jī)構(gòu)的力量，其征稅的能力，以及從七世紀(jì)開(kāi)始對(duì)大土地?fù)碛姓呔⒌钠茐?，推遲了封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系的發(fā)展，直到十世紀(jì)，一個(gè)新的土地大亨階層出現(xiàn)，挑戰(zhàn)國(guó)家在帝國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)人口產(chǎn)生的盈余方面的利益。但他們的崛起本身是由帝國(guó)的“戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)經(jīng)濟(jì)”推動(dòng)的，而帝國(guó)屈服于封建主義，主要是因?yàn)椴粩嗟膽?zhàn)爭(zhēng)和國(guó)防的要求造成的衰弱[Sjuzjumov, 1973b]。

Sjuzjumov's view in effect is that Byzantine society represented a stable combination of forces and relations of production, a combination destabilised by external forces [Sjuzjumov, 1976]. This is, it seems to me, a position which most Marxists would not wish to defend, at least in the stark way in which Sjuzjumov has presented it. Internal contradiction and class conflict - while they may certainly be either promoted or restrained by interventions external to the dynamic of the social-economic formation in question - are generally regarded as fundamental elements in promoting change, however refracted a form this may take through the prism of ideology and institutions.

? ? ? ? ? Sjuzjumov的觀點(diǎn)，實(shí)際上是拜占庭社會(huì)代表了各種力量和生產(chǎn)關(guān)系的穩(wěn)定組合，這種組合因外部力量而變得不穩(wěn)定[Sjuzjumov, 1976]。在我看來(lái)，這是一個(gè)大多數(shù)馬克思主義者不愿意捍衛(wèi)的立場(chǎng)，至少在Sjuzjumov所提出的嚴(yán)酷方式下是如此。內(nèi)部矛盾和階級(jí)沖突（雖然它們肯定會(huì)被有關(guān)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài)動(dòng)態(tài)的外部干預(yù)所促進(jìn)或抑制）通常被認(rèn)為是促進(jìn)變革的基本要素，無(wú)論這種變革通過(guò)意識(shí)形態(tài)和制度的棱鏡會(huì)采取何種形式。

But another Soviet scholar, Alexander Kazhdan, has argued that it was precisely the internal contradictions of Byzantine society which explain its particular characteristics, a result of the impasse which he sees between developing feudal relations and the economic and ideological structures of the ancient centralised state [Kazhdan, 1968: 263ff.]. Kazhdan has also argued that, while neither feudal nor ancient relations of production were able to assert themselves fully until after the eleventh century (when feudalism finally becomes dominant), the taxes extracted by the ancient state did constitute already a form of centralised feudal rent [Kazhdan, 1956; I960]. But since tax represents a mode of surplus extraction, the particular form of which is in turn the hallmark of a particular mode of production, there arises a certain contradiction within his argument. I will return to this below.

? ? ? ? ? 但另一位蘇聯(lián)學(xué)者亞歷山大·卡日丹認(rèn)為，正是拜占庭社會(huì)的內(nèi)部矛盾解釋了它的特殊性，這是他認(rèn)為發(fā)展中的封建關(guān)系與古代中央集權(quán)國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)和意識(shí)形態(tài)結(jié)構(gòu)之間的僵局的結(jié)果[卡日丹，1968：263ff]?？ㄈ盏み€認(rèn)為，雖然封建和古代的生產(chǎn)關(guān)系在11世紀(jì)以后（封建主義最終成為主導(dǎo)）才得以充分體現(xiàn)，但古代國(guó)家征收的稅收確實(shí)已經(jīng)構(gòu)成了一種中央集權(quán)的封建地租[Kazhdan, 1956; 1960]。但是，由于稅收代表了一種剩余的提取方式，而這種方式的特殊形式又是一種特殊生產(chǎn)方式的標(biāo)志，所以在他的論證中出現(xiàn)了某種矛盾。我將在下面回到這個(gè)問(wèn)題。??

It is not my intention here to review the vast Soviet and East European literature concerned with these problems. But it is worth noting, finally, that - with the exception of the more recent work of Khvostova referred to already - the majority of Soviet scholars now seem to agree that the seventh century marks the end of the ancient world and the accompanying slave mode of production; that there followed a long period of pre- or proto-feudal development (as outlined by Kazhdan, for example), succeeded from the eleventh or the twelfth century by the full development of feudal relations of production. Within this schema, the debate has concentrated more recently on the question of whether or not tax is the equivalent of a form of centralised feudal rent; on the quantitative relationship between independent peasant cultivators and dependent tenants (whether of the state, Church or of private landlords); and on the process of the erosion of independent freeholdings and peasant communities subject directly to the fisc, in favour of the expansion of large estates and the gradual 'enserfment' of this formerly free peasantry. All seem agreed on the crucial role of the state in the development of Byzantine feudalism, especially on its role in patronising and promoting what becomes by the tenth and eleventh centuries the aristocracy, and its ability to hold back the extension of aristocratic landholding in the provinces - less consciously than through the inertia of the institutional apparatuses of fiscal and military administration. Many of these arguments would not be rejected by a large number of western and non-Marxist Byzantinists, either, and indeed, the final position is again not too far removed from that espoused by Anderson in his own survey [Anderson, 1974: 273ff.].

