typhotic iceberg 煙霧冰山

(some personal definitions for political terms, to be updated as i learn 一些政治術語的個人定義，以學習更新)

Note: Undefined terms use standard dictionary definitions. 注釋：未下定義的術語使用普通字典中的定義。

Eqbal Ahmed once said, “If you're serious about it, define yourself—define your topic, define your subject. Then, proceed to explicate it. If you're not defining, you are evading. You're trying to run away—you're trying to cheat me.” This list of following definitions is my attempt not to cheat anyone but myself.

Eqbal Ahmed 曾經說：「如果你要來認真的話，給自己下個定義—為你的話題、為你的題目下個定義。不在下定義的話，你就是在迴避。你就是想看看能不能逃避—看看能不能騙我。」下列的定義單是我希望除了自己誰都騙不過去的努力。

“for anarchy and communism” versus anarcho-communism 「推行無治和共產」跟無治共產主義的差別

“For anarchy and communism” is an articulation I've only ever heard from ultraleftists. According to how one ultraleftist explained things to me, anarcho-communism is an ideology, whereas anarchy and communism is a program. To communicate this on the level of translation, I translate the English “for” not as the promoting-ideology-like 為了 (for the sake of), and instead as 推行 (to carry out).

「推行無治和共產」是我只從極左派聽過的思想表達方式。按照其中一位極左派者給我的解釋來說，無治共產主義是個主義，無治和共產是綱領。在翻譯方面來表示這意義，我把英文的「for」不譯成宣揚主義似的「為了」，反而譯成「推行」。

anarchy and communism; hierarchy, work, and capitalism 無治和共產；等級制度、工作和資本主義

Anarchy is liberation from hierarchy; hierarchy means any system of power maintained by domination or exploitation.

無治就是等級制度的解脫；等級制度就是指任何被宰制或剝削維持的權力系統。

Communism means the abolition of work; work is the colonization of life for the sake of reproducing our own colonization. This system of waged labor as perpetual self-colonization, of alienation, of imposing borders of time and space on life, of imposing death, is called capitalism.

共產就是工作的廢除；工作就是為了再生產自己殖民的生活殖民化。這種把僱傭的勞工作為不停的自我殖民化、這種異化、這種強制實行生活的時空國界、強制實行死亡的系統，就叫做資本主義。

liberation, autonomy, power 解放、自治力、權力

Liberation is a state where no one's autonomy comes at the expense of another's. Autonomy is power over one's own life. Power is the ability to control something; autonomy is thus also the ability to control your own life.

解放就是不以犧牲別人的自治力來維護其他人自治力的狀態。自治力就是對自己生活有的權力。權力就是控制某種事物的能力；自治力也就是控制自己生活的能力。

domination, exploitation, class 宰制、剝削、階級

Domination is when society is systemically organized around maintaining one group's supremacy over another. Exploitation is when society is systemically organized around one group gaining power at the expense of another. The degree of organization around supremacy needed for it to count as systemic is up to arbitrary judgment. In general, my order of priorities goes like this: – historical, material, legal, medical, military, or state-sponsored organization around supremacy – other institutional, non-state-sponsored, or cultural organization around supremacy – subjective feelings of pain from being othered, especially if the othering comes from a historically or presently dominated or exploited group

宰制就是當社會根本性地圍繞著一群相比另一群的至上的維持。剝削就是當社會根本性地圍繞著一群以另一群做代價來獲得權力的維持。需要多大規模的至上圍繞才能算是有根本性是靠任意的判斷來決定。一般來說，我優先考慮的順序看起來像是這樣： – 歷史上、物質上、法律上、醫療上、軍事或國家發起的至上圍繞 – 其他機構上、非國家發起或文化上的至上圍繞 – 主觀被他者化的痛苦感覺，尤其是如果他者化的造成是從被歷史上或正在被宰制或剝削的群體來的

A group that is produced by relations of domination or exploitation is what I call a class, which more flexible than classical Marxist definitions of class based on capitalist relations. One of the definitions quoted in the entry for class in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought comes from the section VII of Marx's 18th Brumaire:

在宰制或剝削關係之中產生出來的群體，我叫階級，跟傳統馬克思主義以資本主義關係為基礎的階級定義比更可變通。其中在《馬克思主義思想辭典》的階級條目引用的定義是從馬克思的《路易‧波拿巴的霧月十八》第七節來的：

In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. In so far as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not form a class.

既然數百萬家庭的經濟條件使他們的生活方式、利益和教育程度與其他階級的生活方式、利益和教育程度各不相同並互相敵對，所以他們就形成一個階級。由於各個小農彼此間只存在有地域的聯繫，由於他們利益的同一性並不使他們彼此間形成任何的共同關係，形成任何的全國性的聯繫，形成任何一種政治組織，所以他們就沒有形成一個階級。

The Dictionary goes into lengthy detail on the history of evolving understandings of class in Marxism for those who are interested.

