天上芙蓉剑 人间竹叶舟
天上芙蓉剑 人间竹叶舟

商业促进和平吗?民主促进和平吗?

这个是由来以久的疑问,或者说,质问。

一般以为,国际政治理论的“大国”——美国——的学者普遍是持贸易和平论与民主和平论的,比如说自由制度理论者和民主和平论者。一般也认为,他们在学术史上,有这样的传统观念。

下面列出的,是美国历史上最重要的文献之一:《联邦党人文集》,或者如一些学者认为,叫《联邦主义者文集》,其中的第六章(No.6),就是对商业促进和平观点的驳斥:

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.
Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.
Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,[9] which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.
The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.
In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA and BOURBON, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,[10] protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court.
The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of commercial considerations, — the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation, and sometimes even the more culpable desire of sharing in the commerce of other nations without their consent.

译文:

尽管这方面的经验一致得到证明,但是仍然有些空想家或搞阴谋的人,一直准备鼓吹一种自相矛盾的论点,说各州虽然彼此分开,互不联系,彼此仍能保持永久和平。他们说,共和国的特征就是爱好和平;商业精神有一种趋势,它能使人们举止温和,而且能消灭常常引起战争的激情。象我们这样的商业共和国,决不会互相进行毁灭性的竞争来消耗自己。它们会由相互利益来支配,会养成一种和睦友爱的精神。

我们可以问一问这些政治设计人:难道不是所有国家的真正利益培育了同样的慈善为怀的和合乎哲理的精神吗?假使这是他们真正的利益,他们事实上追求过吗?相反,不是常常发现,一时的愤怒和直接的利益,对人们行为的控制,比对政策、效用或正义的全面或长远的考虑,更为有力,更为专横吗?在实践中,共和国是否比君主国更不爱好战争呢?前者和后者难道不都是人们管理的吗?厌恶、偏爱、竞争,以及获取不义之物的愿望,不是对国家和对皇帝同样发生影响吗?人民议会不是常常受到愤怒、怨恨、嫉妒、贪婪和其他不正当的强烈倾向的驱使吗?议会的决定往往由少数被信任的人所左右,当然也就容易沾染这些人的情感和见解,这难道不是众所周知的事吗?到现在为止,商业除了改变战争的目的以外,还做了些什么呢?爱好财富同爱好权力或荣誉不都是一种凌驾一切和冒险的激情吗?自从商业成为各国的普遍制度以来,起因于贸易动机的战争,不是和以前由于对领土或统治权的贪婪而引起的战争同样频繁吗?商业精神在许多情况下不是给予这两种欲望以新的刺激吗?让人类判断最不易产生错误的指南——经验,来回答这些问题吧!

斯巴达、雅典、罗马、迦太基都是共和国;其中雅典和迦太基两国是商业性质的国家。 然而它们进行战争的次数,不论是进攻战或防御战,都不亚于它们同时代的邻近君主国。 斯巴达不比一个管理良好的军营好多少;而罗马对于残杀和征服是从不满足的。

迦太基虽然是一个商业共和国,在那场以其自身灭亡而结束的战争中,却是侵略者。 汉尼拔在斯奇庇奥在迦太基领土上把他打败,并且征服那个国家以前,曾率领军队直捣意

Leave a comment

メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。 が付いている欄は必須項目です