作者：Ruth Kinna

譯者：A書翻譯平臺

索引: Kinna, R. (2005).?Anarchism: a beginner's guide. One word Publications.?Chapter 1, 6-10.

Anarchy: Origins of the word

無政府：詞匯的起源

Anarchism is an unusual ideology because its adopted tag has peculiarly negative connotations. Most ideological labels embrace positively valued ideas or ideals: liberalism is the ideology of liberty or freedom, socialism is associated with notions of sociability or fellowship, and conservatism with the conservation of established or customary ways of life. Even fascism has a positive derivation – from?fascio, a reference to the symbol of Roman authority. In contrast, anarchism is the ideology of anarchy – a term that has been understood in both the history of ideas and in popular culture to imply the breakdown of order, if not violent disorder. Even after the mid-nineteenth century when the label was first adopted as an affirmation of belief, anarchy was used in political debate to ridicule or denounce ideas perceived to be injurious or dangerous. For example, in a seventeenth-century defense of absolute monarchy, Sir Robert Filmer treated calls for limited monarchy as calls for anarchy. In general usage the term is commonly used to describe fear and dread. The ‘great Anarch!’ in Alexander Pope’s?The Dying Christian to his Soul?is the ‘dread empire, Chaos!’ that brings ‘universal darkness’ to bury all. The eighteenth-century philosopher Edmund Burke considered anarchy as the likely outcome of the brewing American conflict and identified freedom as its cure. From his rather different political perspective, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley drew on ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ to describe the violent duplicity of government, yet like Burke he still conceived the term in a wholly negative sense to describe disorder and injustice. Writing in the nineteenth century, the social critic John Ruskin aptly captured the common view: ‘government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition the laws of death’. This conception was the very reverse of Proudhon’s.

無政府主義是一種與眾不同的意識形態(tài)，因為它被貼上了具有特殊負(fù)面內(nèi)涵的標(biāo)簽。多數(shù)意識形態(tài)的標(biāo)簽都包含積極的觀念或者理想：自由主義是代表自由的意識形態(tài)，社會主義和社會連結(jié)與團(tuán)結(jié)一致的概念有關(guān)，而保守主義則代表對既有或傳統(tǒng)生活方式的保衛(wèi)。就連法西斯主義都有積極意義上的來源：法西斯束棒（Fascio）代表著羅馬的權(quán)威。然而，無政府主義是代表無政府（Anarchy）的意識形態(tài)，這個詞無論在歷史上還是大眾文化中都暗示著秩序崩壞，甚至代表著混亂的暴力沖突。盡管在十九世紀(jì)中葉這個標(biāo)簽開始被用以指一種政治信仰，在政治辯論中這個詞還是通常被用來譏諷那些被人認(rèn)為是危險或者有害的觀點。例如，在十七世紀(jì)，羅伯特·菲爾默（Sir Robert Filmer）在為絕對君主制辯護(hù)時，將呼吁權(quán)力受限的君主制（Calls for limited monarchy）視作呼吁無政府（Calls for anarchy）。而通常來說，這個詞被廣泛用以描述懼怕與恐怖。在亞歷山大·蒲柏（Alexander Pope）的詩歌《垂死基督徒之魂》（The Dying Christian to His Soul）中，“偉大的無政府”（great Anarchy!）是“恐怖的帝國，混亂！”（dread empire, Chaos!），帶來了埋葬一切的“無所不及的黑暗”（universal darkness）。十八世紀(jì)的哲學(xué)家埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke）認(rèn)為當(dāng)時愈演愈烈的北美殖民地沖突很可能會導(dǎo)致無政府狀態(tài)，而自由才是解決這一問題的良藥。詩人珀西·比?！ぱ┤R（Percy Bysshe Shelley）用“無政府（Anarchy）”來描述政府那暴厲恣睢無恥欺詐的行徑，雖然他和伯克一樣，仍將這個詞當(dāng)作一個代表無序和不公的完全否定詞。十九世紀(jì)的社會批評家約翰·羅斯金（John Ruskin）對這種觀點有一個恰如其分的表述：“政府與合作無論何時何地都是生命的法則；無政府和競爭則是死亡的法則”。而這種想法則恰恰與蒲魯東相反。