? ? ? ? ? 我不打算在這里回顧有關(guān)這些問(wèn)題的大量蘇聯(lián)和東歐文獻(xiàn)。但值得注意的是，最后，除了已經(jīng)提到的克謝尼亞·赫沃斯托娃的較新作品外，大多數(shù)蘇聯(lián)學(xué)者現(xiàn)在似乎都同意，七世紀(jì)標(biāo)志著古代世界和伴隨而來(lái)的奴隸生產(chǎn)方式的結(jié)束；隨后是一個(gè)漫長(zhǎng)的前或原封建發(fā)展時(shí)期（如卡日丹所概述的），從十一或十二世紀(jì)開(kāi)始，封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系全面發(fā)展。在這一模式中，最近的辯論集中在以下問(wèn)題上：稅收是否相當(dāng)于一種集中的封建地租；獨(dú)立的農(nóng)民耕種者和附屬佃戶（無(wú)論是國(guó)家、教會(huì)還是私人地主）之間的數(shù)量關(guān)系；獨(dú)立的自由所有權(quán)和直接受財(cái)政支配的農(nóng)民群體被侵蝕的過(guò)程，而有利于大莊園的擴(kuò)張和以前自由農(nóng)民的逐漸“被奴役”。所有的人似乎都同意國(guó)家在拜占庭封建主義發(fā)展中的關(guān)鍵作用，特別是它在贊助和促使到10世紀(jì)和11世紀(jì)成為貴族的作用，以及它阻止貴族土地所有權(quán)在各省擴(kuò)展的能力——并不是有意識(shí)地，而是通過(guò)財(cái)政和軍事管理機(jī)構(gòu)的惰性。其中許多論點(diǎn)也不會(huì)被大量的西方和非馬克思主義的拜占庭主義者所拒絕，事實(shí)上，最后的立場(chǎng)又與安德森在他自己的調(diào)查中所支持的立場(chǎng)相差無(wú)幾[Anderson, 1974: 273ff. ] 。

For western Marxists, too, the Byzantine state presents a number of problems. And part of the reason for these lies in exactly the problematic outlined in the recent discussion of the transition from the ancient to the feudal modes of production in the West, namely, the clear conceptualisation of how the feudal mode of production is to be understood in respect of the actual data at the disposal of the historian. Is tax to be assimilated to centralised feudal rent? Was it the institutional inertia of the state apparatuses which neutralised for so long the development of feudal relations of production? What role does ideology play in this picture? - a feature often deliberately avoided or denied any relevance in discussion over the ways in which a particular mode of production is articulated within historical social formations.

? ? ? ? ? 對(duì)于西方馬克思主義者來(lái)說(shuō)，拜占庭國(guó)家也反映出了一些問(wèn)題。而這些問(wèn)題的部分原因恰恰在于最近關(guān)于西方從古代生產(chǎn)方式向封建生產(chǎn)方式過(guò)渡的討論中所概述的問(wèn)題，即就歷史學(xué)家所掌握的實(shí)際數(shù)據(jù)而言，應(yīng)如何理解封建生產(chǎn)方式的明確概念化。稅收是否要被同化為集中的封建地租？是國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)的制度慣性使封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系的發(fā)展長(zhǎng)期處于中立狀態(tài)嗎？意識(shí)形態(tài)在這種情況下起什么作用？在討論特定生產(chǎn)方式在歷史社會(huì)形態(tài)中的銜接方式時(shí)，意識(shí)形態(tài)常常被刻意回避或否認(rèn)有任何意義。

第二部分

These questions represent several different levels of argument, of course: specifically, how is feudalism as a mode of production to be invoked? And, in the second place, how is the historical evidence relating to the specific history of the late Roman and Byzantine world to be understood in the light of any conclusions drawn in answer to the first question? I want, therefore, initially to confront what seems to me to be the most crucial: that is, how are we to understand phenomena such as tax (in its various forms) and rent (in its equally varied forms) as modes of surplus appropriation, and to what extent can either or both be subsumed within one or other of two headings: 'tribute' and '(centralised) feudal rent'.

? ? ? ? ? 當(dāng)然，這些問(wèn)題代表了幾個(gè)不同層次的爭(zhēng)論：具體來(lái)說(shuō)，如何引用封建主義作為一種生產(chǎn)方式？其次，根據(jù)對(duì)第一個(gè)問(wèn)題的回答得出的任何結(jié)論，如何理解與羅馬和拜占庭后期世界的具體歷史有關(guān)的歷史證據(jù)？因此，我想首先面對(duì)在我看來(lái)最關(guān)鍵的問(wèn)題：即我們?nèi)绾卫斫舛愂眨ǜ鞣N形式）和地租（同樣的各種形式）等現(xiàn)象作為剩余占有的模式，以及在多大程度上可以將兩者或其中之一歸入“貢品”和“（中央）封建地租”這兩個(gè)標(biāo)題中（的一個(gè)或另一個(gè)）。

In his article on 'the other transition', and more explicitly in that on 'the uniqueness of the East', Wickham [1984; 1985] argued for the notion of a tributary mode of production as proposed by Amin [1976:13ff.], intended to replace the concept of an asiatic mode of production (the latter now generally considered in western Marxism to be obsolescent, since rooted in misapprehensions and inadequate empirical data on the part of Marx and Engels), and to function as a concept within which localised subtypes, such as the ancient mode of production, could be accommodated. The crucial common element which Wickham identified in this mode was tax, a 'public' or 'state' method of surplus appropriation which differentiated it from the feudal mode, distinguished by feudal rent, that is to say, by (coercive) rent-taking, the extraction of surpluses from the direct producers based on extra-economic and 'private' power. At first glance, this distinction between tax and rent, as two different modes of surplus appropriation, seems convincing, and certainly fits the historical data for the political transition in Europe from ancient to feudal society - rent being the hallmark of feudalism, tax of the ancient (the Roman) state.

