【推文】James Lindsay - every Communist eventually ends up in the gulag he built...

這是 James Lindsay 最近寫的長推文串

連結

• 原推文 - x.com/conceptualjame...

• Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...

原文及個人翻譯

In a manner of speaking, though not literally, every Communist eventually ends up in the gulag he built to imprison and reeducate others.

Why?

It's because every powerful person in a Communist-like regime is vulnerable to baseless accusations of hypocrisy they cannot survive.🧵

可以說，雖然不是字面上的意思，每個共產黨員最終都會落入他們自己建造的勞改營，那裡本來是用來關押和再教育其他人（非共產黨員）的。

為什麼？

這是因為在類似共產主義的政權下，每一個有權勢的人都可能面臨毫無根據的偽善指控，他們無法在其底下生存。🧵

In some sense, there are two types of societies: free and tyrannical. There are also two types of tyrannies: those run by warlords and what we might call Virtue Paradigms. While Communists can be as brutal as warlords, they run Virtue Paradigms.

As some will recognize, I'm borrowing from my brilliant, insightful friend @PardyBruce here in characterizing political orders as being based in freedom or virtue. My claim is that all political Virtue Paradigms are intrinsically vulnerable to baseless accusations of hypocrisy.

在某種意義上，社會有兩種類型：自由的與暴政的。暴政也有兩種：由軍閥統治的和我們可以稱為「德性模式」的。雖然共產黨員可以像軍閥一樣殘忍，但他們運行的是德性模式。

正如有些人會認識到的，我在這裡借鑒了我那位才華橫溢、洞察力強的好友 @PardyBruce 的觀點，將政治秩序描繪為基於自由或德性。我的觀點是，所有政治上的德性模式本質上都容易受到關於毫無根據的偽善指控的傷害。

To be clear, a "freedom" paradigm is one in which the purpose of government is to secure individual liberties and thus to protect the freedom to pursue virtue (or not). A "virtue" paradigm is one in which the purpose of the state is to enforce a particular ethic on the people.

"Freedom people" (those who support freedom paradigms) can be virtuous, but when they are it is by choice. In a Virtue Paradigm, the state sets an ethic, which is a particular conception of virtue, for its people and forces or coerces people to live by it.

為了澄清，一個「自由」模式是一個政府的目的是保障個人自由，從而保護追求德性（或不追求）的自由。一個「德性」模式是一個國家的目的是向人民強加特定的道德觀。

「自由派」（支持自由模式的人）可以有德行，但當他們有德行時，這是出於選擇。在德性模式下，國家為人民制定了一種道德觀，即對德性的特定理解，並強迫或迫使人們按照這個道德觀生活。

The claim I'm making is that all Virtue Paradigms are inherently less politically stable than Freedom. In fact, they're almost certainly guaranteed to devolve into catastrophe because of the combination of their political incentives and their vulnerability to baseless accusation.

In practice, Virtue Paradigms will nearly always eventually devolve into complete corruption or circular firing squads ("perpetual revolution") that grinds them and the people they rule over into the dust (and the grave). They're disasters that sound good on the front end.

要強調的是，所有德性模式本質上都比自由模式政治上不穩定。事實上，它們幾乎可以保證會因為政治激勵和容易受到毫無根據指控的結合而演變成災難。

在實際中，德性模式幾乎總是最終會演變成完全的腐敗，或互相殘殺的「永久革命」，將它們自己和它們統治的人民磨成塵土（和墳墓）。它們是聽起來很美好，但實際上卻是災難。

Virtue Paradigms do not necessarily start in evil even if they end there. They usually start with some perfectly true and good claim like "if everyone upheld X as a virtue, then society would be better." When they're evil (like Marxism), they still sell themselves this way.

In Marxism, the virtue claim is that "if everyone was really equal because everyone truly valued equality as a virtue, then society would be better," in case you don't know. In Fascism, it's "if everyone upheld the (ethno)nation above themselves, then society would be better."

德性模式不一定從邪惡開始，即使它們最終會變成邪惡。它們通常從一些完全正確且良好的主張開始，例如「如果每個人都堅持 X 是一種美德，那麼社會就會變得更好。」當它們變得邪惡（如馬克思主義）時，它們仍然以這種方式推銷自己。

在馬克思主義中，德性主張是「如果每個人因為真正重視平等而真正平等，那麼社會就會變得更好」，以防你不知道。在法西斯主義中，主張是「如果每個人將（民族）國家置於自身之上，那麼社會就會變得更好。」

The ethic X that everyone is supposed to uphold doesn't have to be a grand vision for society, of course. It could be very simple, basic, and ultimately true, such as "if everyone upheld the Ten Commandments, then society would be better." That's factually true and good.