The anarchist idea of anarchy has its roots in a critique of revolutionary government advanced in the course of the French Revolution. In 1792, a group of revolutionaries known as the?enragés?(the fanatics), because of the zeal with which they entered into their campaigns, demanded that the Jacobin government introduce draconian measures to protect the artisans of Paris from profiteers. Banded around Jacques Roux, an ex-cleric, and Jean Varlet, a man of independent means, the group did not call themselves anarchists. Yet their programme (a call to the people to take direct action against profiteers and the demand that the government provide work and bread), was labelled anarchist by their Jacobin opponents.2 During their battle with the Jacobins, moreover, Varlet and Roux rejected the idea of revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms, importantly associating anarchism with the rejection of revolution by decree. As the revolution ran its course the revolutionary government continued to apply the term ‘a(chǎn)narchist’ as a term of political abuse and to discredit those political programmes of which it disapproved. Nevertheless, the idea that anarchy could be used in a positive sense and that anarchism described a political programme was now firmly established. The first four editions of the?Dictionary of the French Academy?(1694–1762) deified anarchy as an unruly condition, without leadership or any sort of government. The exemplification was taken from classical philosophy: ‘democracy can easily degenerate into anarchy’. In the fifth edition (1798) the definition of anarchy remained the same, but it was supplemented for the first time with an entry for ‘a(chǎn)narchist’ that distinguished ‘a(chǎn) supporter of anarchy’ from ‘a(chǎn) trouble-maker’. It was now possible to speak of ‘a(chǎn)narchist principles’ and an ‘a(chǎn)narchist system’.3

無政府主義者對于“無政府”這個詞的理解可以追溯到法國大革命時期對于革命政府的批判。當(dāng)時有一群革命者被稱為“忿激派”（enragés），因為這些人在革命中表現(xiàn)得極為狂熱。他們在1792年要求雅各賓派政府采取嚴(yán)厲的措施保護(hù)巴黎手工業(yè)者免遭投機(jī)奸商侵害。他們團(tuán)結(jié)在前教士雅克·魯（Jacques Roux）和食利者簡·瓦雷特（Jean Varlet）周圍，并不自稱為無政府主義者。但是，他們的主張（呼吁人們采取直接行動對抗趁火打劫的奸商，要求政府提供面包與工作）卻被雅各賓派的對手們貼上了無政府主義者的標(biāo)簽。在與雅各賓派的斗爭中，瓦雷特和魯進(jìn)一步反對“革命政府”的概念，認(rèn)為這是一個自相矛盾的說法，從而將無政府主義和反對發(fā)號施令的革命聯(lián)系在一起。隨著革命的進(jìn)行，革命政府繼續(xù)將“無政府主義”一詞作為政治侮辱用詞，用來污名化那些他們不贊成的政治主張。但是此時，無政府（Anarchy）一詞尚未被廣泛地用以在積極意義上指代無政府主義的政治主張。《法蘭西學(xué)術(shù)院字典》（Dictionary of the French Academy）的前四版（1694-1762）中都將無政府（Anarchy）定義為沒有任何領(lǐng)導(dǎo)或者任何形式的政府的無法無天的狀態(tài)。其中的舉例取自古典哲學(xué)：“民主很容易退化為無政府狀態(tài)”。在第五版（1798）中，無政府狀態(tài)的定義沒有變化，但第一次補(bǔ)充了“無政府主義者”（Anarchist）一詞，將“支持無政府的人”和“破壞分子”區(qū)分開來。直到此時，才第一次有了“無政府主義原則”和“無政府主義體系”的概念。