? ? ? ? ? 在他關(guān)于“另一種過(guò)渡”的文章中，以及更明確地在關(guān)于“東方的獨(dú)特性”的文章中，克里斯·威克姆[1984；1985]贊成阿明的主張[1976：13ff. ]，旨在取代亞洲生產(chǎn)方式的概念(后者現(xiàn)在在西方馬克思主義中被普遍認(rèn)為是過(guò)時(shí)的，因?yàn)樗哺隈R克思和恩格斯的錯(cuò)誤理解和不充分的經(jīng)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù))，并作為一個(gè)概念，在其中可以容納本地化的亞類型，如古代生產(chǎn)方式。威克姆在這種模式中確定的關(guān)鍵共同要素是稅收，這是一種“公共”或“國(guó)家”的剩余占有方法，它與封建模式不同，后者以封建地租為特征，也就是說(shuō)，以（強(qiáng)制）收租為特征，根據(jù)經(jīng)濟(jì)以外和“私人”權(quán)力從直接生產(chǎn)者那里提取剩余物。乍一看，稅收和地租之間的這種區(qū)別，作為兩種不同的剩余占有模式，似乎令人信服，而且肯定符合歐洲從古代社會(huì)向封建社會(huì)政治過(guò)渡的歷史數(shù)據(jù)——地租是封建主義的標(biāo)志，稅收是古代（羅馬）國(guó)家的標(biāo)志。

In a forensic critique of Wickham's views, Berktay has argued instead that tax and rent are merely two variants of the same mode of surplus appropriation, feudal rent (that is to say, the general form of surplus appropriation consistent with non-capitalist agricultural exploitation in a class society); so that, as a result, the feudal mode can be seen as the dominant mode throughout much of the pre-capitalist world. This view finds support in some traditional Marxist thinking, of course, as well as in the writings of Marx and Engels themselves (although, as is well known, neither ever developed an explicit theory of either modes of production or the process of transition from one mode to another within specific social formations). As Marx said:

? ? ? ? ? It is furthermore evident that in all forms in which the direct labourer remains the 'possessor* of the means of production and labour conditions necessary for the production of his own means of subsistence, the property relationship must simultaneously appear as a direct relationship of lordship and servitude, so that the direct producer is not free; a lack of freedom which may be reduced from serfdom with enforced labour to a mere tributary relationship (my emphasis).

? ? ? ? ? 在對(duì)威克姆的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行取證批判時(shí)，Berktay反而認(rèn)為，稅收和地租只是同一剩余占有模式的兩個(gè)變種，即封建地租（也就是說(shuō)，與階級(jí)社會(huì)中的非資本主義農(nóng)業(yè)剝削相一致的剩余占有的一般形式）；因此，封建模式可以被看作是整個(gè)前資本主義世界的主導(dǎo)模式。當(dāng)然，這種觀點(diǎn)在一些傳統(tǒng)的馬克思主義思想以及馬克思和恩格斯自己的著作中找到了支持論點(diǎn)（盡管眾所周知，兩人都沒(méi)有發(fā)展出關(guān)于生產(chǎn)模式或在具體社會(huì)形態(tài)中從一種模式過(guò)渡到另一種模式過(guò)程的明確理論）。正如馬克思所說(shuō)：

? ? ? ? ? 此外，顯而易見(jiàn)的是，在直接勞動(dòng)者仍然是生產(chǎn)自己生活資料所必需的生產(chǎn)資料和勞動(dòng)條件的“擁有者”的所有形式中，財(cái)產(chǎn)關(guān)系必須同時(shí)表現(xiàn)為一種直接的領(lǐng)主和奴役關(guān)系，因此，直接生產(chǎn)者是不自由的；這種不自由可以從強(qiáng)制勞動(dòng)的農(nóng)奴制淪為一種單純的支派關(guān)系（我的強(qiáng)調(diào)）。

It seems to me that, if we are to retain the concept of mode of surplus appropriation as a fundamental element which serves to differentiate one mode of production from another, then this is a crucial point. For both the couplet tax/rent and the notion of a tributary mode are, in fact, expressions of the political-juridical forms that surplus appropriation takes, not distinctions between different modes. Both tax and rent are forms of surplus appropriation based upon the existence of a peasant producing class occupying and exploiting its holdings — whether these peasants are dependent tenants leasing their lands merely as exploiters, not as owners, whether they are free proprietors grouped in independent village communities, or a mixture of varying degrees of the two (as in the later Roman and Byzantine world from the third to the twelfth centuries), is not important. Nor are the origins of their economic and juridical condition: what matters for our point is the process through which surpluses are actually extracted by the state or by a private landlord. This is where I believe Cohen to be wrong in his critique of Hilton, for example, since the genesis of relations of surplus appropriation, while it may retain a juridical and ideological status specific to the legal and political apparatuses of a social-cultural formation, cannot adequately be employed to understand the actual process of exploitation.

? ? ? ? ? ?在我看來(lái)，如果我們要保留剩余占有模式的概念，將其作為區(qū)分一種生產(chǎn)方式和另一種生產(chǎn)方式的基本要素，那么這就是一個(gè)關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)。因?yàn)槎?租的對(duì)聯(lián)和支流模式的概念，實(shí)際上都是對(duì)剩余占有的政治-司法形式的表達(dá)，而不是對(duì)不同模式的區(qū)分。稅收和地租都是剩余占有的形式，其基礎(chǔ)是占有和剝削其土地的農(nóng)民生產(chǎn)階級(jí)的存在——無(wú)論這些農(nóng)民是僅僅作為剝削者而不是作為所有者租賃其土地的附屬租戶，無(wú)論他們是獨(dú)立的村社中的自由業(yè)主，還是兩者不同程度的混合體（如第三至第十二世紀(jì)的后期羅馬和拜占庭世界），都不重要。他們的經(jīng)濟(jì)和司法狀況的起源也不重要：對(duì)我們來(lái)說(shuō)，重要的是國(guó)家或私人地主實(shí)際提取盈余的過(guò)程。這就是我認(rèn)為科恩在他對(duì)希爾頓的批評(píng)中的錯(cuò)誤之處，例如，因?yàn)槭Ｓ辔镎加嘘P(guān)系的起源，雖然它可能保留了一個(gè)社會(huì)文化形成的法律和政治機(jī)構(gòu)所特有的司法和意識(shí)形態(tài)地位，但不能充分地用于理解實(shí)際的剝削過(guò)程。

Now it is clear that both the extraction of rent, on the one hand, and of tax, on the other, is achieved by means other than economic pressure (in contrast to capitalist exploitation). As Marx put it in respect of feudal rent, its foundation was the 'forcible domination of one section of society over another', secured by both actual or potential violence, that is, by physical force and by ideology. This, of course, represents something fundamentally different from slavery or the slave mode of production, where human beings are treated as chattels, as (potential) commodities, being both separated absolutely, as the property of their owners, from the means of production, and therefore without any means of subsistence or reproduction except those granted by their owners; it is equally very different from capitalist production, where labourers have complete possession only of their labour power, being forced (and this by economic pressure) to sell this as a commodity to the owners of the means of production. But it represents no real opposition between tax and rent, which are valences of the same essential relationship: between a power (authority) on the one side, able to enforce the exaction of surpluses by virtue of custom, legal relationships, contractual arrangements backed up by sanctions or simple bullying enshrined in traditional rights and dues; and on the other side, the free or not so free peasant producers, possessing, if not actually owning, their own means of subsistence and reproduction.

