v
关于作者萧伯纳
著名文学天才萧伯纳1856年7月26日出生于爱尔兰都柏林。 后来他搬到伦敦并在大英博物馆自学，同时他的几部小说发表在小型社会主义杂志上。 肖后来成为《星报》和《世界报》的音乐评论家。 他是《周六评论》的戏剧评论家，后来开始制作他的一些早期戏剧。 萧伯纳创作了戏剧《曼与超人》、《芭芭拉少校》和《皮格马利翁》，后来被改编成音乐剧和电影形式的《窈窕淑女》。 他还将自己的作品改编为《圣琼》、《他如何对她的丈夫撒谎》、《武器与男人》、《皮格马利翁》和《芭芭拉少校》的剧本。 萧伯纳于 1925 年获得诺贝尔文学奖。萧伯纳于 1950 年 11 月 2 日在英国赫特福德郡的阿约特圣劳伦斯去世。
About the author (1984)
Renowned literary genius George Bernard Shaw was born on July 26, 1856 in Dublin, Ireland. He later moved to London and educated himself at the British Museum while several of his novels were published in small socialist magazines. Shaw later became a music critic for the Star and for the World. He was a drama critic for the Saturday Review and later began to have some of his early plays produced. Shaw wrote the plays Man and Superman, Major Barbara, and Pygmalion, which was later adapted as My Fair Lady in both the musical and film form. He also transformed his works into screenplays for Saint Joan, How He Lied to Her Husband, Arms and the Man, Pygmalion, and Major Barbara. Shaw won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925. George Bernard Shaw died on November 2, 1950 at Ayot St. Lawrence, Hertfordshire, England.
聪明女人的社会主义与资本主义指南
作者：乔治·肖 (作者) 2016 年 2 月 7 日
萧伯纳的《社会主义与资本主义指南》首次出版于 1928 年，写给“聪明的女人”（特别是他的嫂子玛丽·斯图尔特·乔洛蒙德利夫人），二十一世纪的每一个受益者都应该阅读《社会主义与资本主义指南》。 或将受益于社会保障、医疗保险、医疗补助、平价医疗法案、残疾、失业、食品券或任何政府的社会保险计划。
资本主义作为一种经济制度的不平等并不是什么新鲜事，萧伯纳是社会主义改革的早期倡导者之一，其目的是保护工人阶级免受资本主义为那些控制生产资料的人带来的优势的影响。
当统计数据继续讲述当今美国收入不平等日益扩大的故事时，肖对社会主义政策正义性的明智而机智的看法告诉我们如何做得更好。
The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism & Capitalism
by George Shaw (Author) Feb. 7 2016
First published in 1928 and addressed to the The Intelligent Woman (specifically his sister-in-law, Lady Mary Stewart Cholomondely), George Bernard Shaw’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism should be read by every American in the twenty-first century who has benefited, or ever will benefit, from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, disability, unemployment, food stamps, or any of the government’s social insurance programs.
The inequities of capitalism as an economic system are nothing new, and Shaw was one of the early champions of socialist reforms to protect the working class against the advantages capitalism gives those who control the means of production.
As statistics continue to tell a story of widening income inequality in the US today, Shaw’s wise and witty look at the justice of socialist policies tells us how we can do better.