The revolutionary movement created by the?enragés?left its legacy in the history of ideas. Less than 100 years after the outbreak of revolution, the association between anarchy and the idea of popular revolution inspired the French writer Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to label himself an anarchist. In his first book,?What Is Property?(1840, where he famously coined the phrase ‘property is theft’) he appropriated the term anarchy to define his egalitarian and libertarian ideal. Proudhon introduced the term in the following dialogue:

What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my younger readers reply: ‘Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican!’ ‘A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing.?Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs – no matter under what form of government – may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans.’ – ‘Well! You are a democrat?’ – ‘No.’ – ‘What! you would have a monarchy?’ – ‘God forbid!’ – ‘You are then an aristocrat?’ – ‘Not at all.’ – ‘You want a mixed government?’ – ‘Still less.’ – ‘What are you, then?’ – ‘I am an anarchist.’ ‘Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government.’ – ‘By no means. I have just given you my serious and well considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. ...’4

As George Woodcock noted, Proudhon delighted in paradox and fully appreciated the ambiguity of the term ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ when he adopted it to describe his politics. Tracing the origin of the word to the ancient Greek (anarkhos) he argued that anarchy meant ‘without government’, or the government of no one. Far from implying social ruin, it suggested progress and harmonious co-operation. Anarchy was the natural counterpart to equality: it promised an end to social division and civil strife. In the nineteenth century some anarchists inserted a hyphen between the ‘a(chǎn)n’ and ‘a(chǎn)rchy’, in an effort to emphasize its derivation from antiquity, whilst also drawing implicit comparison with the better-known alternatives, monarchy (the government of one), and oligarchy (the government of the few). By hyphenating the word in this manner they hoped to challenge their detractors whilst encouraging the oppressed to re-examine their ideas about the nature of political organization and the assumptions on which these ideas were based.

忿激派所掀起的革命運(yùn)動在思想史上留下了重要的遺產(chǎn)。革命爆發(fā)后不到百年，無政府主義與人民革命的聯(lián)系就激發(fā)了法國作家皮埃爾-約瑟夫·蒲魯東給自己貼上了無政府主義者的標(biāo)簽。在他的第一部著作《什么是所有權(quán)？》(What is property?)（著于1840年，在這部著作中他提出了著名的“所有權(quán)就是盜竊”）中，蒲魯東將“無政府”(Anarchy)這一術(shù)語用以定義他的平等主義和自由主義理想。他用下文的對話形式引述道：

未來的政府是什么形式的呢？我聽到一些年輕的讀者說：“什么？你怎么提這種問題？你是個共和派！”
“‘共和派’！是的，我是個共和派，但這個詞毫無意義。‘共和’（Res Publica），意思就是公共的東西（the public thing）。那任何關(guān)心公共事務(wù)的人，無論他生活在什么政府形式下，都可以自稱為共和派。就連國王們都是共和派?！?br>“好吧，那你是民主派？”
“不是。”
“什么！難道你想要君主制？”
“那可千萬別。”
“那你就是個貴族制支持者了？”
“我可一點不支持?！?br>“你想要混合制的政府？”
“也不對。”
“那你到底是什么”
“我是個無政府主義者?！?br>“?。∥颐靼啄闶裁匆馑?。你在故意夸張諷刺地譏諷政府?！?br>“絕無此意，我剛剛對你說的是我無比嚴(yán)肅，經(jīng)過深思熟慮的信仰。雖然我堅定地站在秩序的一邊，但我是一個徹徹底底的無政府主義者…”