? ? ? ? ? 現(xiàn)在很清楚的是，一方面提取地租，另一方面提取稅收，都是通過(guò)經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力以外的手段實(shí)現(xiàn)的（與資本主義剝削相反）。正如馬克思在談到封建地租時(shí)所說(shuō)，它的基礎(chǔ)是“社會(huì)的一個(gè)部分對(duì)另一個(gè)部分的強(qiáng)行統(tǒng)治”，通過(guò)實(shí)際的或潛在的暴力，即通過(guò)物質(zhì)力量和意識(shí)形態(tài)來(lái)保證。當(dāng)然，這代表了與奴隸制或奴隸生產(chǎn)方式的根本不同，在奴隸制中，人被當(dāng)作動(dòng)產(chǎn)，作為（潛在的）商品，作為其所有者的財(cái)產(chǎn)，與生產(chǎn)資料絕對(duì)分離，因此，除了其所有者授予的手段外，沒(méi)有任何生存或再生產(chǎn)的手段；它同樣與資本主義生產(chǎn)不同，在資本主義生產(chǎn)中，勞動(dòng)者只完全擁有其勞動(dòng)能力，被迫（而且是通過(guò)經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力）將其作為商品出售給生產(chǎn)資料所有者。但它并不代表稅收和地租之間的真正對(duì)立，它們是同一基本關(guān)系的表征：一方是權(quán)力（當(dāng)局），能夠憑借習(xí)俗、法律關(guān)系、以制裁為后盾的合同安排或傳統(tǒng)權(quán)利和義務(wù)中所載的簡(jiǎn)單欺凌來(lái)強(qiáng)制征收盈余；另一方是自由或不太自由的農(nóng)民生產(chǎn)者，他們擁有（如果不是實(shí)際擁有）自己的生存和再生產(chǎn)手段。

Indeed, Marx makes explicit reference to the fact that his concept of rent is a general concept of political economy, rather than a narrow and legalistic definition: labour rent, rent in kind, money rent and tax are all forms of the expression of unpaid surplus labour in pre-capitalist economic formations. And it is clear that where rent on peasant freeholdings is not paid, then tax is its political economy equivalent. The stress Marx places on the difference between serfs or tenants of a private landlord on the one hand, and those for whom the state functions in effect as a landlord on the other, reflects his own tendency to attribute more critical weight to legal forms of possession and/or property than the variety of historical forms always justifies. It seems clear that no real contradiction exists between the mode of appropriation of rent and tax: terms such as 'lack of freedom', 'bondage', 'landlord', for example, have different nuances according to the context in which they appear in Marx's writings: 'should the direct producers not be confronted by a private landowner, but rather ... under direct subordination to a state which stands over them as their landlord and simultaneously as sovereign, then rent and taxes coincide, or rather, there exists no tax which differs from this form of ground-rent' [Marx, 1894/1974: 790].

? ? ? ? ? ?事實(shí)上，馬克思明確提到，他的地租概念是政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的一般概念，而不是狹義的和法律上的定義：勞動(dòng)租金、實(shí)物租金、貨幣租金和稅收都是前資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài)中無(wú)償剩余勞動(dòng)的表現(xiàn)形式。而且很明顯的是，如果不支付農(nóng)民自由產(chǎn)權(quán)的租金，那么稅收就是其政治經(jīng)濟(jì)的等同物。馬克思強(qiáng)調(diào)農(nóng)奴或私人地主的租戶與國(guó)家實(shí)際上作為地主的人之間的區(qū)別，反映了他自己的傾向，即對(duì)占有和/或財(cái)產(chǎn)的法律形式給予更多的批評(píng)權(quán)重，而不是歷史形式的多樣性證明。顯然，在租金和稅收的占有模式之間不存在真正的矛盾：例如“缺乏自由”、“束縛”、“地主”等術(shù)語(yǔ)，根據(jù)它們?cè)隈R克思著作中出現(xiàn)的背景，有不同的細(xì)微差別：“直接生產(chǎn)者不應(yīng)該面對(duì)私人地主，而應(yīng)該......直接服從于私人地主。如果直接生產(chǎn)者不是面對(duì)私人土地所有者，而是......直接服從于作為他們的地主并同時(shí)作為主權(quán)者站在他們頭上的國(guó)家，那么，地租和稅收是一致的，或者說(shuō)，不存在與這種形式的地租不同的稅收”[馬克思，1894/1974：790]。

Of course, the actual conditions in which coercion occurs, and which make possible its continuation, are centrally relevant to the ways in which the claims to the appropriation of wealth are enforced and validated. But these can take a multiplicity and variety of forms and, while they are crucial to the process of the reproduction of the social relations of production in a specific historical context, are still not a part of the economic relation of appropriation. Similarly, tax exists in modern states, too, yet it is once again not a determining feature of the mode of surplus appropriation. In capitalism, tax is imposed upon, and is secondary to, the actual process of surplus appropriation in capitalist production relations. In pre-capitalist social formations not dominated by slavery, tax and rent are the only forms that the appropriation of surpluses can take.