资本主义：一辆正在驶向悬崖的失控汽车
https://www.dw.com/zh/%E8%B5%84%E6%9C%AC%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89
作者 Kate Ferguson， 07.06.2020
在新冠病毒疫情在世界各国造成经济停摆的时候，有人将资本主义比喻成一辆正在逼近悬崖边缘的失控汽车。德国之声专栏作者Kate Ferguson对这个论调进行了一番审视探讨。 
DW专栏作者Kate Ferguson
（德国之声中文网）几年前，当我在爱丁堡的一家二手书店搜寻好书时，发现一本书的标题让我无法抗拒，于是我立刻把它从书堆里拣出来，掏钱买下。
从那时起，萧伯纳（George Bernard Shaw）的这本《智慧女性指南：从社会主义、资本主义、苏维埃主义到法西斯主义》（The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism）就一直呆在我的书架上积灰。直到前不久居家隔离的时候，我才终于把它拿出来读。
我必须承认，自己很乐意被作者称作"有学识的女性读者"，并且忍不住联想到，如果更多的经济理论著作借鉴这种方法的话，那么那些枯燥的论文也许就能得到更多读者了。
除了善于奉承迎合读者之外，这首次出版于1928年的书竟然如此的历久弥新，这简直令人惊叹。
不可理解的体系
其中一个章节听起来格外的符合当代实际，这简直令人沮丧。在《失控的资本主义汽车》一章中，萧伯纳运用了一系列比喻，来描述资本主义的永不停歇性、无法探知性和不可理解性："想象一下，你坐在一辆你不懂得如何驾驶也不能停下的汽车里，油箱里装满了用不完的汽油……驰骋在一个被险峻岩石和悬崖峭壁所环绕的小岛上！这就是生活在资本主义之中的感觉--当你开始理解它的时候。"
是的！在将近一个世纪之后，我们仍然有同样的感觉。不过如今我们有了新的比喻手法。我们会谈起在轮子上不知疲倦地奔跑的小仓鼠。但这也不过是换一种方式来形容永不停歇而毫无意义的运动而已。
萧伯纳这本书出版之后的翌年，也就是1929年，美国股市崩盘，全球经济陷入十年大萧条。其实在萧伯纳写书的时候，投机行为的愚蠢之处就已经显而易见了："我们的统治者"，他写道，"充满了对货币市场的幻想，把每年5英镑当作100英镑来计算。"
而正当我读到这一段的时候，美国总统特朗普刚发出一条推特，宣称明年的股市注定要再创新高。
而事实是，我们每个人内心深处都知道这是无稽之谈。一家公司的价值每一天都在剧烈波动，而只有少数人从多数人的劳动中获益致富。这都是没有道理的。但是我们接受了这个体系，是因为它一直都是这个样子，而要倡导一些其它的东西就会看起来有一些激进，难道不是吗？
况且，就算是有替代方案，那它又该是什么样的呢？想要退出仓鼠的奔跑游戏，没问题，但是树懒的怠惰生活就是你想要的吗？
而萧伯纳认为，问题并不在于奔跑运动的本身，而是在于人们无法驾驭它："没有人买了一辆汽车会说，它开的越慢越好。同理，只要我们能够控制自己行进的方向，能够自己决定路线，并且能够在即将驶向危险的时候叫停，那么这样的行驶就是愉快的。"
换句话说，这场游戏中有两股力量：资本主义压倒一切的、不可渗透的力量，还有那些以驯服资本主义为己任的人。
坐在一辆失控的汽车上已经是足够糟糕的事情了，如果又没有一个理性的人坐在驾驶座上，你可能就只好听天由命了。
如今这个世界最可怕的事情就是，这个体系是由一股看不见的力量所饲养。也就是说，出于所有的意图和目的，这辆失控的汽车是完全自动的。
在互联网时代，没有任何两个人所接收到的信息组合是完全一样的。这些根本差异降低了公共讨论的标准和可能性。连广告都是量身定做的，个体根本无法联合起来采取某种行动。
企业运营结构不透明，旨在促进员工之间的微妙竞争。 这使得工人运动难以实现。
我们每天都在使用的东西当中，有很多都是供应链的产物，这些供应链错综复杂，几乎是无法重新创建的。所有尝试理解这一切的努力，都会给我们带来罪恶感和疲惫感，顺从妥协往往看起来是唯一的反应方式。
资本主义引起的无知并非新鲜事物，但是它现在肯定正在进入全盛时期。就在我们把更多的时间花费在工作上，而用来思考的时间越来越少，我们对于简单化信息的需求达到了顶峰。
连萧伯纳也在1928年得出了一个愤世嫉俗的--有些人或许会说是具有先见之明的--结论，那就是在一个失控的资本主义体系中，注定要担任执政工作的是这些人："……他们一无所知且不会思考……他们有时候会成为最佳统治者，就像最好的铁路信号员往往都是那些没有足够的责任感因此也不会被吓到的人。"
这个信号是强大的。资本主义是一种如此可怕的力量，只有无知者才能够具备承受它的气质。
尽管这种疯狂症也是有药可治的。其中最有效的解药就是时间。
浪漫的空间
在萧伯纳的时代，矿工还在为每日工作时间从八小时减少到七小时而斗争。而如今呢，我们正处在一场更大氛围的心理战斗之中。我们能够把手机调到飞行模式，然后放心地睡觉吗？如果错过了什么重要的通知怎么办，会不会被永远困在公司等级阶梯的底层呢？
萧伯纳将休闲时间描述成"留给罗曼蒂克和无限可能"的空间，而工作时间则是"冷酷而枯燥的现实的领地"。
对于我们当中的幸运儿来说，这场全球疫情让工作世界的辛劳乏味暂时得到一些缓解。一些人抓住这个机会，去给这辆失控汽车踩刹车，并且感慨自己距离从悬崖边缘坠落只有一步之遥。
而另外一些人则走上街头，要求获得重新坐上驾驶席的权利。
德国之声致力于为您提供客观中立的新闻报道，以及展现多种角度的评论分析。文中评论及分析仅代表作者或专家个人立场。
Bernard Shaw's guide to the post-crash world
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/12/bernard-shaws-guide-post-crash-world
This article is more than 11 years old
Polly Toynbee @pollytoynbee 12 Oct 2012
Lady Cholmondeley certainly got more than she bargained for when she asked for "a few of your ideas of socialism". George Bernard Shaw's sister-in-law expected a brief summary, a simple user's manual on his political and ethical beliefs. Instead, in 1928 she was presented with a great tome that encompasses the meaning of life and just about everything from marriage and bringing up children to how to run industry.
