What Is Democratic Socialism in the United States

I. Introduction

一、前言

Democratic socialism has recently experienced a resurgence in the United States. Since Bernie Sanders first ran in the 2016 presidential primaries, among candidates who explicitly call themselves “democratic socialists,” some have been elected to the Senate and House of Representatives, the highest legislative bodies in the United States, and hundreds more have won elections to local legislative and executive offices. The organization called the “Democratic Socialists of America” (DSA) has also grown steadily, from fewer than 5,000 members in 2015 to over 95,000 in 2021, and now has chapters in every state and most major cities. More importantly, what were previously considered radical proposals—such as universal healthcare, free higher education, and the Green New Deal—have entered mainstream public debate and gained support from prominent figures within the Democratic Party.

民主社会主义最近在美国出现了复苏的趋势。自伯尼·桑德斯在2016年第一次参加总统初选活动以来，在明确自称为“民主社会主义者”的候选人中，一些人已当选为美国最高立法机构参议院和众议院的议员，还有数百人通过选举赢得了地方立法和行政机构的职位。名为“美国民主社会主义者”（简称DSA）的组织也不断发展壮大，其成员从2015年不到5000名发展到2021年超过9.5万名，如今在全美各州和大多数主要城市都建立了分支机构。更重要的是，以前被认为是激进的主张，如全民医保、免费高等教育和绿色新政，已经进入主流的公开辩论环节，并得到民主党内一些显赫人物的支持。

Yet it is certain that, since 2020, this political momentum has at least gradually slowed. Sanders’s defeat in the 2020 presidential primaries, followed by the rise of a firmly centrist administration that, on the one hand, sought to co-opt some of the most popular ideas of the democratic socialist movement while, on the other hand, diluting its radical proposals, has deprived the democratic socialist movement of some of its momentum. The DSA’s membership has declined slightly since peaking in 2021; its most prominent political figures, from Sanders himself to New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of the so-called “Squad” of democratic socialists in the U.S. Congress, now receive less media exposure in the mainstream press.

但可以确定的是，自2020年以来，这种政治势头至少已经渐趋减缓。桑德斯在2020年总统初选中失败，随后一个坚定的中间派政府上台，一方面，该政府试图吸收民主社会主义运动中最受欢迎的一些观点，但另一方面也削弱了它的激进主张，这使得民主社会主义运动失去了部分动力。“美国民主社会主义者”组织的成员数量自2021年达到顶峰后，已略有减少；其最突出的政治人物，从桑德斯本人到来自纽约市的女众议员亚历山大·奥卡西奥·科尔特斯，以及所谓的美国国会民主社会主义者“小分队”的其他成员，如今在主流媒体上的曝光率都比较低了。

Even so, as a small but influential faction within the Democratic Party, democratic socialism remains a political force in the United States that cannot be ignored. The results of the 2022 midterm elections confirmed this: although they did not dominate the headlines, all members of the democratic socialist “Squad” in Congress were re-elected by overwhelming majorities in their districts, and several new democratic socialist candidates were elected, further strengthening the “Squad.” Therefore, now may be a good time to examine and assess the nature and ideology of American democratic socialism, considering both its strengths and weaknesses.

即便如此，作为民主党内一个人数不多但颇具影响力的派别，民主社会主义在美国仍然是一股不可忽视的政治力量。2022年中期选举的结果证实了这一点：尽管没能占据很多新闻头条，但国会中的所有民主社会主义“小分队”成员都在其选区以绝对多数优势再次当选，而且还有几位新的民主社会主义候选人当选，这进一步壮大了“小分队”的力量。因此，现在可能是从优点和缺点两方面来考察、评估美国民主社会主义的性质与意识形态的好时机。

II. Socialism: Economic Rights, Worker Control, and Central Planning

二、社会主义：经济权利、工人控制与中央计划

The first constitutive concept of contemporary American democratic socialist political ideology is the concept of socialism itself. When asked to explain what “socialism” means, participants in this movement often surprisingly invoke a phrase that has become a staple of contemporary American political discourse: “putting people over profit.” For instance, this was one of Sanders’s slogans in both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. In a tweet formally endorsing Sanders for the 2020 campaign, the DSA explicitly referenced this: “The Democratic Socialists of America are proud to announce our endorsement of Senator Sanders for president. We are organizing a mass movement to take on the billionaires and achieve a society that puts people over profit.” Subsequently, Paul S. Adler articulated the same phrase in *The 99% Economy: How Democratic Socialism Can Overcome the Crises of Capitalism*:

当代美国民主社会主义政治意识形态的第一个构成性概念是社会主义概念本身。当被要求解释“社会主义”的含义时，该运动的参与者经常出人意料地提到一种已经成为当代美国政治话语重要内容的套话——“将人民置于利润之上”。例如，这正是桑德斯2016年和2020年两次总统竞选的口号之一。在正式表态支持桑德斯参与2020年竞选的推文中，“美国民主社会主义者”组织也明确提到了这一点：“‘美国民主社会主义者’组织很自豪地宣布支持参议员桑德斯竞选总统。我们正在组织一个大规模的运动，来与亿万富翁们展开较量，并实现一个将人民置于利润之上的社会。”随后，保罗·S.阿德勒在《99%的经济:民主社会主义如何克服资本主义的危机》一书中阐述了同样的套话：

Capitalism is a system that produces for profit, not for people or the planet… If we are to overcome the crises this system generates and create an economy for the 99%, we need to change how corporations and governments make decisions about investment, production, and labor. These decisions need to be guided by the needs of people and the planet, not just the profit rate.

资本主义是一个为利润而不是为人民或地球而生产的系统……如果我们要克服这个系统产生的危机，创造一种为了99%的人的经济，我们需要改变企业与政府对投资、产品和劳动作出决策的方式。这些决定需要以人民和地球的需求为指导，而不是仅仅考虑利润率。

However, beyond this phrase, there is little consensus on what “putting people over profit” actually means in practice. In his two major campaign speeches outlining his vision of democratic socialism—at Georgetown University in 2015 and George Washington University in 2019—Sanders emphasized the concept of “economic rights” as a way to guarantee all American citizens a “dignified life.” He stated: “Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people many important political rights protected by the Constitution… Now, we must take the next step and guarantee the basic economic rights of every man, woman, and child in our country—the right to quality healthcare, the right to the education we need to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to a clean environment… That is what I mean by democratic socialism.”

然而，除了这种套话，对于“将人民置于利润之上”这一观点的实际含义，人们几乎没有什么共识。在为阐述其民主社会主义观念而发表的两次主要竞选演讲——分别是2015年在乔治城大学和2019年在乔治华盛顿大学的演讲——中，桑德斯着重强调了“经济权利”这一概念，将其视为保障所有美国公民过上“有尊严的生活”的方式。他说道：“今天，我们的《权利法案》保障了美国人民享有许多受宪法保护的重要政治权利……现在，我们必须迈出下一步，保证我们国家的每一个男人、女人和儿童的基本经济权利——获得高质量的医疗保健的权利，获得我们在社会中取得成功所需的教育的权利，获得赚取生计所需工资的好工作的权利，获得负担得起的住房的权利，获得有保障的退休生活的权利和获得清洁环境的权利……这就是我所说的民主社会主义。”

The concept of “economic rights”—which essentially boils down to the idea that the government should legally guarantee the provision of certain basic goods and services, whether directly or by purchasing services from private contractors—is also identified by some other contemporary American democratic socialists as the core essence of socialism. Darrick Hamilton, an economist at Ohio State University, writes: “In a social democratic or democratic socialist America, public policy should enable everyone to live a life of dignity and protect vulnerable people from enslavement by greedy private employers who, obsessed with generating profit, ceaselessly exploit humans and the planet.” To this, he adds: “What we need is a mechanism of economic rights consistent with the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights.”

