當前民粹主義浪潮不同於上世紀30年代
The wave of populism in the western world which has given us Brexit, and may carry Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen to power in the US and France respectively, has been compared to the social forces which drove the politics of the 1930s. Increasing job insecurity or unemployment in Europe and the failure of median wages to rise for many years in the US are cited as the “root causes” of the phenomenon.
西方世界這波民粹主義浪潮造成了英國退歐，還可能會把唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)和馬琳•勒龐(Marine Le Pen)分別推上美國和法國的權力巔峯。此次浪潮被比作上世紀30年代推動政治變化的社會力量。歐洲國家就業環境日益不穩定或失業狀況加劇、美國多年來薪資中值停止增長，被稱爲此種現象的“根源”。
This is a “social-democratic” explanation of the current western political crisis. The suggested remedies that flow from it are also predictably social-democratic: reducing job insecurity and inequality, increasing social benefits, especially for those in work, and raising taxes. If you have no choice, reduce immigration before the populists do it for you.
這是從“社會民主主義”角度對當前西方政治危機做出的解釋。相應的補救建議自然也從社會民主主義角度出發：改善就業不穩定狀況和減輕不平等程度，增加社會福利、特別是針對勞動羣體的福利，增加稅收。如果你別無選擇，那麼趕在民粹派之前減少移民涌入。
However, the parallel drawn with the politics of the 1930s is overblown. Fascism in Germany and Austria and revolutionary leftism in Spain thrived as a result of truly extreme economic deprivation. Gross domestic product in Germany fell by 30 per cent after the Great Crash in 1929, and unemployment reached 6m. In Spain the Civil War was preceded by widespread hunger in the south and artillery shelling of striking miners in the north.
然而，將此次民粹主義浪潮與上世紀30年代的政治狀況相提並論，未免過於誇張了。當時德國和奧地利的法西斯主義、西班牙的革命左傾思潮盛行，是經濟極度凋敝的結果。在1929年大崩潰(Great Crash)後，德國國內生產總值(GDP)下滑30%，失業人口達600萬。在西班牙，南方遭遇大規模饑荒、北方罷工的礦工遭到炮火轟炸，內戰隨後爆發。
Today, by contrast, the economic performance of Poland and Britain, the two countries that have already succumbed to the present populist wave, is well above the average in Europe. Poland has been the EU star performer, with GDP growth of 28 per cent between 2007 and 2015. Contrary to the “social democratic narrative”, inequality in Poland has fallen. The real income of the middle 60 per cent of households has increased by more than 30 per cent and unemployment is at an all-time low of 6.3 per cent on the harmonised EU definition.
而在今天，波蘭和英國——這兩國已經屈服於當前民粹主義浪潮——經濟表現卻遠好於歐洲平均水平。波蘭是歐盟的經濟之星，2007年至2015年期間GDP增長了28%。與“社會民主主義的論述”相反，波蘭的不平等程度有所減輕。處於中間60%的波蘭家庭的實際收入增長了30%以上，失業率按照歐盟協調定義計算處於6.3%的空前低點。
The UK has also done quite well, with German-style GDP growth and unemployment at 5 per cent, whereas the next country in line for a populist insurgency may be the US, which has performed far better since the crisis than Europe.
英國的經濟表現也相當好，它擁有德國式的GDP增長，同時失業率僅爲5%。下一個即將迎來民粹主義動盪的國家可能是美國，自金融危機以來，美國的經濟表現遠超歐洲。
At the other end of the scale, the countries that have suffered most are not necessarily electing populists. Three days after the Brexit vote in the UK, Spanish voters increased support for Mariano Rajoy’s centre-right Popular party, in spite of a series of corruption scandals linked to it. In an even greater surprise, they gave the leadership of the left to the moderate, social-democratic Socialist party in preference to the far-left Unidos Podemos movement.
