继续-中国国家的性质（这些是草译，还待整理）

Method
方法
IN OUR VIEW, the possibility of swings by the Chinese regime between promoting accelerated capitalist development and increased state intervention to stabilise the economy is inherent in the contradictory, hybrid character of the Chinese state. This is why our method of analysis is important. In 1936, Leon Trotsky analysed the character of the Soviet Union in The Revolution Betrayed (chapter 9: Social Relations in the Soviet Union). The situation was obviously different from China today. But from the point of view of Marxist method, Trotsky’s analysis of the Soviet Union of that period as a transitional or intermediate social formation is very relevant to our approach to contemporary China.
在我们看来，中国政权可能在加速推进资本主义发展和增加国家干预以稳定经济之间的摇摆具有内在固有的矛盾，既中国国家的混合的性质。这就是为什么我们的分析方法是很重要的。 1936年，托洛茨基在《革命的背叛》（第9章：苏联的社会关系）中分析苏联的性质。这种情况显然不同于今日的中国。但是，从马克思主义的方法的角度来看，，托洛茨基对那个期间苏联的分析，把苏联看作一个过渡或中间的社会形态，相应地，这个方法也是我们对当代中国的分析方法。
Finished social categories, such as capitalism and socialism, wrote Trotsky, had to be abandoned in favour of “a more complete definition”, necessarily more “complicated and ponderous”. Trotsky summarised his analysis of the Soviet Union in nine points, summarising key features of the Soviet state and society, and posing several alternative perspectives for the fate of the Soviet state.
托洛茨基写道，不得不放弃完美的社会范畴，如资本主义和社会主义，这样有利于“更完整的解说” ，必然更加“复杂和沉重” 。托洛茨基在对苏联的分析中总结出了9点，总结了苏联国家和社会的主要特点并提到了作为苏联命运的几种可能性。

“Doctrinaires will doubtless not be satisfied with this hypothetical definition. They would like categorical formulae: yes-yes, and no-no. Sociological problems would certainly be simpler, if social phenomena had always a finished character. There is nothing more dangerous, however, than to throw out of reality, for the sake of logical completeness, elements which today violate your scheme and tomorrow may wholly overturn it. In our analysis, we have above all avoided doing violence to dynamic social formations which have had no precedent and have no analogies. The scientific task, as well as the political, is not to give a finished definition to an unfinished process, but to follow all its stages, separate its progressive from its reactionary tendencies, expose their mutual relations, foresee possible variants of development, and find in this foresight a basis for action”.
“ 教条主义者无疑对这一假设的定义不会感到满意。他们喜欢绝对的公式：是就是是，非就是非。如果社会现象总是具有最终的性质，那么社会学的问题肯定会更简单。没有什么比脱离现实更危险的了，为了合乎逻辑的完整性，今天和您的计划不一致的东西可能明天完全相反。在我们的分析中，我们首先要避免对没有先例和没有相似物的动态的社会形态做出武断分析的作法。科学的任务，以及政治不能对一个未完成的过程给出完成的定义，而是循着其所有的阶段，把它的进步之处和它的反动倾向分离开，揭示其相互关系并预见到各种可能的演变以及在深谋远虑中找到行动根据。 “
In a notebook written in the 1930s, Trotsky made a further general comment that is extremely relevant to any discussion of the character of the Chinese state today: “Some objects [phenomena] are confined easily within boundaries according to logical classification, others present [us with] difficulties: they can be put here or there, but within a stricter relationship – nowhere. While provoking the indignation of systematisers, such transitional forms are exceptionally interesting to dialecticians, for they smash the limited boundaries of classification, revealing the real connections and consecutiveness of a living process”. (Trotsky’s Notebooks 1933-1935: Writings on Lenin, Dialectics, and Evolutionism, edited by Philip Pomper, NY Columbia University Press, 1986)
1930年代写的一本笔记本中，托洛茨基作出了进一步的一般性评论，该评论与对今天中国性质的任何讨论非常有关的： “按照逻辑分类，有些对象[现象]边界清晰易于界定，其他却给我们带来困难：他们可以这样也可以那样，但处在一个严格的关系中-到处都无。虽然激起系统主义者的愤慨，这种过渡形式对辨证家来说是非常有趣的，他们打破分类的边界限制，揭示了活生生的过程的真实的连接和连续性 “ 。 （1933年至1935年托洛茨基的笔记：关于列宁的著作，辩证法和进化论，Philip Pomper编辑 ，美国纽约哥伦比亚大学出版社， 1986年）
We believe that the transformation in China is also a process without precedent and that we have to ‘follow all stages’. Our analysis may appear more ‘complicated and ponderous’ than the simple assertion that China is now a ‘fully’ capitalist state. However, it is necessary, in our view, to take account of the contradictory features of the transition and “foresee possible variants of developments, and find in this foresight a basis for action”.
我们相信中国的变化也是没有先例的过程，我们必须追踪所有阶段。我们的分析可能会显得比简单地断言中国现在是一个'完全'的资本主义国家更为'复杂和笨重'。然而，它是必要的，我们认为，考虑到过渡的矛盾的特点和“预见到演变的多种可能性并在深谋远虑中找到行动的根据。”
The role of the Bonapartist state
LINKED TO THE question of method is the issue of the role of the state, in particular the autonomous role that can be played – under certain conditions, for a certain period of time – by a Bonapartist state consisting of a powerful apparatus and army, together with a powerful ruling party, in the case of China. Vincent, in our view, does not take sufficient account of the role of the ex-Stalinist, Bonapartist state in steering the transition in China.
波拿巴国家的作用