“经济权利”概念——它实际上可以归结为政府应该依法保证提供某些基本物品和服务，无论是政府直接提供还是通过购买私人承包商的服务来提供——也被其他一些当代美国民主社会主义者确定为社会主义的本质核心。俄亥俄州立大学经济学家达里克·汉密尔顿写道：“在一个社会民主主义或民主社会主义的美国，公共政策应该使所有人都能过上有尊严的生活，应该保护弱势人群不受贪婪的私人雇主的奴役，因为这些雇主一心想着创造利润，所以他们不停地剥削人类和地球。”对此，他补充说道：“我们需要的是一个符合富兰克林·罗斯福《经济权利法案》精神的经济权利机制。”

Interestingly, both Sanders and Hamilton frame their advocacy of economic rights as a realization of the vision of the Economic Bill of Rights first proposed by Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union address. As Gary Dorrien notes, this can be understood as a way to “Americanize” democratic socialism by showing that it can be “expressed in the language of individual liberalism.” However, the most prominent historical precedent for this particular vision of democratic socialism originates in the universal welfare systems established in Northern Europe after World War II. This explains why Sanders repeatedly cites Denmark and Sweden in his public speeches. He often says: “If those countries have achieved this vision, why can’t we do it in the United States, the richest country on earth?” This definition ultimately blurs the distinction between American-style democratic socialism and European-style social democracy.

有趣的是，桑德斯和汉密尔顿都把他们支持经济权利的主张表述为对罗斯福在1944年国情咨文中首次提出的《经济权利法案》设想的实现。正如加里·多里安所指出的，这可以被理解为是一种使民主社会主义“美国化”的方式，其手段就是表明它能够“以个人自由主义的语言来表述”。然而，这种特定的民主社会主义设想在历史上最突出的先例肇始于北欧在第二次世界大战后建立的全民福利制度。这就解释了桑德斯为何在公开演讲中反复以丹麦和瑞典为例。他经常说：“如果那些国家已经实现了这种设想，为什么我们不能在美国、在这个地球上最富有的国家实现它？”这种定义方式最终模糊了美国式民主社会主义与欧洲式社会民主主义的区别。

It is for this reason that the relevant controversy has not subsided. While most contemporary American democratic socialists agree that a European-style welfare state would represent a major improvement over the existing social safety net in the United States, many insist that this still does not amount to socialism. Chris Maisano points out that the United States already implements several government programs aimed at guaranteeing a basic standard of living (including basic healthcare and education for the least affluent), yet calling it a socialist country on that basis would be absurd. He writes: “We must always ask the following key question about state action: Does the state strengthen or weaken the power of those who own capital? Does it intensify our subordination to the logic of the market, or does it provide us with more freedom to escape its demands?”

正是由于这个原因，相关争议尚未平息。虽然大多数当代美国民主社会主义者都同意，欧洲式的福利国家将给美国目前已有的社会保障网带来重大改进，但许多人坚持认为，这仍然没有达到社会主义的要求。克里斯·梅萨诺指出，美国已经实施了若干旨在保障人民基本生活水平（包括为最不富裕的人提供基本医疗保健和教育）的政府项目，然而，由此将其称为社会主义国家是荒谬的。他写道：“我们始终需要针对国家的行为提出如下关键问题：国家是加强还是削弱了那些拥有资本的人的权力？它是加剧了我们对市场规律的屈从，还是为我们提供了更多的自由以摆脱其要求？”

Bhaskar Sunkara further develops this critical line of thought in his *Socialist Manifesto*. His core argument is that, because European-style social democracy does not abolish private ownership of the means of production, it remains dependent on a class that is committed to pursuing profit rather than the interests of the entire people. The bourgeoisie uses its social power to weaken any progressive gains achieved through the “decommodification” of specific economic sectors, and may sometimes even cause regression; this is precisely what Sunkara says has happened in Europe since the “crisis of the profit rate” in the mid-1970s. On this basis, Sunkara insists that democratic socialism requires not just a social-democratic welfare state, but the abolition of private ownership of the means of production by transferring them to “the workers themselves.”

巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉在其《社会主义宣言》中进一步发展了这一批判思路。其核心论点是，由于欧洲式社会民主主义没有废除生产资料的私有制，因而它仍然依赖一个致力于追求利润而不是全体人民利益的阶级。资产阶级利用它的社会力量来削弱任何通过特定经济部门的“去商品化”所取得的进步成果，有时甚至可能使之发生倒退；这正是桑卡拉所说的自20世纪70年代中期的“利润率危机”以来在欧洲发生的事情。基于此，桑卡拉坚持主张，民主社会主义需要的不只是一个社会民主的福利国家，而是需要通过将生产资料转移给“工人自己”来废除生产资料私有制。

The above viewpoint is elaborated in his *Socialist Manifesto* through a historical hypothesis about a future society. According to this hypothesis, after a Sanders victory, the United States will transition to democratic socialism, which will first establish a European-style welfare state in America. In this context, Sunkara writes: “For ideological reasons, legislation will stipulate that workers should control their companies, that they should no longer receive wages but become genuine stakeholders in the company… Now, you and your colleagues will collectively control your company… Workers in each sector will elect representatives to proportionally constituted workers’ councils.”

上述观点在其《社会主义宣言》中是通过一种关于未来社会的历史性假设来阐述的，根据其假设，在桑德斯获胜后，美国将向民主社会主义过渡，这首先会在美国建立一个欧洲式的福利国家。在此背景下，桑卡拉写道：“基于意识形态的原因，立法将规定工人应该控制他们的公司，他们不应该再领取工资，而是成为公司的真正利益相关者……现在，你和你的同事们将集体控制你们的公司……每个部门的工人都会选出代表参加按比例组成的工人委员会。”

Some other contemporary American democratic socialists also conceive of democratic socialism as a further evolution of European-style social democracy. However, it should be noted that few contemporary American democratic socialists envision full nationalization and a centrally planned economy as the realization of the socialist ideal. The organization “Democratic Socialists of America” is particularly firm on this point. In a 2018 article on its website titled “What Is Democratic Socialism,” it states: “Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy… We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those most affected by them.” Similarly, Sunkara cautiously notes that under his envisioned model of worker ownership of the means of production, “two key markets under capitalism—the traditional labor market and the capital market—are abolished,” but “commodity and service markets still exist, because there are too many problems of information asymmetry and incentive incompatibility to abolish these two markets.”