? ? ? ? ? 當(dāng)然，脅迫發(fā)生的實(shí)際條件，以及使脅迫得以繼續(xù)的實(shí)際條件，與對(duì)財(cái)富的占有要求的實(shí)施和確認(rèn)的方式有核心關(guān)系。但是，這些條件可以采取多種多樣的形式，雖然它們對(duì)社會(huì)生產(chǎn)關(guān)系在特定歷史背景下的再生產(chǎn)過(guò)程至關(guān)重要，但仍然不是占有的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系的一部分。同樣，稅收也存在于現(xiàn)代國(guó)家，但它又不是剩余占有模式的決定性特征。在資本主義中，稅收是強(qiáng)加于資本主義生產(chǎn)關(guān)系中實(shí)際的剩余占有過(guò)程，而且是次要的。在不以奴隸制為主導(dǎo)的前資本主義社會(huì)形態(tài)中，稅收和地租是剩余物占有的唯一形式。

The functional economic equivalence of forms of tax and forms of rent in pre-capitalist social formations has been pointed out by many historians; and it seems to me that the reluctance of many others to accept this as fundamental to a vast range of actual social formations in the historical past is based less on the lack of a logical appreciation of its value than a tendency and a desire to incorporate elements which are in essence superstructural and conjunctural into what should remain a basically descriptive and heuristic model of economic relationships: a mode of production, as many who are aware of this point out (while then slipping into the same pattern of thinking) is not a concrete social reality. This is, for example, the problem with Sjuzjumov's critique of Stajermann, since he incorporated a range of non-economic elements, such as the forms of the state apparatuses which facilitated surplus appropriation, into what should be a strictly economic concept.

? ? ? ? ? 許多歷史學(xué)家已經(jīng)指出，在前資本主義社會(huì)形態(tài)中，稅收形式和地租形式在經(jīng)濟(jì)上是等同的；在我看來(lái)，許多人不愿意接受這一點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為它是歷史上大量實(shí)際社會(huì)形態(tài)的基礎(chǔ)，這與其說(shuō)是基于對(duì)其價(jià)值缺乏邏輯上的理解，不如說(shuō)是基于一種傾向和愿望，即把本質(zhì)上是上層建筑的和偶發(fā)的因素納入基本上應(yīng)該是描述性和啟發(fā)式的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系模式。正如許多意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)的人所指出的那樣（同時(shí)也陷入了同樣的思維模式），生產(chǎn)方式不是一種具體的社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)。例如，這就是Sjuzjumov對(duì)Stajermann的批評(píng)的問(wèn)題，因?yàn)樗岩幌盗蟹墙?jīng)濟(jì)因素，如促進(jìn)剩余占有的國(guó)家機(jī)構(gòu)的形式，納入了應(yīng)該是一個(gè)嚴(yán)格的經(jīng)濟(jì)概念。

Within feudal relations of production, therefore, we must be prepared to differentiate empirically between a wide range of disparate sub-types, actual social formations with very different histories and trajectories of development, different superstructural characteristics, different modes of self-expression. But this also means seeing very clearly that the word feudal continues to be employed because it is a historically-determined, convenient label — again, reluctance to accept its wider application is clearly bound up with a (mostly) eurocentric historiographical semantics which hankers after a historically-specific descriptive correspondence between a technical term and the categories to which it is applied. 'Feudalism' is still a term which invokes particular historico-social formations. Should we try to think up an alternative?

? ? ? ? ? 因此，在封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系中，我們必須準(zhǔn)備從經(jīng)驗(yàn)上區(qū)分各種不同的子類型，具有非常不同的歷史和發(fā)展軌跡的實(shí)際社會(huì)形態(tài)，不同的上層建筑特征，不同的自我表達(dá)模式。但這也意味著要清楚地看到，封建這個(gè)詞之所以繼續(xù)被采用，是因?yàn)樗且粋€(gè)由歷史決定的、方便的標(biāo)簽；同樣，不愿意接受其更廣泛的應(yīng)用顯然與（主要是）歐洲中心主義的歷史語(yǔ)義學(xué)聯(lián)系在一起，它渴望在一個(gè)技術(shù)術(shù)語(yǔ)和它所適用的類別之間有一個(gè)歷史上特定的描述性對(duì)應(yīng)?！胺饨ㄖ髁x”仍然是一個(gè)調(diào)用特定歷史-社會(huì)形態(tài)的術(shù)語(yǔ)。我們是否應(yīng)該嘗試想出一個(gè)替代方案？

Two results follow these conclusions. The first is that most ancient societies which had moved out of the stage of kinship-based or 'primitive communal' exploitation (whether 'urban' or not) and developed a class structure based upon the differential relationships of various socioeconomic groups economically to the means of production and distribution, can be understood through the category of the feudal mode of production; second, that the slave mode of production, which is now generally recognised to have had a relatively limited chronological and geographical dominance in the ancient world in those periods when it did develop, can be seen generally as a much more volatile and contingency bound mode of surplus appropriation. This has not yet, it seems to me, had the recognition it deserves; so that Soviet historians, for example, continue to describe the ancient world in the West almost exclusively in terms of the slave mode of production, a position which often seems both forced and the result of considerable over-generalisation. Slavery did dominate relations of production at times in the late Roman republic and early principate (but chiefly in Italy) and in Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (in certain city-states); and because of the nature of this slavery - intensive agricultural plantation labour - it has been argued that it is reasonable to define the pre-Hellenistic Greek world, or the late republic and early empire of Rome, as dominated by the slave mode at times [Wickham, 1985: 187-9]. But the contradictions within this type of slave exploitation are such that it seems always to have given way to more reliable and less unstable (if also less profitable in the short term) forms of exploitation. And contrary to the views of Stajermann and many others, the late Roman state was certainly not representative of such a slave-dominated conjuncture.