正如喬治·伍德科克所說，蒲魯東醉心于這種悖論，他用無政府（Anarchy）這個詞的描述自己的政治觀點時，特別看重了這個詞的模糊性。正如他說，這個詞的起源可以追溯到古希臘語（anarkhos），意即“沒有政府”，或無人的政府。這非但不代表社會毀滅，反而意味著進(jìn)步與和諧的合作。無政府狀態(tài)是平等的自然對應(yīng)物：它代表著社會分裂與內(nèi)亂的結(jié)束。在十九世紀(jì)，一些無政府主義者在“無”（An）與政府（Archy）之間插入了一個連字符（An-archy）來強(qiáng)調(diào)這個詞悠久的歷史起源，同時暗示了這個詞和更加知名的幾個概念，君主制（Monarchy，一人的政府）以及寡頭制（Oligarchy，少數(shù)人的政府）之間的比較性。這些無政府主義者希望用這種方式把這個詞連起來，以還擊詆毀他們的對手，并且激勵被壓迫者，讓他們能夠刷新對政治組織本質(zhì)的觀點，并重估構(gòu)成之前舊觀點的那些基本預(yù)設(shè)。

Some anarchists have shared Proudhon’s delight in the paradox of ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ and played up the positive aspect of chaos associated with the term. The Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin famously described the disordered order of anarchy in the revolutionary principle: ‘the passion for destruction is a creative passion, too’.5 Another nineteenth-century Russian, Peter Kropotkin, followed suit. Order, he argued, was ‘servitude ... the shackling of thought, the brutalizing of the human race, maintained by the sword and the whip.’ Disorder was ‘the uprising of the people against this ignoble order, breaking its fetters, destroying the barriers, and marching towards a better future.’ Of course anarchy spelt disorder for it promised ‘the blossoming of the most beautiful passions and the greatest of devotion’: it was ‘the epic of supreme human love’.6 Other anarchists have been less comfortable with the connotations of ‘a(chǎn)narchy’. Indeed, much anarchist literature suggests that the ambiguity of ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ has forced anarchists onto the defensive. As many anarchists have pointed out, the problem of Proudhon’s paradox is not only the confusion to which it lends itself, but its broadness: disorder can imply anything from disorganization to barbarism and violence. One of the most persistent features of introductions to anarchism is the author’s concern to demythologize this idea. Examples from three different authors are reproduced below. The first is taken from Alexander Berkman’s?ABC of Anarchism:

... before I tell you what anarchism is, I want to tell you what it is not. That is necessary because so much falsehood has been spread about anarchism. Even intelligent persons often have entirely wrong notions about it. Some people talk about anarchism without knowing a thing about it. And some lie about anarchism, because they don’t want you to know the truth about it. ...
Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.7

一些無政府主義者同樣也有蒲魯東這種對“無政府”悖論的獨特欣賞，強(qiáng)調(diào)這個術(shù)語所蘊(yùn)含的“混亂”(chaos)含義中積極的一面。俄國無政府主義者米哈伊爾·巴枯寧（Michael Bakunin）對革命原則中的“無政府的無秩序之秩序”（disordered order of anarchy）有一個著名的論述：“毀滅的激情同樣也是創(chuàng)造的激情”。另一個十九世紀(jì)的俄國無政府主義者，彼得·克魯泡特金（Peter Kropotkin）,也持有同樣的觀點。他認(rèn)為，秩序（Order）是“奴役…禁錮思想，滅絕人性，是靠劍和鞭子維持的”。而無序（Disorder）則是“人民揭竿而起反抗卑鄙的秩序，打破束縛，摧毀障礙，邁向更美好的未來”。無政府主義當(dāng)然意味著無序，因為無序預(yù)示著“最美好的激情和最偉大的奉獻(xiàn)一并綻放”，它是“人類至愛的史詩”。其他一些無政府主義者對“無政府”（anarchy）的含義不太滿意。許多無政府主義者的文獻(xiàn)表明，無政府一詞的歧義使得無政府主義者陷入被動的地位。許多無政府主義者指出，蒲魯東悖論的問題不僅僅在于它本身帶來的混亂，也在其寬泛性：無序可以意味著包括從單純無組織到野蠻破壞的所有東西。在對無政府主義的介紹中，作者們最常關(guān)注的問題之一就是去除無政府主義思想的神話色彩。首先，正如亞歷山大·伯克曼在（Alexander Berkman）《無政府主義ABC》（ABC of Anarchism）中所說：