其他一些当代美国民主社会主义者也将民主社会主义构想为欧洲式社会民主主义的进一步演变。然而，需要指出的是，很少有当代美国民主社会主义者把完全国有化和中央计划经济设想为社会主义理想的实现。“美国民主社会主义者”组织在这一点上尤其态度坚定。2018年该组织在其网站上发表的题为《什么是民主社会主义》一文中指出：“民主社会主义者不希望建立一个全能的政府官僚机构……我们认为，社会和经济决策应该由受其影响最大的人作出。”同样，桑卡拉谨慎地指出，在他设想的生产资料工人所有制模式下，“资本主义条件下的两个关键市场即传统的劳动力市场和资本市场被取消了”，但是，“商品和服务市场仍然存在，原因是存在太多信息不对称和激励不相容方面的问题，导致不能取消这两个市场”。

However, it would be wrong to infer from this that this “dual-track” economic model is uncontroversial within the contemporary American democratic socialist movement. There remains intense debate about the compatibility of socialism with (at least some) markets. For example, Adler argues that this economic model does not truly abolish the logic of production “for profit.” Therefore, he advocates that democratic socialists must strive to “replace market competition with democratic management of the entire economy.” He writes: “We can no longer leave the direction of economic development to the vagaries of market processes, nor rely on democratic institutions like the Federal Reserve to regulate this process… We need to manage our economy to achieve our common goals: the well-being of the people and the sustainability of the planet.”

然而，如果由此推论认为这种“双轨”经济模式在当代美国民主社会主义运动中不存在争议，则是错误的。关于社会主义与（至少是某些）市场的相容性，仍存在激烈的争议。例如，阿德勒认为，这种经济模式并没有真正废除“为了利润”而生产的逻辑。因此，他主张民主社会主义者必须努力“用对整个经济的民主管理来取代市场竞争”。他写道：“我们不能再把经济的发展方向交由变幻莫测的市场过程来决定，也不能依靠美联储等民主机构来调节这一过程……我们需要管理我们的经济，以实现我们的共同目标，即人民的福祉和地球的可持续性。”

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that there is far from a consensus on the understanding of socialism within the contemporary American democratic socialist movement. But this is precisely what I have been trying to say: there is no single definition of socialism that all participants in the democratic socialist movement agree upon. Instead, what holds this movement together is precisely the ongoing debate over the content of this concept, with the rough scope of what they consider socialism ranging from European-style social democracy to worker ownership of the means of production with partial or full central planning.

从前文的论述可以清楚地看到，当代美国民主社会主义运动内部对社会主义的认识还远没有达成共识。但这正是我一直想说的：不存在所有民主社会主义运动参与者都认同的对社会主义的单一定义。相反，使这一运动凝聚在一起的恰恰是对这一概念的内涵的持续辩论，他们所认为的社会主义涉及的大致范围包括，从欧洲式的社会民主主义，到部分或完全实行中央计划经济的生产资料工人所有制。

III. Democracy: Is the Democratic Party Necessary?

三、民主：是否需要民主党

The second constitutive concept of contemporary American democratic socialist political ideology is democracy.

当代美国民主社会主义政治意识形态的第二个构成性概念是民主。

All contemporary American democratic socialists agree that democratic socialism can be understood as the “universalization” and “radicalization” of democratic ideals. For example, Joseph Schwartz argues: “Socialists reject the notion that capitalist democracy is fully democratic… The socialist and anti-colonial movements of the 20th century proved that if unequal economic power can be transformed into political power, if workers are dominated by capital, then the revolutionary democratic goals of equality, liberty, and fraternity cannot be realized.”

所有当代美国民主社会主义者都同意，民主社会主义可以被理解为民主理想的“普遍化”和“激进化”。例如，约瑟夫·施瓦茨认为：“社会主义者拒绝认为资本主义民主是完全民主的……20世纪的社会主义运动和反殖民运动证明，如果不平等的经济权力可以转化为政治权力，如果工人受到资本的支配，那么平等、自由和博爱的革命性民主目标就无法实现。”

Disagreements over democracy begin with how to put the ideal of radical democracy into practice, and more specifically, with how to handle what Micah Uetricht describes as a “classic dilemma” that American radicals have debated for decades: Should they “fight within a hopelessly compromised Democratic Party to have the greatest possible impact on the world,” or “abandon the Democratic Party in favor of creating an alternative party, but risk complete political isolation”?

关于民主的分歧始于如何将激进民主的理想付诸实践，更具体地说，始于如何处理迈卡·乌特雷赫特所描述的、美国激进分子几十年来争论不休的“经典困境”：他们是应该“在一个无可救药地采取妥协立场的民主党内进行斗争，以便对世界产生尽可能大的影响”，还是“放弃民主党，支持创建一个替代性政党，但是要冒着政治上完全被孤立的风险”。

Given the undeniable success of Sanders’s efforts in two presidential primary campaigns in promoting the cause of democratic socialism and revitalizing the entire movement, a significant portion of contemporary American democratic socialists have recently tended toward a more conciliatory coalition strategy. On this point, Messano writes: “Before the catalytic effect of Sanders’s campaign became apparent, I was more inclined to oppose the tactic of using the Democratic Party line. But the political developments of the past few years have effectively resolved the question of how to deal with the Democratic Party (for me)… Whether we like it or not, as long as significant primary campaigns continue to exist and have an impact, working-class organizers will continue to use these primary campaigns.” Dorian, commenting on the evolution of the “Democratic Socialists of America” organization’s recent political strategy, makes a similar point:

鉴于桑德斯参与两次总统初选时的努力在宣传民主社会主义事业和振兴整个运动方面取得了不可否认的成功，当代美国民主社会主义者中的相当一部分人最近倾向于采取更加妥协的联盟战略。为此，梅萨诺写道：“在桑德斯的竞选活动带来的催化作用显现之前，我更倾向于反对利用民主党路线的战术。但过去几年的政治发展已经有效地解决了如何对待民主党的问题（对我来说是如此）……无论我们喜欢与否，只要重要的初选活动继续存在并且产生影响，工人阶级的组织者就将继续利用这些初选活动。”多里安在评论“美国民主社会主义者”组织近期的政治策略的演变时，也提出了类似的观点：

“For a long time, the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’ organization has said that promoting social movements and educating the masses about socialism is its primary task, while electoral activities are important to some but not to others, and thus can only be a third-priority task. After Sanders’s campaign changed the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’ organization, that statement seems outdated. The organization has since tended toward the view that participating in electoral activities is indispensable, but running alone in the tyranny of the American two-party system is suicidal.”

长期以来，“美国民主社会主义者”组织一直说推动社会运动、对大众进行社会主义教育是它的首要任务，而选举活动对一些人很重要，但对另一些人不重要，所以只能是排在第三位的任务。在桑德斯的竞选活动改变了“美国民主社会主义者”组织之后，前述说法似乎已经过时了。该组织此后趋向于这样的观点：参加选举活动是必不可少的，但在美国的两党制暴政中，单独参加竞选是自取灭亡。

Nevertheless, there remains a range of different strategies regarding cooperation with the Democratic Party, or at least working within it. For example, Sunkara emphasizes the need for continued “grassroots mobilization” to ensure that progressive candidates elected as Democratic Party members do not deviate from their ideological convictions after taking office. Jared Abbott and Dustin Guastella advocate a more radical approach, proposing to cultivate “agents of the Party” within the Democratic Party, who will explicitly support socialist candidates in Democratic primaries and urge these candidates to remain loyal to the socialist line. An even more radical strategy is called a “dirty break” with the Democratic Party, which essentially refers to democratic socialists building autonomous organizational capacity within the Democratic Party, with the ultimate goal of completely breaking away from the Democratic Party by creating an independent American Workers’ Party once conditions for defeating the Democratic Party in elections are ripe.

