【推文】Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost - Let me plain speak the idea that “all ‘communist’ state level projects..

連結

• 推文1 - x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir...

原文及個人翻譯

Let me plain speak the idea that “all ‘communist’ state level projects, eventually, prioritize some form of ethnos to stabilize” and why this folds into the similarities of “socialism” and national-“socialism” in practice.

It’s apparent people can feel there is a family resemblance between real world “communist” states and national "socialist" projects, but they struggle to define it, and get dragged into theory fights with leftists that go nowhere.

讓我直言不諱地表達一個觀點：「所有『共產主義』的國家層面的專案，最終都會優先考慮某種形式的民族認同以實現穩定」，以及為什麼這與「社會主義」和國家「社會主義」在實踐中的相似之處有關。

人們可能會覺得現實世界的「共產主義」國家和國家「社會主義」專案之間存在著某種家族相似性，但他們很難定義它，並且會被捲入與左翼人士的理論爭論中，而這些爭論毫無結果。

However, in their gut they are reacting to the same pattern observed time and time again: once the “communist”(universal) ideology takes over a state, it ends up drawing on ethnos to hold that state together.
This does not track with “communism” as defined by theory (mostly). Let’s say Marxism promises a borderless class politics that will dissolve nations. However, in practice, once a communist party controls a concrete state, it has to keep millions, tens of millions, or more of very specific people loyal, motivated and willing to sacrifice. Abstract class slogans are not enough. So the regime raids the oldest, richest store of loyalty and meaning it has: the dominant ethnos.

然而，在他們的直覺中，他們正在對一種反覆出現相同的模式做出反應：一旦「共產主義」（普遍）意識形態控制了一個國家，它最終會利用民族認同來維持該國家的穩定。

這與（主要是）理論上定義的「共產主義」並不完全一致。 我們可以說馬克思主義承諾一種無國界的階級政治，這種政治將消解國家。 然而，在實踐中，一旦一個共產黨控制了一個具體的國家，它必須讓數百萬、數千萬甚至更多的人保持忠誠、積極並願意犧牲。 抽像的階級口號是不夠的。 因此，政權會利用它所擁有的最古老、最豐富的忠誠和意義來源：即占主導地位的民族。

Language, holidays, schoolbooks, war stories, founding myths, even who counts as "the real people" of the country all start to track that ethnos.

At that point you no longer have internationalist socialism. You have some degree of ethno-socialism: a socialized economy and one-party rule wrapped around a preferred national or cultural core. That is what you see in the USSR drifting into Russian-centered patriotism, in Deng-era China tightening around Han identity, in Baathist Arab socialism, in Juche Korea, in Vietnam’s fusion of Marxism with Vietnamese national struggle, and even in softer cases elsewhere (my favorite example being Cuba).

語言、節日、教科書、戰爭故事、建國神話，甚至「誰是這個國家真正的人民」都開始與這種民族認同相符。

到那時，你不再擁有國際主義社會主義。 你擁有一種程度的民族社會主義：一種圍繞著首選的國家或文化核心構建的社會化經濟和一黨統治。 你可以在蘇聯逐漸轉向以俄羅斯為中心的愛國主義、鄧小平時代的中國加強對漢族身份的認同、巴特阿拉伯社會主義、朝鮮的「主體思想」、以及越南將馬克思主義與越南民族鬥爭相結合的例子中看到這種現象，甚至在其他一些較溫和的案例中也能看到（我最喜歡的例子是古巴）。

Now, this is also why arguments with committed leftists spiral into pointless debates. You are pointing to how the projects actually stabilized themselves, which is through ethnos. They retreat back into theory and say "that was not real communism" or "you have not read X, Y, Z."
They are guarding the purity of the written system. You are talking about how the system behaves when applied once it has tanks, schools and a flag. In that world, ethnos keeps coming back, no matter what the books say.

現在，這也就是為什麼與堅定左翼人士的爭論會演變成毫無意義的辯論。 你正在指出這些專案實際上是如何通過民族認同來穩定自身的，而他們則退回到理論中，說「那不是真正的共產主義」或「你沒有讀過X、Y、Z」。

他們是在捍衛書面體系的純潔性。 你是在談論系統在應用時如何表現，一旦它擁有坦克、學校和國旗。 在那個世界裡，民族認同總是會迴歸，無論書籍上寫著什麼。

So, the similarity people sense between communist states and national "socialism" is not imaginary. It sits in how they’re actually applied - which is different than theory. As soon as a universalist ideology has to govern a real country, they time and time again summon ethnos as its concrete backbone, and the result is some version of an ethno-socialist state.
That’s why you, in your gut, know there’s a similarity between “communist” states and national “socialism.” They all in some way use ethnos and “socialism” together.

因此，人們感知到的「共產主義」國家和民族「社會主義」之間的相似性並非虛構。 這種相似性體現在它們的實際應用方式上，這與理論不同。 只要一種普遍主義意識形態必須管理一個真實的國家，它們就會一次又一次地利用民族認同作為其具體的支柱，結果就是某種形式的民族社會主義國家。

這就是為什麼你直覺上知道「共產主義」國家和民族「社會主義」之間存在相似之處。 它們都以某種方式將民族認同和「社會主義」結合在一起。