In other words, the problem isn't in whatever the ethic X happens to be. The problem is that the ethic X is going to be enforced by a state with a monopoly of power over people to enforce it, thus destroying their freedom and placing them in a Virtue Paradigm built on an ethic.

當然，每個人應該堅持的道德 X 不必是一個宏偉的社會願景。它可以非常簡單、基本，最終是真實的，例如「如果每個人都堅持十誡，那麼社會就會變得更好。」這確實是真實且良好的。

換句話說，問題不在於道德 X 具體是什麼。問題在於道德 X 將由一個擁有對人民強制權力的國家強行執行，從而摧毀他們的自由，並使他們處於一個基於道德的人為模式中。

The reason this is the case is that the ethic X, true or ridiculous, not only can be but will be replaced by another ethic Y later once the apparatus of the Virtue Paradigm (that is, "benevolent" tyranny) is erected in the first place. This isn't a maybe. It's a guarantee.

The reason ethic X is guaranteed to be replaced by ethic Y at some point in every Virtue Paradigm (which is to say the paradigm is unstable) is because every Virtue Paradigm is vulnerable to baseless accusations of hypocrisy. Every single one. Always.

這個情況的原因在於，道德 X，無論是真實的還是荒謬的，不僅可以，而且會被另一個道德 Y 所取代，一旦建立起德性模式的機制（即「仁慈」的暴政）。這不是可能發生，而是必然會發生。

每個德性模式（即模式不穩定）都容易受到毫無根據的偽善指控的傷害，這是道德 X 保證會被道德 Y 取代的原因。每一個德性模式都是如此。永遠都是。

Human beings are insanely sensitive to accusations or observations of hypocrisy. It's part of human nature. It's so strong I used to say the world would happy set itself on fire if it could just call other people hypocrites in the process. That's some exaggeration, but it's huge.

The point here is that humans are incredibly sensitive to identified hypocrisy (real or fake) and will act on it, even against their other interests. It's a very powerful social motivation. Therefore, accusations of hypocrisy can be overwhelmingly powerful political weapons.

This fact is good when the accusations of hypocrisy are true. We want to identify hypocrites, especially when they're in positions of power and influence over other people, because the outcomes of their hypocrisy are usually damaging or abusive.

Not all accusations of anything, including hypocrisy, are true, though. It's very easy to make baseless accusations of hypocrisy by deliberately misinterpreting their actions, motivations, or stated principles. Nonetheless, false accusations are powerful political weapons too.

人類對關於偽善的指控或觀察異常敏感。這是人類本性的一部分。這種敏感度非常強烈，以至於我曾經說過，如果世界能夠在指責別人偽善的過程中自焚，它會很樂意這麼做。這當然是誇張了，但它確實非常強烈。

這裡的要點是，人類對被識別出來的偽善（不論真或假）非常敏感，並會根據此採取行動，即使這與他們的其他利益相衝突。這是一種非常強大的社會動機。因此，關於偽善的指控可以是極其強大的政治武器。

當關於偽善的指控是真實的時候，這是一種好事。我們希望識別出偽善者，尤其是在他們擁有權力和影響他人的位置上時，因為他們偽善的後果通常是有害或虐待的。

然而，並非所有指控，包括關於偽善的指控，都是真實的。通過故意誤解他們的行動、動機或陳述的原則，很輕易就能毫無根據地做出關於偽善的指控。儘管如此，虛假的指控也是強大的政治武器。

In a Virtue Paradigm, leadership is based upon fealty to the given ethic, ultimately, creating an immense vulnerability to accusations of hypocrisy. Some of these will be true because no one is perfect. Others will be false because they're powerful political weapons.

People who can successfully make baseless accusations of hypocrisy against their political superiors and rivals, measured against the ethic of the Virtue Paradigm, will be rewarded by rising in the hierarchy of power in the Virtue Paradigm. Thus, it's incentivized.

在德性模式中，領導力是基於對特定道德的忠誠，最終創造出對偽善指控的巨大脆弱性。其中一些指控會是真實的，因為沒有人是完美的。另一些則會是虛假的，因為它們是強大的政治武器。

那些能夠成功地對政治上級和競爭對手提出毫無根據的偽善指控的人，根據德性模式的道德標準進行衡量，將在德性模式的權力階層中獲得提升。因此，這是一種激勵。

It's necessary to realize that just like how Freedom people can be virtuous or not; Virtue people can also be virtuous or not. The people in a Virtue Paradigm do not automatically become virtuous because the state forces them to pretend they are virtuous!