尽管如此，对于与民主党合作，或者至少在民主党内部展开工作，仍存在一系列不同的策略。例如，桑卡拉强调，需要继续进行“基层动员”，以便确保以民主党成员身份当选的进步候选人在就职后不会偏离其意识形态信念。贾里德·亚伯特和达斯汀·瓜斯泰拉的主张更加激进，他们提出要在民主党内培养“本党的代理人”，使其在民主党初选中明确支持社会主义候选人，并督促这些候选人忠诚于社会主义路线。一个更激进的策略被称为与民主党进行“肮脏的决裂”（dirty break），它实际上指的是民主社会主义者在民主党内建立自主的组织能力，最终目标是一旦在选举中击败民主党的条件成熟，就通过创建一个独立的美国工人党来完全脱离民主党。

To be sure, there are still some American democratic socialists who consider the above approaches insufficiently radical. Joe Evica and Andrew Sernatinger write in “Taking the Dirty Break Seriously”: “There remains a gap in the ‘dirty break’ strategy: from fielding our own candidates on the Democratic Party’s electoral slate to establishing a new party, we must do something in the interim period between the two.” This “missing link” is what critics of the “dirty break” strategy often refer to as “infrastructure building,” that is, “a long-term effort to build a durable reserve of support within a particular segment of the working class.”

可以肯定的是，仍有一些美国民主社会主义者认为上述方式还不够激进。乔·埃维卡和安德鲁·瑟纳廷杰在《认真对待肮脏的决裂》一文中写道：“在‘肮脏的决裂’策略中仍存在一个缺口：从在民主党的选举名单上推出我们自己的候选人到建立一个新的政党，我们在两者之间的空档期必须做一些事情。”这个“缺失的环节”就是“肮脏的决裂”策略的批评者经常提到的“基础建设”，也就是说，“长期努力在工人阶级的某一部分中建立一支持久的后备支持力量”。

I hope the foregoing rough outline suffices to show that, among contemporary American democratic socialists, what appropriate strategic relationship to maintain with the Democratic Party remains a fiercely debated issue. This is precisely the point I wish to make: although there is broad consensus within the American socialist movement that the commitment to democracy itself is not up for discussion, because the American socialist movement still commands only minority support in elections and because of the reality of the two-party electoral system in the United States, there remains significant disagreement over how to coordinate socialism and democracy in practice. In this sense, I argue that, within the ideological framework of contemporary American democratic socialism, the debate over the concept of democracy is only partially resolved. Nevertheless, this very debate allows the American socialist movement to unite a large number of people who hold socialist positions, positions that are relatively broad but still within the bounds of socialism.

希望上述粗略的概述足以说明，在当代美国民主社会主义者中，与民主党保持何种适当的战略关系仍然是一个争论激烈的问题。这也正是我想要提出的看法：虽然美国社会主义运动内部达成广泛一致，认为致力于实现民主这一点本身是不需要讨论的，但由于美国社会主义运动在选举中还只是获得少数人的支持，也由于美国两党选举制度的现实，对于如何在实践中协调社会主义与民主，仍然存在很大分歧。从这个意义上讲，我认为，在当代美国民主社会主义的意识形态框架内，关于民主概念的争论只是部分得到解决而已，不过，这种争论正好使美国社会主义运动能够将大量持有社会主义立场的人团结起来，他们持有的立场相对广泛，但仍在社会主义的界限之内。

IV. Class: From Priority to Intersectionality and Beyond

四、阶级：从优先性到交叉性及其超越

The third constitutive concept of contemporary American democratic socialist ideology is the concept of class. More fundamentally than being treated as an empirical reality or a particularly privileged subject of revolutionary change, class is taken as an epistemological framework for social analysis. This means that most contemporary American democratic socialists accept the most basic premise that contemporary American society is divided into two opposing classes, capitalists and workers, and that the conflict between them affects every aspect of that society and its political sphere (though it may not be the sole determining factor). Consequently, understanding contemporary American society and politics requires studying the relationship between these two classes. This is entirely different from the liberal view, which sees society as composed of numerous independent individuals with specific interests, leading to the conclusion that the ultimate goal must be to reconcile or at least balance their relationships. For instance, a recent issue of *Jacobin* magazine states:

当代美国民主社会主义意识形态的第三个构成性概念是阶级概念。与经验现实或者受到特别重视的革命性变革的主体相比，阶级在更根本的意义上被当作社会分析的认识框架。这意味着，大多数当代美国民主社会主义者都承认一个最基本的前提，即当代美国社会分裂为资本家与工人这两个对立的阶级，两者之间的冲突影响到该社会及其政治领域的方方面面（尽管它可能不是唯一的决定因素）。由此可见，要理解当代美国社会和政治，就必须研究这两个阶级之间的关系。这与自由主义的观点完全不同，后者认为社会是由众多具有特定利益的独立个体组成的，由此得出的结论是，最终目标必然是调和或者至少是平衡他们之间的关系。例如，最近一期的《雅各宾》杂志指出：

The greatest trick the ruling class ever pulled was convincing the world that there are no rulers... Corporations are not just one of many "interest groups" constantly making demands on those who hold state power. In reality, their political influence is greater than the sum of all other "interest groups"... [Therefore], the ultimate goal of socialists must be to change the ruling class, not merely to change the party in power.

统治阶级有史以来耍的最大花招就是让世界相信并不存在什么统治者……企业并不仅仅是众多不断向掌握国家权力的人提出要求的“利益集团”中的一方。实际上，它的政治影响力比其他所有“利益集团”的政治影响力的总和还要大……［因此］，社会主义者的最终目标必须是改变执政的阶级，而不仅仅是改变掌权的政党。

Once we examine more closely how the concept of class is defined, disagreements begin to emerge. In many popular formulations, such as the Occupy Wall Street movement's slogan "We are the 99%" or in Sanders's systematic attacks on "millionaires and billionaires," class seems to be defined by income or wealth. This implies that some form of income or wealth redistribution would be sufficient to fundamentally change America's class structure. Supporters of a more orthodox Marxism within American democratic socialism argue that class is best defined by one's role in the production process. Consequently, changing America's class structure requires changing the nature of the property relations that govern this process. For example, Neil Meyer proposes:

一旦我们更仔细地考察阶级概念的定义方式，就开始出现分歧了。在许多流行的说法中，例如在“占领华尔街”运动的口号“我们是99%”中，或者在桑德斯对“百万富翁和亿万富翁”的系统攻击中，阶级似乎是由收入或财富来定义的。这就意味着，某种形式的收入或财富再分配足以从根本上改变美国的阶级结构。美国民主社会主义中更加正统的马克思主义的支持者则认为，阶级最好根据一个人在生产过程中的角色来定义。由此可见，改变美国的阶级结构需要改变支配这一过程的财产关系的本质。例如，尼尔·迈耶提出：

Today's America is characterized not by freedom and abundance, but by exploitation and oppression. A tiny number of powerful families live off profits derived from suppressing wages, overworking, and deceiving the vast majority of society—the working class. Democratic socialists want to end this. This requires abolishing the root of capitalist exploitation, which is the private ownership of the means of production.