? ? ? ? ? 這些結(jié)論之后有兩個(gè)結(jié)果。第一，大多數(shù)古代社會(huì)已經(jīng)走出了以親屬關(guān)系為基礎(chǔ)的或“原始社區(qū)”的剝削階段（無(wú)論是否形成“城市”），并形成了以各種社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)群體在經(jīng)濟(jì)上對(duì)生產(chǎn)和分配手段的不同關(guān)系為基礎(chǔ)的階級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)，這些社會(huì)可以通過(guò)封建生產(chǎn)方式的范疇來(lái)理解。第二，現(xiàn)在普遍認(rèn)為，在古代世界中，奴隸制生產(chǎn)方式在時(shí)間和地理上的主導(dǎo)地位相對(duì)有限，在它發(fā)展的那些時(shí)期，可以被普遍看作是一種更加不穩(wěn)定和受偶然因素約束的剩余占有模式。在我看來(lái)，這一點(diǎn)還沒(méi)有得到應(yīng)有的承認(rèn)；因此，比如說(shuō)，蘇聯(lián)的歷史學(xué)家們?nèi)匀粠缀跬耆耘`生產(chǎn)方式來(lái)描述西方的古代世界，這種立場(chǎng)往往顯得很勉強(qiáng)，也是過(guò)度概括的結(jié)果。在羅馬共和國(guó)后期和公國(guó)早期（但主要是在意大利）以及公元前五世紀(jì)和四世紀(jì)的希臘（在某些城邦），奴隸制確實(shí)有時(shí)主導(dǎo)著生產(chǎn)關(guān)系；由于這種奴隸制的性質(zhì)——密集的農(nóng)業(yè)種植勞動(dòng)，有人認(rèn)為，將希臘前希臘世界或羅馬共和國(guó)后期和帝國(guó)早期定義為有時(shí)由奴隸制模式所主導(dǎo)是合理的[Wickham, 1985: 187-9]。但這種類型的奴隸剝削中的矛盾是，它似乎總是讓位于更可靠和更不穩(wěn)定（如果在短期內(nèi)也不那么有利可圖）的剝削形式。與Stajermann和其他許多人的觀點(diǎn)相反，晚期羅馬國(guó)家肯定不是這種奴隸主導(dǎo)的時(shí)代的代表。

Equally, it becomes impossible to talk of the 'ancient mode in its class form', as does Wickham in his stimulating piece on the transition to feudalism, and as I have done myself using a slightly different terminology [Wickham, 1984: 6; Haldon, 1985: 104ff.]. For the ancient mode, as picked out by Hindess and Hirst, for example, is no more than an urban variant on the theme of primitive communal exploitation, in which clanand kinship-relations determine access to land or to other forms of wealth and to the exploitation of resources Marx had in mind the early city-states of the Mediterranean world as the developed and urbanocentric form of this still basically agrarian community, whose state represented the incorporation of the citizen body as a group of landowners with collective rights in public lands. The exploitation of citizens by other citizens and by the state takes place in the first instance through the collective appropriation of surpluses for common purposes - such as defence, for example. But as warfare brings slavery into the equation, along with other forms of social and economic subordination within the citizen community, so the division of labour becomes more complex, and the appearance of class antagonisms marks a new stage, indeed a transformative one, in the development of the relations of production. As objective antagonisms between social groups with regard to their different relationships to the means of production evolve, so the state becomes the legislative and executive arm of the ruling class of citizens, which can exploit it thereafter to maintain and further their own class interests and the extraction of surpluses (often in the form of tax in historical examples).

? ? ? ? ? 同樣，也不可能像威克姆在他關(guān)于向封建主義過(guò)渡的刺激性文章中所說(shuō)的那樣，談?wù)摗半A級(jí)形式的古代模式”，而我自己也使用了稍微不同的術(shù)語(yǔ)[Wickham, 1984: 6; Haldon, 1985: 104ff. ] 。例如，Hindess和Hirst指出的古代模式不過(guò)是原始社區(qū)剝削主題的城市變體，其中宗族和親屬關(guān)系決定了獲得土地或其他形式的財(cái)富以及對(duì)資源的利用，馬克思想到了地中海世界的早期城邦，作為這種基本上仍然是農(nóng)業(yè)社區(qū)的發(fā)達(dá)和城市中心的形式，其國(guó)家代表了公民團(tuán)體作為擁有公共土地集體權(quán)利的土地所有者群體的納入。其他公民和國(guó)家對(duì)公民的剝削，首先是通過(guò)集體占有盈余用于共同目的（例如國(guó)防）而發(fā)生的。但是，隨著戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)將奴隸制與公民社區(qū)內(nèi)其他形式的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)從屬關(guān)系帶入等式，勞動(dòng)分工變得更加復(fù)雜，階級(jí)對(duì)立的出現(xiàn)標(biāo)志著生產(chǎn)關(guān)系發(fā)展的一個(gè)新階段，實(shí)際上是一個(gè)變革階段。隨著社會(huì)群體之間關(guān)于他們與生產(chǎn)資料的不同關(guān)系的客觀對(duì)立的發(fā)展，國(guó)家也就成為公民統(tǒng)治階級(jí)的立法和行政部門，此后他們可以利用國(guó)家來(lái)維護(hù)和推進(jìn)他們自己的階級(jí)利益和榨取盈余（在歷史的例子中經(jīng)常以稅收的形式）。

But as soon as a society has attained this stage, of course, it can properly be said to have transformed its relations of production, and more especially, the mode of appropriation of surpluses. No longer does the community, whatever kinship and lineage structures it still exhibits, control the means of production as a community (of families or clans, for example, within which other forms of non-economic subordination existed) with equal, or at least equivalent, rights in their exploitation and distribution. Instead, one group can now exert control over both the rate of exploitation (that is, the amount of surplus demanded) and the mode of surplus appropriation. By invoking the various instruments of noneconomic coercion (the law, customary practice, military force, and so on), one group, a class in the economic sense, exploits the labour of other groups. Whether this is referred to under terms which may be rendered as one or another form of tax or rent or tribute makes no difference. The 'ancient mode in its class form', therefore, is not a mode of production at all, but an example of a specific historical social formation in which both the slave mode and the feudal mode were represented, and according to the local context and other conditions, in which now one, now another (but finally the feudal mode) came to dominate. The role of the state is, as we shall see, crucial in this respect - but this is a story of a specific historical variant on the combination of modes, not of the development of a particular mode of production.