与方法的问题联系在一起的是国家作用的问题，特别是由强大的国家机器和军队以及一个强大的执政党组成的波拿巴国家-在特定条件下，在一定的时间内-可发挥的自发的作用。在我们看来，就中国而言，文森特没有充分考虑到中国前斯大林主义者波拿巴国家在指导国家过渡上所发挥的作用。
“The class character of any social organism, regime, or party”, writes Vincent, “is determined by the class interests it serves – its social base”. As a general proposition, this is correct. But it is not sufficient for analysing the situation in China. The Chinese regime has abandoned defence of nationalised property and the planned economy, historically progressive relations of production, and is promoting the development of capitalist relations. But the situation in China is conditioned by the past development of the Maoist-Stalinist system after 1949. While defending the planned economy, the state was relatively independent, not subject to democratic checks by the working class. Now the regime has turned to a pro-capitalist, counter-revolutionary course. This undoubtedly serves the interests of an emerging Chinese capitalist class and international capital. But it would be too simplistic, at this stage, to say that the regime is simply the repressive agent or servant of the Chinese bourgeoisie. The Chinese state, a product of Maoism-Stalinism, has a large degree of autonomy in fostering and steering the development of capitalism while striving to preserve its own power.

文森特写道“任何社会有机体，政权，或政党的阶级性质是由它所服务的阶级利益决定的” 。一般来说，这是正确的。但它在分析中国的情况上是不够的。中国政权已放弃捍卫具有历史进步性的生产关系的国有财产和计划经济而促进发展资本主义的关系。但中国的情况是以过去1949年之后毛泽东斯大林主义制度的发展的为条件的。虽然当时的国家捍卫计划经济，但国家是相对独立的，不受制于由工人阶级监督的民主的。现在，这一制度已转向有利于资本主义的，反革命的路线。这无疑有利于新兴的中国资产阶级和国际资本。但是，如果在这一阶段说该政权完全是镇压的代理人或中国资产阶级的仆人就过于简单化了。中国这个国家是毛泽东斯大林主义的产物，在促进和指导资本主义发展的同时努力维护自己的权力上有很大程度的自发性。

There are analogies for this development in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, where they show that, under certain circumstances, a state power balancing between social classes (a ‘Bonapartist’ state) can play an autonomous role in sponsoring the development of capitalist industry and fostering the development of a capitalist class. In Germany during the 1870s, for instance, Otto von Bismarck – based on the Prussian monarchist state, the army elite and the Junker landlords – promoted the development of capitalist forces as the necessary basis for German imperialism’s increased military and economic power.
卡尔•马克思和恩格斯的著作对这种演变有类似的分析，他们在那里表明，在特定情况下，平衡社会各阶层的国家权力（波拿巴国家）可以发挥作用以帮助资本主义工业的发展和促进资产阶级的发展。德国在19世纪70年代，例如，奥托•冯•俾斯麦-基于普鲁士君主国家，军队精英和容克地主-促进了资本主义力量的发展并使该发展成为德国帝国主义增加其军事和经济力量的必要基础。

Another example is the Russian tsarist state during the second half of the 19th century. Based on archaic feudal landlordism, some tsarist leaders recognised that to survive as a military power they had to develop industry (especially railways and armaments). After the Crimean war (1853-56), Engels wrote, the Russian government “set about breeding a Russian capitalist class”. (The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism, 1890, Marx-Engels Collected Works vol 27) The tsarist state remained a powerful force in Russian society until the crisis of the first world war and its overthrow by the October revolution in 1917. Like Bismarck, the tsarist state in breeding a capitalist class also bred a small, but powerful, working class.
另一个例子是19世纪下半叶的沙俄国家。基于陈旧的封建地主所有制 ，一些沙皇领导人认识到，为了作为军事大国而存在，他们必须发展工业（特别是铁路和军备） 。恩格斯写道，克里米亚战争（ 1853至1856年）后 ，俄罗斯政府着手“培育俄罗斯资产阶级” 。 （沙俄的对外政策， 1890年，马克思恩格斯全集第27卷）沙皇国家在俄罗斯社会保留着强大的力量直到第一次世界大战的危机而在1917年十月革命下被推翻。和俾斯麦一样，培育资本家阶级的沙皇国家也孕育了规模不大但强有力的工人阶级。
In China, the former Maoist-Stalinist state has used its massive power to ‘breed’ a Chinese capitalist class. The regime has adapted the state (the party, the army and the apparatus) to the transition to capitalism. But the state retains considerable power, while the new capitalist forces are, at this stage, an emergent social class in the process of formation.
在中国，前毛泽东斯大林主义国家利用其强大的权力'培育了'中国资产阶级。该政权已使国家（党，军队和国家机器）适应向资本主义的过渡。但是，国家保留了相当大的权力，而在这一阶段新的资本主义势力作为一个新兴的社会阶层处在形成过程中。
The burgeoning capitalist elements are very diverse, ranging from small family businesses to the owners of giant corporations. At this stage, they lack social cohesion and, as yet, have not developed any independent political representation. Many of the capitalists are ex-bureaucrats or state-sector bosses, and retain close links with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the apparatus. They are mostly quite content to allow the state to create the conditions for the growth of capitalist business, and provide ‘social stability’, that is, to protect them from resistance and mass protest by workers and peasants. At this stage, there is no threat to the regime’s absolute political power from the emergent capitalist class.

新兴的资本主义的要素是非常多样的，从小型家族企业到大公司的业主。在这个阶段，他们缺乏社会凝聚力，迄今为止，还没有发展出任何独立的政治代表。许多资本家是前官员或国有部门的老板，并与中国共产党（中共）和国家机器保持着密切联系。他们大多相当地满意于用国家的力量来为资本主义企业的生长创造条件并提供'社会稳定'的环境 ，也就是保护他们免受工人和农民的大规模的抗议活动的影响。在这个阶段，没有来自这个新兴资产阶级的对该政权的绝对的政治权力的威胁。