今天美国的特征不是自由和富足，而是剥削和压迫。极少数有权势的家庭靠着利润生活，而这些利润来自他们压低社会上绝大多数人（即工人阶级）的工资，使其过度劳动，让其上当受骗……民主社会主义者希望结束这一切。这需要废除资本主义剥削的根源，也就是生产资料的私有制。

However, there is another, perhaps deeper, controversy concerning the importance and role of class, which involves the relationship between class and other types of social division and oppression, most notably race and gender. On this point, the orthodox Marxist position holds that class division is the "most fundamental" characteristic determining all other features of a given society and should therefore take priority over all others. An alternative view holds that racial and gender oppression cannot be reduced to class oppression.

然而，还存在另一种与阶级的重要性和作用有关的、也许是更深层次的争议，它涉及阶级与社会划分和压迫的其他类型（最突出的是种族和性别）之间的关系。关于这一点，正统马克思主义的立场认为，阶级划分是决定特定社会的所有其他特征的“最根本的”特征，因此，应该优先于所有其他特征。另一种看法认为，种族和性别压迫不可还原为阶级压迫。

Sankara [1]1 Sankara: A reference to the author Bhaskar Sunkara, founding editor of *Jacobin* magazine, not the late Burkinabé revolutionary Thomas Sankara. The text uses the name "Sankara" as a pen name or shorthand for Sunkara. articulates what is called the "class first" position in his *Socialist Manifesto*. He writes: "After the large-scale failure of class-based movements in the 1970s and 1980s, various narrower, identity-based struggles aimed at addressing injustice filled the void. These movements achieved some significant results in the cultural and struggle spheres, improving the lives of millions. But much of the progress made has primarily succeeded in diversifying our elite strata, rather than improving the lives of the most oppressed... Without class politics as a cornerstone, identity politics has become an inclusive neoliberal agenda, where individual problems might be solved, but structural inequality cannot."

桑卡拉在其《社会主义宣言》中阐述了被称为“阶级优先”的立场。他写道：“自20世纪70年代和80年代以阶级为基础的运动大面积失败后，各种范围更窄、旨在解决不公正问题、以身份为基础的斗争填补了其留下的空白。这些运动在文化和抗争领域取得了一些重大成果，改善了数百万人的生活。但其中取得的许多进展主要是成功地使我们的精英阶层多样化，而不是改善最受压迫者的生活……没有阶级政治作为基石，身份政治已经成为一种包容性的新自由主义议程，在其中个人的问题或许可以得到解决，但结构性的不平等却无法解决。”

In contrast, the position that various struggles are "intersectional" is most forcefully articulated in some official documents published by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA has recently strongly supported the view that various different anti-oppression struggles are "interconnected." For example, the DSA's 2016 programmatic document titled *The Rise of Resistance* states: "While the DSA believes that economic exploitation runs through all other forms of oppression, we do not believe that racial, gender, and other forms of oppression can be reduced to economic exploitation... The only democratic socialist strategy capable of effectively resisting capitalism is one that unites the anti-racist movement, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ movement, the labor movement, the anti-ableism movement, the anti-ageism movement, and other movements."

与此不同，认为各种斗争“相互交叉”的立场在“美国民主社会主义者”组织发布的一些官方文献中得到了最有力的阐述。该组织最近非常坚定地支持那种认为各种不同的反压迫斗争是“相互联系”的观点。例如，2016年该组织题为《抵抗的兴起》的纲领性文件指出：“虽然‘美国民主社会主义者’组织认为经济剥削贯穿所有其他形式的压迫，但我们不认为种族、性别和其他形式的压迫可以还原为经济剥削……唯一能够有效抵抗资本主义的民主社会主义战略是将反种族主义运动、女权主义运动、LGBTQ运动、劳工运动、反残疾歧视运动、反年龄歧视运动以及其他运动联合起来。”

*Jacobin* magazine, in collaboration with Verso Books, published a collection of essays titled *The ABCs of Socialism*, which further elaborates the view of "interconnection" among multiple independent anti-oppression struggles, demonstrating that this view is gaining broader acceptance throughout the American democratic socialist movement. For instance, in the book's chapter specifically on race, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor writes: "The struggle against racism is intertwined with the struggle for economic equality, but racism is not merely an economic issue. The anti-racist struggle is also a struggle to address the social crises experienced by Black communities, including struggles against racial profiling, police violence, and inequality in housing, healthcare, and education." Similarly, in her article on feminism, Nicole Aschoff argues that the goals of radical feminism and socialism are the same: to achieve justice and equality for all, not merely equal opportunity for women, or merely equal participation for women in an unjust system.

《雅各宾》杂志与维索出版社合作出版了题为《社会主义ABC》的论文集，进一步阐述了多种独立的反压迫斗争之间“相互联系”的观点，这证明该观点在整个美国民主社会主义运动中受到越来越广泛的认同。例如，在该书专门讨论种族问题的一章中，基安加-亚马赫塔·泰勒写道：“反对种族主义的斗争与争取经济平等的斗争交织在一起，但种族主义并不仅仅表现在经济问题上。反种族主义的斗争也是为了应对黑人社区所经历的社会危机，包括反对种族形象定性、警察暴力以及住房、医疗保健和教育不平等的斗争。”同样，尼科尔·阿朔夫在其讨论女权主义问题的文章中认为，激进女权主义和社会主义的目标是相同的，即为所有人争取正义和平等，而不仅仅为妇女争取平等机会，或仅仅为妇女在不公正的制度中争取平等的参与权。

Although the view that multiple independent anti-oppression struggles are "interconnected" is gaining increasing attention, it should also be noted that contemporary American democratic socialists do not stop there in challenging the "class first" paradigm. In the rhetoric of some supporters of this movement, we can see a complete reversal of the priority between class and other so-called "identity politics" issues. For example, Sean McElwee, co-founder of the think tank Data for Progress, urges democratic socialists to "forget about Trump voters," on the grounds that "I am much more able to reach people who are closely following patriarchy... and make them understand how patriarchy and capitalism collude, than I am to reach people who are angry because they lost their jobs to General Motors and make them understand socialism."

尽管认为多种独立的反压迫斗争之间“相互联系”的观点日益受到关注，但也应注意到，当代美国民主社会主义者在挑战“阶级优先”范式方面并不仅仅止步于此。在该运动的一些支持者的言论中，我们可以看到他们将阶级和其他所谓的“身份政治”问题的优先次序完全颠倒了过来。例如，智库“进步数据”（Data for Progress）的联合创始人肖恩·麦克尔威敦促民主社会主义者“忘记支持特朗普的选民”，理由是“比起接纳那些因为被通用汽车公司抢走工作而生气的人并让他们理解社会主义，我更加能够接纳那些密切关注父权制的人……并让他们理解父权制与资本主义是如何勾结在一起的”。

From this it can be seen that, although the concept of class is nominally at the center of democratic socialist ideology, there are significant differences in the role and importance assigned to class by contemporary American democratic socialists. Another area of intense debate concerns the relationship between class politics and environmentalism. As Matt Huber points out in a recent article, these two have long been considered contradictory. For example, the self-proclaimed "degrowth" communist Bue Rübner speaks of "the collusion between labor and fossil fuel capital," arguing that the working class participates in an "imperial mode of life" and must undergo a "substantial transformation" in order to "eliminate fossil fuel capital." Similarly, for degrowth scholar Jason Hickel and his collaborators, the real class struggle is not between workers and capitalists, but between different regions, namely the Global North and the Global South. They argue that the "imperial appropriation" of resources by wealthy countries "far exceeds what is equitable and ecologically sustainable," and that "the working class is complicit in this practice."