? ? ? ???當(dāng)然，只要一個(gè)社會(huì)達(dá)到了這個(gè)階段，就可以說(shuō)它已經(jīng)改變了它的生產(chǎn)關(guān)系，特別是改變了對(duì)剩余物的占有方式。無(wú)論社區(qū)仍然表現(xiàn)出什么樣的親屬關(guān)系和世系結(jié)構(gòu)，它都不再作為一個(gè)社區(qū)（例如家庭或宗族，其中存在著其他形式的非經(jīng)濟(jì)從屬關(guān)系）控制生產(chǎn)資料，并在其利用和分配方面享有平等或至少是同等的權(quán)利。相反，一個(gè)群體現(xiàn)在可以對(duì)剝削率（即要求的剩余數(shù)量）和剩余占有的方式進(jìn)行控制。通過(guò)援引各種非經(jīng)濟(jì)脅迫手段（法律、習(xí)慣做法、軍事力量等），一個(gè)群體，即經(jīng)濟(jì)意義上的一個(gè)階級(jí)，剝削其他群體的勞動(dòng)。這是否被稱為一種或另一種形式的稅收或租金或貢品，并無(wú)區(qū)別。因此，“階級(jí)形式的古代模式”根本不是一種生產(chǎn)模式，而是一個(gè)具體的歷史社會(huì)形態(tài)的例子，其中奴隸模式和封建模式都有代表，并且根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)氐沫h(huán)境和其他條件，現(xiàn)在是一個(gè)，不久是另一個(gè)（但最后是封建模式）占主導(dǎo)地位。正如我們看到的，國(guó)家的作用在這方面至關(guān)重要，但這是一個(gè)關(guān)于模式組合的具體歷史變體的故事，而不是一個(gè)特定生產(chǎn)模式的發(fā)展。

So far, I have been speaking about only one aspect of the equation 'mode of production', albeit the single most important distinguishing feature of each different mode - together with the way in which the direct producers are combined with the means of production, these were the two key features which differentiated modes for Marx, a point stressed by Berktay. And in respect of the ancient mode as it is usually understood, the development of classes, that is to say, a shift in the relations of production from non-class-based to class-based exploitation must also be commensurate with a shift in mode of production. One mode cannot encompass both forms.

? ? ? ? ? 到目前為止，我只談到了“生產(chǎn)方式”這個(gè)等式的一個(gè)方面，盡管這是每個(gè)不同模式的唯一最重要的區(qū)別特征——與直接生產(chǎn)者與生產(chǎn)資料相結(jié)合的方式一起，這是區(qū)分馬克思模式的兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵特征，這是Berktay強(qiáng)調(diào)的一點(diǎn)。而就通常理解的古代模式而言，階級(jí)的發(fā)展，也就是生產(chǎn)關(guān)系從非階級(jí)的剝削轉(zhuǎn)向階級(jí)的剝削，也必須與生產(chǎn)方式的轉(zhuǎn)變相適應(yīng)。一種模式不可能包含兩種形式。

As has often been pointed out, of course, an apparently strong objection to the use of the term feudalism to define the mode of production dominant in such a vast range of actual social formations which this line of reasoning must imply (ranging from those of classical antiquity to some contemporary societies) is that it is so broad as to deprive it of any analytical value. But the difficulty with this argument is that its proponents have without exception tried to elaborate alternatives by bringing into the picture a range of elements which are, in fact, conjunctural and determined by actual historical specificities: a particular type of state fiscal administration, specific (legalistic) forms of landlord-tenant relationship, culture-bound definitions of 'free' and 'unfree', and so on. This is true of both Sjuzjumov and Kazdan, for example. The latter, who is aware of the convergence of tax and rent as forms of the same essential mode of surplus appropriation, nevertheless is unwilling to concede 'real' feudalism in Byzantium until the eleventh century or so - that is, until the dominance of a class of magnates was assured and the beginnings of a western-style institutional feudalism had appeared [Kazdan, 1968: 1974]. The same, of course, applies to Anderson in his account of the difference between the feudal West and the Byzantine, and non-feudal, East, as it does to Wickham in his differentiation between tax and rent - these are not differences between modes of surplus appropriation, they are differences in the forms one particular mode, the feudal mode, takes in specific historical formations. Similarly, the Soviet scholar Litavrin concedes feudalism in Byzantium only from the eleventh century and after; but it is an institutional feudalism whose phenomenal forms can be compared with those of the medieval West, which he sees. And, of course, it goes without saying that, if the feudal mode of production is our concern, as opposed to a western-style feudal social formation (one variant among many), then western, non-Marxist Byzantinists are also wrong to deny a Byzantine feudalism.