在天平的另一端，經濟狀況最糟糕的國家並不一定都會選舉民粹派。在英國舉行退歐公投3天后，西班牙選民對馬里亞諾•拉霍伊(Mariano Rajoy)領導的中右翼人民黨(Popular party)的支持率有所提高，儘管該政黨曝出了一系列腐敗醜聞。更令人驚訝的是，他們把左翼的領導權交給了溫和的、奉行社會民主主義的社會黨(socialist party)，而沒有選擇極左翼的“我們可以”聯盟(Unidos Podemos)。
Yet, contrary to Britain, Spain has seen its GDP fall by a cumulative 8 per cent since 2007 and is hampered by unemployment exceeding 20 per cent (50 per cent among the young). Italy, with a similarly poor record of economic achievement has also, so far, resisted the temptation of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement, opting instead for the moderate left-of-centre government of Matteo Renzi. Greece is, of course, the exception that proves the rule. The 25 per cent decline in GDP it has suffered is truly on the scale of the 1930s, so maybe we should not be surprised that it elected the neo-Marxist Syriza.
與英國相反，自2007年以來西班牙的GDP累計下滑8%，同時失業率超過20%（年輕人羣體的失業率爲50%）。經濟表現同樣糟糕的意大利，目前爲止也抵擋住了貝佩•格里洛(Beppe Grillo)領導的五星運動黨(Five Star Movement)的誘惑，反而選擇支持溫和的中間偏左的馬泰奧•倫齊(Matteo Renzi)政府。當然，希臘是個例外。其GDP下滑25%，與上世紀30年代時的情況相當，因此或許我們不應該對奉行新馬克思主義的激進左翼聯盟(Syriza)當選感到驚訝。
So what is happening, if the present populism is not correlated with unbearable misery, as it was in 1930s Europe? The alternative to the social-democratic explanation is a conservative one: populists are doing well in countries that are doing well, because voters there do not believe that anything really bad can truly happen. Why not “give the populists a chance” to fulfil their promises? After all, maybe they can deliver.
如果說目前民粹主義的盛行和難以承受的苦難（就像上世紀30年代的歐洲所經歷的那樣）無關，那麼現在到底怎麼了？除了社會民主主義的解釋，還有一種方法是從保守主義的角度來解釋：在經濟表現較好的國家，民粹主義者也較受歡迎，因爲選民不認爲真的會有糟糕的情況發生。何不“給民粹派一個機會”，讓他們去兌現他們的承諾？沒準他們能做到呢。
Indeed, the leaders of the Brexit campaign have been decidedly Pollyanna-ish in their confidence that Britain will thrive, trading with the world once it throws off the shackles of Brussels. The Law and Justice party in Poland has beaten the same drum: its main slogan is a straight translation from Barack Obama’s sunny “Yes we can” (“Damy Radę”). Hardly the stuff Mein Kampf is made of.
英國退歐陣營的領導人在英國未來發展的問題上無疑是盲目樂觀的，他們認爲一旦拋開了布魯塞爾的枷鎖，英國將與世界建立貿易往來，實現繁榮發展。波蘭法律與公正黨(Law and Justice party)也鼓吹着相同的口號：它的主要口號就是直接從巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)那句陽光向上的“是的，我們可以”(Yes we can)翻譯過來的（“Damy Radę”）。不太像《我的奮鬥》（Mein Kampf，希特勒所著）中的內容。
On the other hand, voters in countries that have suffered most from the crisis know that bad things can indeed happen. As a result, they have — so far — behaved more responsibly. Even the Greeks re-elected Syriza after it pragmatically chose austerity and reform instead of Grexit.
另一方面，那些受危機影響最嚴重的國家的選民知道，糟糕的事情確實可能發生。因此，他們的行爲——迄今爲止——更加負責。即使是希臘人也再次選擇了激進左翼聯盟，儘管該黨務實地選擇緊縮和改革、而沒選擇退歐。
Unfortunately this conservative explanation is not much more hopeful than the social-democratic one in its implications for the future. We may not be reliving the dark 1930s. But the wishful thinking and irresponsibility of those in comparatively well-performing countries bears a uncanny resemblance to the way the nations of Europe, in the sunny early August of 1914 went off singing to war, convinced that “it will all be over by Christmas”.
遺憾的是，這種保守主義的解釋並不比社會民主主義的解釋讓人對未來更加懷抱希望。現在或許不是上世紀30年代的翻版。但是，那些經濟表現相對較好的國家的某些人一廂情願的想法和不負責任的行爲，與在1914年陽光明媚的8月初唱着歌出征、堅信“戰爭將在聖誕前結束”的某些歐洲國家有着驚人的相似。