由此可以看出，尽管阶级概念在名义上处于民主社会主义意识形态的中心，但当代美国民主社会主义者赋予阶级的作用和重要性存在很大的差异。另一个存在激烈争论的领域涉及阶级政治与环保主义之间的关系。正如马特·胡贝尔在其最近的一篇文章中所指出的，这两者长期以来被认为是相互矛盾的。例如，自称为主张“去增长”的共产主义者布厄·鲁伯纳谈到了“劳工与化石能源资本的勾结”，他认为工人阶级参与了一种“帝国式的生活模式”，而为了“消灭化石能源资本”，他们必须发生“实质性的转变”。同样，对于研究去增长的学者詹森·西克尔及其合作者来说，真正的阶级斗争不是发生在工人与资本家之间，而是不同区域即北方与南方之间。他们认为，富国对资源的“帝国式占有……远远超过平等的和生态可持续的水平”，而“工人阶级则是他们这种行径的同谋”。

Recently, an influential view has held that the political tasks of socialism and environmentalism are complementary. For example, Naomi Klein argues that, although "socialism is not necessarily ecological... a new kind of democratic eco-socialism seems to be the best attempt humanity can make for collective survival, a democratic eco-socialism that humbly learns from indigenous peoples the teachings of responsibility toward future generations and the interconnectedness of all life." On this basis, Klein makes the case for the Green New Deal:

最近，一种有影响力的观点认为，社会主义与环保主义的政治任务是互补的。例如，内奥米·克莱因认为，虽然“社会主义不一定是生态的……但是一种新式的民主生态社会主义似乎是人类为了实现集体生存所能做的最佳尝试，这种民主生态社会主义谦虚地向土著人学习对后代负有责任、所有生命是相互联系的此类教义”。在此基础上，克莱因提出了支持“绿色新政”的理由：

"Most of us have been trained not to conduct a systematic and historical analysis of capitalism, and to compartmentalize almost all the crises generated by our system—from economic inequality to violence against women, white supremacy, and ecological collapse—into walled-off islands... Yet now that the Green New Deal is on the table, all of us who support it have a responsibility to help explain how these multiple crises are inextricably linked, and can only be overcome through a holistic transformation of society and the economy."

我们大多数人受到的训练使我们无法对资本主义进行系统的和历史的分析，并将我们的系统产生的几乎所有危机——从经济不平等到对妇女的暴力、白人至上主义和生态崩溃——划分为壁垒森严的孤岛……然而，现在绿色新政已经出台，我们所有支持绿色新政的人都有责任来帮助说明这重重危机是如何密不可分的，并且只有通过社会和经济的整体转型才能克服这些危机。

Although this call for a Green New Deal has resonated widely throughout the American democratic socialist movement, it should also be noted that this approach has its opponents. Dorian, in the book *American Democratic Socialism*, points out: "The Green New Deal was put forward from a think-tank perspective and was quickly denounced by the Energy Committee of the AFL-CIO, which accused it of causing 'direct harm to millions of our members and their families.'"

尽管这种对绿色新政的呼吁在整个美国民主社会主义运动中引起了广泛的共鸣，但也应注意到，这种方法也有其反对者。多里安在《美国民主社会主义》一书中指出：“绿色新政是从智库的立场提出的，并迅速遭到了美国劳联—产联能源委员会的非难，该委员会指责绿色新政将‘对我们数百万成员及其家庭造成直接伤害’。”

Just like the question of priority among class, race, and gender, the relationship between class politics and environmentalism has proven to be highly contentious within the contemporary American democratic socialist movement. Although it is widely accepted that the concept of class provides a fundamental framework for social analysis, there remains enormous disagreement about what class itself should mean and its relationship to other forms of oppression and political struggle. For this reason, I argue that the debate among contemporary American democratic socialists over the constitutive concept of class is also best understood as only partially resolved.

就像阶级、种族和性别之间的优先次序一样，阶级政治与环保主义之间的关系在当代美国民主社会主义运动中也被证明是存在很大争议的。虽然人们普遍认为阶级概念为社会分析提供了一个基本的框架，但关于阶级本身应该意味着什么以及它与其他形式的压迫和政治斗争的关系，仍然存在着巨大的意见分歧。出于这个原因，我认为，当代美国民主社会主义者关于阶级这一构成性概念的争论也最好被理解为只是部分地得到了解决。

V. Revolution: From Utopianism to Electoralism and Non-Reformist Reforms

五、革命：从乌托邦主义到选票至上主义和非改良主义的改良

The fourth constitutive concept of contemporary American democratic socialist political ideology is revolution. Compared with the other three concepts we have discussed so far, although revolution has enduring symbolic significance, the meaning assigned to this concept is perhaps even more uncertain. In using this concept, contemporary American democratic socialists usually first clarify what they do *not* mean by revolution. That is, calling for revolution does not necessarily imply a desire to seize state power by violence and then transform the social order from above. A necessary consequence of the American democratic socialist principled commitment to democracy is a promise to use legal means and majority rule to achieve its political goals. In this sense, revolution is not considered incompatible with reformism. To this end, Messano writes in a recent article:

当代美国民主社会主义政治意识形态的第四个构成性概念是革命。与我们迄今为止讨论过的其他三个概念相比，尽管革命具有持久的象征意义，但这个概念被赋予的意义也许具有更大的不确定性。在使用这个概念时，当代美国民主社会主义者通常首先要澄清他们所说的革命不是指什么。也就是说，呼吁革命并不一定意味着想用暴力夺取国家权力，然后自上而下地改造社会秩序。美国民主社会主义对民主的原则性拥护导致的一个必然结果，是承诺使用法律和多数决原则来实现其政治目的。在这个意义上，革命并不被认为与改良主义不相容。为此，梅萨诺在最近的文章中写道：

"Political currents derived from the Leninist and Trotskyist traditions are exhausted. They cannot escape their own persistent marginality, because their strategic orientation is fundamentally incompatible with the political and social conditions of developed capitalist welfare states and bourgeois democracy... On this point it should be clear that the only viable political strategic orientation for American socialism is what Ralph Miliband called left reformism."

源自列宁主义和托洛茨基主义传统的政治潮流已经衰竭。它们无法摆脱自己不断衰弱的边缘状态，因为它们的战略方向与发达的资本主义福利国家和资产阶级民主的政治社会状况根本不相容……在这一点上应该很清楚，对于美国社会主义而言，唯一可行的政治战略取向就是拉尔夫·密利本德所说的左翼改良主义。

Beyond this reconciliation of revolution and reformism, when most contemporary American democratic socialists use the concept of revolution, they seem essentially to point toward a social and political order fundamentally different from the current (capitalist) order. This undeniable utopian dimension is acknowledged by many of the movement's most prominent supporters. For example, Adler, in the opening of his book *The 99% Economy: How Democratic Socialism Can Overcome the Crisis of Capitalism*, states: "The idea of democratic socialism has an inescapable utopian quality, but this should not stop us from moving forward. One of the challenges we face is to have the courage to believe that a better world is possible... Therefore, the blueprint for democratic socialism I offer is a utopia in the positive sense proposed by Oscar Wilde, namely, 'a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of Utopias.'"