? ? ? ? ? 正如人們經(jīng)常指出的那樣，對(duì)于使用封建主義一詞來(lái)定義在如此廣泛的實(shí)際社會(huì)形態(tài)中占主導(dǎo)地位的生產(chǎn)方式，這種推理方式必須意味著（從古典古代的社會(huì)形態(tài)到一些當(dāng)代社會(huì)），一個(gè)明顯的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)意見(jiàn)是，它太廣泛了，以至于使它失去了任何分析價(jià)值。但這一論點(diǎn)的困難在于，它的支持者無(wú)一例外地試圖通過(guò)將一系列事實(shí)上是偶然的、由實(shí)際歷史具體情況決定的因素帶入畫面來(lái)闡述替代方案：一種特殊類型的國(guó)家財(cái)政管理、特定的（法律上的）地主-佃戶關(guān)系形式、受文化約束的“自由”和“不自由”的定義，等等。例如，蘇祖莫夫和卡日丹的情況都是如此。后者意識(shí)到稅收和地租的趨同是同一基本的剩余占有模式的形式，但他不愿意承認(rèn)拜占庭的“真正的”封建主義，直到11世紀(jì)左右，也就是說(shuō)，直到一個(gè)新貴族階層的統(tǒng)治地位得到保證，西式制度的封建主義的雛形已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)[卡日丹，1968：1974]。當(dāng)然，這也適用于安德森對(duì)西方封建和東方拜占庭以及非封建的區(qū)別的論述，就像適用于威克姆對(duì)稅收和地租的區(qū)分一樣，這些不是剩余占有模式的區(qū)別，它們是一種特定模式（封建模式）在具體歷史形態(tài)中所采取的形式的區(qū)別。同樣，蘇聯(lián)學(xué)者Litavrin承認(rèn)拜占庭的封建主義只是從11世紀(jì)及以后開(kāi)始的；但這是一種制度性的封建主義，其現(xiàn)象形式可以與中世紀(jì)西方的封建主義相比較，他看到了這一點(diǎn)。當(dāng)然，不言而喻，如果封建生產(chǎn)方式是我們關(guān)注的問(wèn)題，而不是西式的封建社會(huì)形態(tài)（眾多變體中的一種），那么西方的、非馬克思主義的拜占庭主義者否認(rèn)拜占庭的封建主義也是錯(cuò)誤的。

It needs to be said, finally, that once a feudal mode of production comes to be the dominant mode of production in any given social formation, there may well be a general tendency towards the evolution of institutional forms which, given time and the appropriate conditions, will tend to approximately the same functional structure and appearance in different societies - the development of fiefs, for example, the parcellisation, or 'privatisation', of various degrees of sovereignty and jurisdictional or fiscal competences, and so forth. This is, after all, the case with the capitalist mode of production, both in respect of general economic evolution and the particular forms which evolve to express those developments. But the fact that these were not yet present, or were prevented from ever fully working themselves out, for whatever reasons (and as in Byzantium, for example), does not mean that the relations of production as such, as opposed to these institutional forms, are not feudal. And it must be obvious that the incorporation of such institutional phenomena into the definition of a mode of production immediately conflates two levels of analysis - abstract and concrete - as well as promoting the proliferation of an ever wider range of modes of production, or sub-modes (indeed, potentially as many modes as there are historically determinate social formations), instead of encouraging the analysis of the specific forms which the combination of different modes of production in concrete circcumstances actually takes. When this happens, of course, any difference between a Marxist and a non-Marxist analysis vanishes.

? ? ? ? ? 最后需要指出的是，一旦封建生產(chǎn)方式成為任何特定社會(huì)形態(tài)中的主導(dǎo)生產(chǎn)方式，就很可能出現(xiàn)一種制度形式演變的一般趨勢(shì)，如果有時(shí)間和適當(dāng)?shù)臈l件，這些制度形式在不同的社會(huì)中會(huì)趨向于大致相同的功能結(jié)構(gòu)和外觀。例如，封地的發(fā)展，各種程度的主權(quán)和司法或財(cái)政權(quán)限的分散化或‘私有化’，等等。這畢竟是資本主義生產(chǎn)方式的情況，無(wú)論是在一般的經(jīng)濟(jì)演變方面，還是在表達(dá)這些發(fā)展的特殊形式方面，都是如此。但是，無(wú)論出于什么原因（例如在拜占庭），這些東西還沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)，或者被阻止完全發(fā)揮作用，并不意味著生產(chǎn)關(guān)系本身，相對(duì)于這些制度形式，不是封建的。顯然，將這種制度現(xiàn)象納入生產(chǎn)方式的定義，立即混淆了兩個(gè)層次的分析(抽象的和具體的)以及促進(jìn)了越來(lái)越多的生產(chǎn)方式或子模式的擴(kuò)散（實(shí)際上，可能有多少模式就有多少歷史上確定的社會(huì)形態(tài)），而不是鼓勵(lì)分析不同生產(chǎn)方式在具體情況下的組合所實(shí)際采取的具體形式。當(dāng)然，當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)，馬克思主義和非馬克思主義分析之間的任何區(qū)別都會(huì)消失。

It seems to me that objections to a wider application of the concept of the feudal mode of production are groundless if we recall that the whole point of correctly elaborating the concept of a specific mode of production is to facilitate a better understanding of the wide range of historical social formations in which it occurred, that is, by enabling the right questions to be asked about their internal articulation, ideological and institutional structures, and so on; and not simply in order to erect an internally consistent but entirely abstract model. This is something which Marx himself emphasised more than once:

? ? ? ? ? ... events strikingly analagous but taking place in different surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by using as one's master key a general philosophic historical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical, ...

? ? ? ? ? 在我看來(lái)，如果我們回顧一下，正確闡述特定生產(chǎn)方式的概念的全部意義在于促進(jìn)更好地理解它所發(fā)生的廣泛的歷史社會(huì)形態(tài)，也就是說(shuō)，通過(guò)使人們能夠提出有關(guān)其內(nèi)部銜接、意識(shí)形態(tài)和制度結(jié)構(gòu)等方面的正確問(wèn)題，而不僅僅是為了建立一個(gè)內(nèi)部一致但完全抽象的模式，那么反對(duì)更廣泛地應(yīng)用封建生產(chǎn)方式的概念是毫無(wú)根據(jù)的。這是馬克思本人不止一次強(qiáng)調(diào)的東西:

? ? ? ? ? ......事件驚人地相似，但發(fā)生在不同的環(huán)境中，導(dǎo)致了完全不同的結(jié)果。通過(guò)分別研究這些演變的每一種形式，然后對(duì)它們進(jìn)行比較，人們可以很容易地找到這種現(xiàn)象的線索，但如果把一般的哲學(xué)歷史理論作為自己的萬(wàn)能鑰匙，就永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)到達(dá)那里，這種理論的最高優(yōu)點(diǎn)在于它是超歷史的，......

未完待續(xù)?。ǔ?jǐn)?shù)了，放在下一篇）