So while virtuous people might make true accusations of hypocrisy when they arise in either paradigm, only unvirtuous (unscrupulous, or evil) people will make baseless accusations of hypocrisy in order to elevate themselves in the power hierarchy or to take down a rival.

需要意識到，正如自由派的人可以有德行或沒有德行一樣，德性派的人也可以有德行或沒有德行。德性模式中的人們並不會因為國家強迫他們假裝有德行而自動變得有德行！

因此，雖然有德行的人在任何模式中都可能提出真實的偽善指控，但只有沒有德行（不擇手段或邪惡）的人才會做出毫無根據的偽善指控，以提升自己在權力階層中的地位，或打擊競爭對手。

The Virtue Paradigm, because it is based on a conception of virtue that has to be enforced by the state, is vulnerable to baseless accusations of hypocrisy against its ethic, and unvirtuous people are incentivized to make such accusations for political advantage.

Therefore, unscrupulous, unvirtuous people will eventually rise to the top of any Virtue Paradigm, rather ironically, by weaponizing the Virtue Paradigm and its ethic against their political rivals in dishonest ways. This is Communists putting their predecessors in the gulags.

These unscrupulous people will not be able to survive forever in the Virtue Paradigm they conquer, however, so eventually they'll use their power to change the standard of virtue (ethic) such that it consolidates and insulates their own power. Ethic X is replaced by some Ethic Y.

德性模式因為基於一種必須由國家強行執行的德性觀念，因此容易受到對其道德的毫無根據的偽善指控的傷害，而沒有德行的人則被激勵做出這樣的指控以獲得政治優勢。

因此，不擇手段、沒有德行的人最終會上升到任何德性模式的頂端，這有些諷刺的是，他們以不誠實的方式將德性模式及其道德作為武器，針對政治對手。這就是共產黨人將他們的前任關進高壓營。

然而，這些不擇手段的人永遠不會在他們征服的德性模式中生存，所以最終他們會利用權力改變德性標準（道德），使它鞏固和保護自己的權力。道德 X 被某種道德 Y 所取代。

But where did Ethic Y come from? Ethic Y came from unscrupulous, unvirtuous actors who manipulated the schema of the Virtue Paradigm to gain power and then close it off to others, so Ethic Y is virtually guaranteed to be less ethical/virtuous than Ethic X was.

Moreover, the power consolidation process in the Virtue Paradigm means that the new, unvirtuous leaders will shore up their power by making further baseless accusations of hypocrisy against their colleagues and underlings who might pose a threat to their ill-gotten power.

A few cycles of these processes deep, and the Virtue Paradigm isn't virtuous at all. It's a naked tyranny that exists only for the elevation and protection of its evil rulers, still claiming to do so in the name of some Greater Good in the name of some virtue everyone must hold.

但道德 Y 來自何處？道德 Y 來自不擇手段、沒有德行的人，他們操縱德性模式的結構來獲取權力，然後將其關閉以阻止他人，因此道德 Y 幾乎可以保證比之前的道德 X 更不道德/有德行。

此外，德性模式中的權力鞏固過程意味著新的、沒有德行的領導人將通過對可能威脅他們非法獲得的權力的同事和下屬提出進一步的毫無根據的偽善指控來鞏固權力。

經過幾輪這樣的過程，德性模式將完全不再有德行。它是一個赤裸裸的暴政，僅僅存在於提升和保護其邪惡統治者的情況下，仍然聲稱以某種所有人必須堅持的德性，即更大的利益為名。

So we can see Virtue Paradigms are disasters in the making. No matter how right and true the initial virtue(s) they hold to might be, by tying political power to the enforcement of that virtue, they create a system guaranteed to corrupt itself into despotism and tyranny.

The American experiment was an experiment in having a country governed neither by a warlord (hence, Rule of Law) or by a Virtue Paradigm. It's a Freedom Paradigm. The open question it's always trying to answer is if such a thing can be maintained.

I'll stop here, even though I want to do a couple of tangent threads including whether or not the Freedom Paradigm can work without virtuous people, the crucial role of voluntary choice in making virtuous people, and even whether the Ten Commandments can be enforced at all.

所以我們可以看到，德性模式是潛在的災難。無論他們最初堅持的德性（們）多麼正確和真實，通過將政治權力與執行那個德性綁定，他們創造了一個必然會腐化自己成為獨裁和暴政的系統。

美國的實驗是一個國家既不由軍閥統治（因此有法治）也不由德性模式統治的實驗。這是一個自由模式。它一直在試圖回答的一個開放問題是，這種模式能否被維持。

我會在此停止，儘管我想做幾個相關的主題，包括自由模式是否可以在沒有有德行的人的情況下運作，有德行的人在其中自願選擇的關鍵作用，甚至十誡是否可以完全執行。