除了这种革命与改良主义的调和，大多数当代美国民主社会主义者在使用革命概念时，本质上似乎指向一种与当前（资本主义）秩序根本不同的社会和政治秩序。这种不容否认的乌托邦维度得到了该运动的许多最杰出的支持者的认可。例如，阿德勒在《99%的经济:民主社会主义如何克服资本主义的危机》一书开篇就说道：“民主社会主义的理念有一种不可避免的乌托邦性质，但这不应该阻止我们前进。我们面临的挑战之一就是要有勇气相信，一个更好的世界是可能的……因此，我所提供的民主社会主义蓝图是奥斯卡·王尔德所提出的积极意义上的乌托邦，即‘一张没有乌托邦的世界地图根本不值一顾，因为它遗漏了一个人类一直试图登陆的国家。而在人类登陆这个国家后，极目远眺，看到了一个比这里更好的国家，于是又开始从此地扬帆启航。进步就是乌托邦的实现’。”

Although these appeals to utopia may be moving, they obscure significant disagreements over what are the best means to achieve it. For Sanders, "political revolution" ultimately boils down to winning elections and implementing his policy agenda. He writes in his book *Guide to Political Revolution*: "Most Americans believe that the priority is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, to guarantee equal pay for women, to join the rest of the world in guaranteeing paid family and medical leave... But this isn't just what I, Bernie Sanders, say; it's what the American people want, as shown in poll after poll... This momentum must continue and grow. This is your country. Help us take it back. Please join the political revolution."

尽管这些对乌托邦的呼吁可能很感人，但却掩盖了人们在什么才是实现乌托邦的最佳手段方面存在的重大分歧。对桑德斯来说，“政治革命”最终归结为赢得选举和实施其政策议程。他在《政治革命指南》一书中写道：“大多数美国人认为，当务之急是，我们要把最低工资提高到生活工资，我们要保证妇女同工同酬，我们要与世界其他国家一起保证带薪事假和病假……但这不是我桑德斯说的，而是一次又一次民意调查显示的美国人民想要的东西……这种势头必须继续下去，并发展壮大。这是你的国家。请帮助我们夺回它。请加入政治革命。”

Sankara and several other contributors to *Jacobin* magazine have attempted to give this policy-driven concept of revolution more traction by closely following André Gorz's concept of "non-reformist reforms." Sankara himself defines "non-reformist reforms" as reforms that "not only benefit workers in the short term, but also enable them to win the battles that implementing the reforms entails." Mark Engler and Paul Engler take a more radical view. They argue: "The way a demand is won is as important as the demand itself. For example, winning a $1-an-hour raise through a militant strike is very different from a raise arbitrarily granted by an employer or government official."

桑卡拉和《雅各宾》杂志的其他多位撰稿人曾试图通过紧跟安德列·高兹的“非改良主义的改良”这一概念，赋予这种由政策驱动的革命概念以更多影响力。桑卡拉本人对“非改良主义的改良”所作的定义是，这种改良“不仅会在短期内对工人有利，而且可以使他们有能力赢得实施改良所导致的战斗”。马克·恩格勒和保罗·恩格勒的观点更加激进。他们认为：“满足要求的方式与要求本身一样重要。例如，通过激烈的罢工争取到每小时1美元的加薪，与雇主或政府官员任意宣布的加薪是非常不同的。”

The views of Engler and others tend toward a completely different concept of revolution, namely that revolution is not a set of policy goals to be achieved, but a process of empowering the working class. This concept of revolution is also reflected in many documents of contemporary American democratic socialism. For example, the organization "Democratic Socialists of America" insists in its programmatic document *The Rise of Resistance*: "The role our organization plays in initiating progressive social movements is crucial to our work; whatever gains we as an organization derive from this work, the work itself is the end... Through coalition work and community organizing, we have learned valuable organizational skills and discovered numerous ways to improve our work." In sharp contrast to Sanders' policy-driven concept of revolution, the "revolution" discussed here seems to be defined primarily in terms of self-transformation and community building.

恩格勒他们的观点倾向于另一种完全不同的革命概念，即革命不是一套要实现的政策目标，而是一个向工人阶级赋能的过程。这种革命概念也体现在当代美国民主社会主义的许多文献中。例如，“美国民主社会主义者”组织在《抵抗的兴起》这一纲领性文件中坚持认为：“本组织在发动进步社会运动中发挥的作用对我们的工作至关重要；无论我们作为一个组织从这项工作中获得何种收益，这一工作本身就是目的……通过开展联盟工作和社区组织，我们学到了宝贵的组织技能，发现了大量的方法来改进我们的工作。”与桑德斯的由政策驱动的革命概念形成鲜明对比，这里讲的“革命”似乎主要是从自我转变和社区建设方面来定义的。

Another important divergence concerns the envisioned timeframe of the revolution. The assumption that revolution and reformism are not contradictory itself implies an endorsement of gradualism. However, debate is still possible over the time required to reach the ultimate ideal goal. Sankara insists that "we must move quickly from social democracy to democratic socialism," on the grounds that "social democratic compromises are inherently unstable, and therefore, in the face of this instability, we need to propose a path forward rather than retreat." Many other programmatic documents of contemporary American democratic socialism express a more deeply entrenched belief that achieving the movement's revolutionary goals will necessarily take a very long time. This is manifested in their repeated distinction between short-term and long-term goals. For example, in a 2018 document titled *What Is Democratic Socialism*, the Democratic Socialists of America state: "In the short term, we cannot eliminate private enterprise, but we can place it under more democratic control." It then adds: "While the long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most pleasant labor, we acknowledge that tedious work will persist for a long time."

另一个重要的分歧与设想中的革命的时间有关。革命与改良主义并不矛盾这一假设本身就意味着对渐进主义的认可。然而，在达到最终理想目标所需的时间上，仍有可能发生争论。桑卡拉坚持认为，“我们必须迅速从社会民主主义转向民主社会主义”，理由是“社会民主主义的妥协是内在不稳定的，因此，面对这种不稳定，我们需要提出一条前进而不是退缩的道路”。当代美国民主社会主义的许多其他纲领性文件则表达出一种更加根深蒂固的信念，即实现运动的革命目标必然需要很长的时间。这表现为他们一再对短期目标和长期目标进行区分。例如，2018年“美国民主社会主义者”组织在题为《什么是民主社会主义》的文献中指出：“在短期内，我们无法消灭私营企业，但我们可以将它们置于更加民主的控制之下。”随后，它补充说道：“虽然社会主义的长期目标是消灭除了最令人愉快的劳动之外的所有劳动，但我们承认，枯燥的工作将长期存在。”

The above suffices to show that, although they frequently invoke the concept of revolution, the meaning of revolution as understood by contemporary American democratic socialists is highly variable. The common ground appears to be adherence to gradualist reformism and the positing of a fundamentally different (i.e., non-capitalist) social order as their utopian goal. Beyond this, there remain clear disagreements on the following issues: whether revolution is to be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive set of major policy reforms, or through a more decentralized process of community organizing and consciousness-raising; and whether revolution should occur within a few years or over several generations. In this sense, like the concepts of socialism, democracy, and class, the debate over the concept of revolution within the framework of contemporary American democratic socialist political ideology has not been fully settled.