What she got was The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism, one of the great, passionate and indignant expositions of how social injustice destroys human lives. Class and inequality create a rich and a poor – equal only in the obnoxiousness of both their stations – causing both the degradation of poverty and the idleness of wealth. Shaw has no truck with sentimentalists who romanticise the poor: "The blunt truth is that ill-used people are worse than well-used people." "I hate the poor and look forward eagerly to their extermination. I pity the rich a little, but am equally bent on their extermination." All classes are "each more odious than the other: they have no right to live". Nor has he any truck with Rousseauian romantic views of nature. It is the tyrant to be vanquished by civilisation: "We are not born free."
He begins as he ends: the only way to live is in a society where everyone earns and owns exactly the same, regardless of skill, effort, age, gender, character, intelligence, inheritance, merit or power. Women would at last be free of dependence on men: even now the gap between women's and men's earnings and wealth leaves most mothers with a choice between relying on a man or bringing up children considerably poorer without one. Absolute parity of income would mean merit and moral worth would be rewarded with esteem and not with cash. He has high hopes of humanity's capability for moral improvement: "In a socialist state, economic selfishness would probably stand on a moral level now occupied by card-sharping." The rosy prospect of his socialist future stands in stark contrast to his miserabilist view of present humans: "We have to confess it: capitalist mankind in the lump is detestable."
It is capitalism that debases character and all human relationships, reducing everything to monetary value while misunderstanding the extent to which humans are not motivated purely by greed or acquisitiveness. This suddenly looks fresh in our post-2008 crash world, when conventional economics have come under attack for making exactly that error. What the economists got wrong in all their models and forecasts was their reliance on the odd notion that people are entirely driven by money. Look around you and it's immediately obvious how many other forces and other choices people make. Humans are not perfect calculating machines making rational getting-and-spending decisions to extract maximum monetary gain out of all their transactions. Shaw's call for the nationalisation of the banks and his highlighting of the need for local municipal banks has a pleasingly contemporary ring, too.