在我告訴你們什么是無政府主義之前，我想先告訴你們什么不是無政府主義。我非常有必要說明這一點，因為關(guān)于無政府主義的謠言已經(jīng)泛濫成災(zāi)了，就連有識之士也常常對其有非常錯誤的認(rèn)識。很多人對無政府主義一無所知卻對其侃侃而談，還有很多人談起來謊話連篇，因為他們不想讓你知道關(guān)于無政府主義的真相…
因此我必須首先告訴你們，什么不是無政府主義。
無政府主義不是炸彈，不是無序，也不是混亂。
它不是搶劫和謀殺，
不是一場人人殺的你死我活的戰(zhàn)爭。
它不是回到野蠻蒙昧，也不是回到茹毛飲血的原始狀態(tài)。
無政府主義恰恰是這一切的對立面。

The second comes from the Cardiff-based Anarchist Media Group:

There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any other political idea. Actually it has nothing to do with a belief in chaos, death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry bombs, nor do they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies ...... There is nothing complicated or threatening about anarchism ...8

第二個例子來自卡迪夫當(dāng)?shù)氐臒o政府主義者媒體社群：

關(guān)于無政府主義的廢話可能比其他任何政治觀點都要多。事實上，無政府主義和信仰混亂，死亡和毀滅毫無關(guān)系。無政府主義者一般不會身藏炸彈，他們也不認(rèn)為毆打老太太是什么高尚的事…無政府主義沒有多么復(fù)雜，也并不恐怖…

Finally, Donald Rooum offers this in his introduction to anarchism: Besides being used in the sense implied by its Greek origin, the word ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ is also used to mean unsettled government, disorderly government, or government by marauding gangs ... Both the proper and improper meanings of the term ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ are now current, and this causes confusion. A person who hears government by marauding gangs described as ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ on television news, and then hears an anarchist advocating ‘a(chǎn)narchy’, is liable to conclude that anarchists want government by marauding gangs.

Of course, anarchists have moved beyond these disclaimers to advance fairly detailed conceptions of anarchy and to highlight the success that anarchy has enjoyed, albeit on a temporary and proscribed scale. Yet anarchy remains a problematic concept because, unlike liberty for example, it so readily lends itself to the evocation of an unattractive condition. And whilst anarchists are happy to discuss the possibility of moving beyond existing forms of state organization they have been wary of employing ‘a(chǎn)narchy’ as an explanatory concept, preferring to define anarchism in other ways. The remainder of what is anarchism? the chapter examines three alternative approaches to anarchism: the first looks at key personalities, the second at schools of thought and the third at history.

最后，唐納德·魯姆（Donald Rouum）在他對無政府主義的介紹中這樣說道：除了在希臘語中隱含的意義外，“無政府”還用于表示動蕩不安的政府，混亂無序的政府或者由肆意抄掠的匪幫統(tǒng)治的政府?！盁o政府”的正確和錯誤的含義在今天混淆使用，造成了不小的麻煩。一個人聽到電視新聞把一個匪幫統(tǒng)治下的政府稱為“無政府”，然后又聽到一個無政府主義者支持“無政府”，那他很容易得出結(jié)論，即無政府主義者是在支持一個匪幫統(tǒng)治的政府。

誠然，無政府主義者們并沒有局限于自我辯解，而是進(jìn)一步改良和充實無政府主義的概念，突出無政府主義取得的成功（盡管這些成功通常都遭到禁止，難以長久）。但是，無政府仍然是一個有問題的概念。因為，不同于例如自由這樣的概念，無政府太容易讓人們聯(lián)想起某種消極的狀況。雖然無政府主義者樂于討論超越當(dāng)下國家組織形式的種種可能，他們一直警惕將“無政府”作為一種解釋性概念，而寧愿用其他方式解釋無政府主義?！妒裁词菬o政府主義？》接下來的章節(jié)將從三個方面講解無政府主義：第一方面將介紹重要的無政府主義者，第二方面將介紹無政府主義的思想流派，第三方面則研究無政府主義的歷史。