上文足以说明，尽管经常诉诸革命概念，但当代美国民主社会主义者所认为的革命含义变化多端。其共同点似乎是遵循渐进式改良主义，以及以一种根本不同的（即非资本主义的）社会秩序作为其乌托邦目标。除此之外，他们在如下问题上依然存在着明显分歧：是通过实施一整套重大的政策改革，还是通过更加分散的组织社区和提高意识的过程来实现革命；革命应该在几年还是几代人的时间里发生。在这个意义上，就像社会主义、民主和阶级的概念一样，在当代美国民主社会主义政治意识形态的框架内，有关革命概念的争论也没有完全平息。

VI. Conclusion

六、结论

This article has examined the meanings that contemporary American democratic socialists assign to the four fundamental concepts of socialism, democracy, class, and revolution. The above has shown that, although they share a broad consensus on each concept, significant divergences emerge once these concepts are interpreted more concretely. Thus, rather than determining the direction of political development, these concepts merely delineate the boundaries of a series of ongoing, interrelated political debates. I argue that being a democratic socialist in the United States today means participating in these debates, without necessarily assuming, either at the individual level or at the level of the socialist movement as a whole, that these debates will ever be resolved once and for all.

本文研究了当代美国民主社会主义者赋予社会主义、民主、阶级和革命这四个基本概念的意义。上文已经表明，尽管他们在宽泛的层面上对于每一种概念都有着一致的看法，但一旦对这些概念进行更加具体的阐释，就会出现重大分歧。因此，与其说这些概念确定了政治发展的方向，不如说它们只是为一系列正在进行的、相互关联的政治辩论划定了界限。我认为，今天在美国作为一个民主社会主义者，就是要参与这些辩论，但无论是在个人层面还是在整个社会主义运动层面，都不必假定这些争论会一劳永逸地得到解决。

Finally, it may be worth briefly considering how the analysis in this article can help us understand the current situation and future prospects of American democratic socialists as a political force. Adam Przeworski, in his pioneering study of the electoral fortunes of Western European social democratic parties, has pointed out that this political grouping has historically been plagued by its internal tensions. Because their core electoral base is the industrial working class, and industrial workers rarely constitute an absolute majority of the electorate, these parties have often struggled to attract voters outside the working class in order to gain political power. However, this has also forced them to dilute the substantive content of their ideological thought, with the result that it not only weakens their ultimate political goals but ultimately also damages their core electoral base.

最后，也许值得简要地思考一下，本文的分析如何有助于我们理解美国民主社会主义者这一政治力量的当前状况和未来前景。亚当·普沃斯基在其关于西欧社会民主党的选举命运的开创性研究中已经指出，这一派政治团体在历史上一直受困于其内部张力。由于它们的核心选民基础是产业工人阶级，而产业工人很难代表选民中的绝对多数，因此，为了获得政治权力，这些政党经常努力想要吸引工人阶级以外的选民。然而，这也迫使它们淡化其意识形态思想中的实质内容，结果不仅弱化了它们的终极政治目标，而且最终也损害了其核心选民基础。

This long-standing dilemma has recently been compounded by two new factors. First, the overall size and cohesion of the industrial working class have declined, forcing social democratic parties and movements to rely on and unite increasingly heterogeneous and unorganized social constituencies. Second, the end of the Cold War has expanded channels for gaining political power, and these parties and movements, in order to cope with numerous internal divisions and contradictions, have been compelled to propose specific political programs and policy platforms, at least some of which are bound to dissatisfy parts of their internally heterogeneous electorate.

这种长期存在的困境最近又因两个新的因素变得更加复杂。首先，产业工人阶级的总体规模和凝聚力在下降，这迫使社会民主主义的政党和运动去依靠并团结越来越异质化和无组织的社会选民。其次，冷战的结束扩大了人们获得政治权力的渠道，这些政党和运动为了应对大量的内部分歧和矛盾，被迫提出各种具体的政治纲领和政策方案，而其内部异质化的选民中至少有一部分人必然会对这些纲领和方案感到不满。

Due to these deep-seated pressures, we can say that the contemporary American democratic socialist movement is effectively transferring this internal tension into its political ideology. This may help explain both the strengths and weaknesses of the contemporary American democratic socialist movement. The populist element in its political ideology is one of the main reasons it can attract support beyond the traditionally very small American working-class electorate. However, the ambiguity in stance that comes with populism also makes it difficult for the movement to coalesce into a genuine force, remaining instead a loose coalition of diverse political actors pursuing their own different political goals under the guidance of a similar ideological conception.

由于这些深层次的压力，我们可以说，当代美国民主社会主义运动正在其政治意识形态中有效地转移这种内部张力。这或许有助于解释当代美国民主社会主义运动的优势和劣势。其政治意识形态中的民粹主义因素是其能够在传统上人数非常少的美国工人阶级选民之外具有吸引力的主要原因之一。然而，随着民粹主义而来的立场上的模糊性也使得该运动难以凝聚起真正的力量，而只能是一个由不同的政治行为者组成的松散联盟，他们在类似的意识形态构想的引领下，追求着各自不同的政治目标。

Of course, to some extent, this internal tension is something all political forces competing for power in electoral systems must face. However, as Przeworski points out, this pressure is particularly acute for parties that aim to reconcile socialism and democracy, as this requires at least the ambition to fundamentally "change the world." Przeworski also suggests that it is only through arduous organizational work that this tension can be truly overcome, work aimed at giving clear expression to and coordinating various conflicting interests, so as to form a more stable and cohesive political constituency within society, not merely at the level of ideological discourse.

当然，在某种程度上，这种内部张力是选举制度中所有竞争权力的政治力量都必须面对的。然而，正如普沃斯基所指出的，对于那些旨在调和社会主义与民主的政党来说，这种压力尤其迫切，因为这至少需要有从根本上“改变世界”的雄心壮志。普沃斯基还表示，只有通过艰苦的组织工作，才有可能真正克服这种张力，这种组织工作的目的是使各种相互冲突的利益得到明确表达并使其协调一致，以便在社会内部而不只是在意识形态的话语层面，形成一个更加稳定和具有凝聚力的政治选民群体。

Whether contemporary American democratic socialists have the ability and perseverance to complete this arduous work remains to be seen. But a preliminary conclusion can already be drawn from the analysis in this article: "Left-wing populism" can only truly become popular if it sheds its current populist elements (which seems paradoxical).

当代美国民主社会主义者是否有能力和毅力来完成这项艰苦的工作，还有待观察。但我们已经可以从本文的分析中得出初步结论：“左翼民粹主义”只有摆脱其目前的民粹主义因素（这看起来是自相矛盾的），才能真正受到欢迎。

(Author: Carlo Invernizzi Accetti, Professor of Political Science, City University of New York, USA; Translator: Niu Zhengke, Assistant Researcher, Academy of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者卡罗·因弗尼兹·阿塞蒂［Carlo Invernizzi Accetti］：美国纽约城市大学政治学系教授；译者牛政科：中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院助理研究员）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心