However, few would turn to Shaw's Guide for a lesson in practical economics. Nor, alas, would this book make for a course in winning modern-day elections – though how our political discourse would be brightened up with platform speeches of Shavian quality. What you get here is as fine a debunking of all the myriad excuses for inequality as you will ever find. Give each what they deserve? That is what the well-off think they get, but once you try to devise a total audit of each person's merits or faults, the idea is rendered absurd. Let everyone have what they can grab? That is partly what happens, but traders need law and justice to operate, and themselves need the collective state to mitigate brute force. How much is enough, he asks. His wise reply is that there is never enough: "Nobody can ever have enough of everything. But it is possible to give everyone the same."
"Why do we put up with it?" That question has perpetually perplexed the left. Why is rebellion by the poor so rare? In this recession era of austerity and shrinking household incomes, Shaw's answer is much the same as observers might give now. People earning so much less than others are kept going in the illusory hope of "pageantry", winning the lottery or inheriting a fortune from a mystery relative. Charity, the dole – or nowadays the ever-diminishing top-ups to low pay from the welfare state – are kept just high enough to prevent destitution and revolution. The problem, Shaw says, is that the poor are kept ignorant, and without "trained minds capable of public affairs", so they cannot see how "the evils of the system are great national evils". Or if a few are plucked out and sent to university, they are "de-classed" and captured by capitalist thinking. Most people "tolerate the evils of inequality of income literally through want of thought". That, I suppose, is what the communists used to call "false consciousness" as an explanation for the disappointing docility of the masses.
What makes Shaw so likeable and readable is the odd blend of soaring idealism and no-nonsense realism. He is a Fabian, a believer in the parliamentary route to socialism, yet has no illusions about the unsatisfactory deficits in democracy. "The millennial hopes based on every extension of the franchise from the reform bill of 1832 to votes for women have been disappointed." He is disgusted at how women voters failed to vote for women candidates or for those on the left who had fought to give them the vote in the first place. Indeed, women's votes, leaning more to the right than men's until 1997, helped keep Conservatives in power through most of the last century. As for the candidates themselves, despairing of their quality, he suggests, half-seriously, that their qualifications for office be vetted before they stand.
By the time he revised the book for the 1937 edition, he was writing with fascism rampant in Italy and Spain. Though he was ambivalent and contorted on Russia, undemocratic communism looked unappealing to his Fabian mind. Without doubt a vote is better than no vote, for all its maddening deficiencies. "I advise you stick to your vote as hard as you can," he tells his lady reader. "Meanwhile, heaven help us! We must do the best we can" – which was, more or less, also Winston Churchill's conclusion on parliamentary democracy.
A great glory of this book is its grand peroration. With the lyrical eye of the playwright he casts all relationships – whether with lawyers, doctors, tradesmen, relatives, children or colleagues – as fatally tainted by everyone's need to get money from one another. Only liberate money motives from the world by giving everyone the same, and imagine how people's "natural virtues" would be set free from "trade union and governing class corruption and tyranny". Human nature would be "good enough for all your reasonable purposes".
Misanthropic visions in books such as Gulliver's Travels or Candide, "which under capitalism are unanswerable indictments of mankind as the wickedest of all known species", would be looked back on as "clinical lectures on extinct moral diseases which were formerly produced by inequality, as smallpox and typhus were produced by dirt".
Shaw writes in a fine tradition of utopian optimism. His image of a world under socialism renders humans as unrecognisable (and maybe undesirable) as in those religious visions of harp-plucking human souls cleansed of sin and transported to heaven. All that holds us back from bliss is "pecuniary temptation".
But people will believe what they want to believe. "The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it and become blind to the arguments against it." How true that rings in our depressed era bleached of political idealism, imbued with a "nothing works" despondency. Shaw's clarity of argument and caustic wit prod and question the weary old reasons why markets are immutable, the world must always be as it is and nothing can ever change. Here are all the reasons why the way we live now, as then, is insupportable, inexcusable, immoral and unhappy for too many. All it would take, he says, is enough people who want to change it. All writers can do is keep making the case for something better.