《辭典》有仔細介紹在馬克思主義中階級理解的變化，有興趣可以去讀。

colonization, empire, imperialism, and proletarianization 殖民化、帝國、帝國主義和無產階級化

Earlier I said that capitalism is a system of waged labor as perpetual self-colonization. Colonization is a form of domination or exploitation of a group for the purpose of maintaining empire, a type of hierarchy. An empire is a state produced by imperialism. Imperialism, as Lenin famously called it, is the highest stage of capitalism; it is the deliberate annexation, invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing, or underdevelopment of external territories for profit internal to the empire. However, colonialism need not always be tied to capitalism in the traditional Marxist-Leninist sense. In “The ABC of Decolonization,” Rowland “Ena͞emaehkiw” Keshena Robinson points out that settler colonialism of Indigenous peoples in the northern bloc was not “a project of the exploitation of Native labour” but “a project of the elimination of Native nations and sovereignty through various overlapping means.”

之前我說過資本主義就是把僱傭的勞工作為不停的自我殖民化的系統。殖民化就是為了維持帝國而宰制或剝削一個群體的形式，是一種等級制度。帝國就是被帝國主義產生的國家。帝國主義，正如列寧說的一樣，就是資本主義的最高階段；是有意為帝國之內的利潤而吞併、侵略、佔領、種族清洗或不發達外部的領地。然而，殖民化並不一定跟傳統馬克思列寧主義認識的資本主義有關係。在〈去殖民化的 ABC〉)之中，Rowland “Ena͞emaehkiw” Keshena Robinson 說明定居殖民主義在北方集團之內並不是「剝削原住民勞工的計劃」而是「通過各種重疊的方式消除原住民族群跟主權。」

Colonization can be external, like settlers driving Indigenous people out of colonized land, or it can be internal, like the proletarianization of people within an empire. The proletariat (in Mandarin, the class without the means of production), as defined by disaffected communists in “The Re-emergence and Eclipse of the Proletariat,” is:

殖民化可以是外部的，像是定居者把原住民的趕出要殖民的土地，也可以是內部的，像是在帝國之內人民的無產階級化。無產階級，按照不滿的共產主義者在〈無產階級的重現與全蝕〉之中做的定義，就是：

the dispossessed: those without unmediated access to means of subsistence or means of production. Many proletarians are forced to sell their labor-power for a wage in order to meet basic conditions of survival. Others are not so (un)lucky. Thus, not all proletarians are ‘working class’ in the narrow sense of the term. The proletariat is a far more motley and uneven composition in which the only shared condition is dispossession. For this reason, proletarian struggle is not and has never been limited to the labor movement.

被剝奪財產的人：無法不通過中介使用生存手段或是生產手段的人。許多的無產者為了要滿足基本的生存條件會通過僱用強迫賣掉自己的勞動力。其他的人並那麼的（不）幸運。因此，不是所有的無產者都是狹義的「勞動階級」。無產階級是個更雜亂和不平均的合成物，唯一共同的條件就是財產被剝奪。為了這個原因，無產階級的鬥爭現在和從來都沒有限制到勞工運動。

Why would an empire proletarianize its own people? Because the goal of empire is not to enrich all its people, only to enrich its ruling class. On this basis both internally and externally colonized people should struggle in solidarity. Internal proletarians who refuse to oppose empire, who instead are content with accepting the profits that empire shares with them, who are willing to forget the oppressive origins of this profit for the sake of protecting their material comfort, are the enemy.

為什麼帝國要無產階級化自己的人？因為帝國的目的不是要讓它所有的人民獲利，只是要讓它的統治階級獲利。以這個基礎內部與外部被殖民化的人兩邊都該有團結的鬥爭。拒絕反抗帝國的內部無產者，反而希望滿足地接受帝國願意分享給他們的利潤，願意為了保護自己在物質上的舒服忘掉這利潤的壓迫性由來，就是最大的敵人。

oppression versus marginalization 壓迫跟邊緣化的差別

Oppression is the domination or exploitation of a group. A hierarchy is an oppressive system of power; oppression is the enforcement of hierarchy.

壓迫就是宰制或剝削一群的情形。等級制度也就是有壓迫性的權力制度；壓迫也就是等級制度的執行。

Marginalization is a term which I feel like has been co-opted and watered down to the point of near-uselessness. My generous definition for it is exclusion of one group for the sake of securing the superior status of another; that superior status is called privilege. Marginalization always follows from oppression, but the presence of marginalization doesn't always mean there's oppression. Marginalization, to me, is like a threat of oppression. When oppression is present the threat is always there. But when oppression is absent, the threat is an attempt to prefigure society, to prepare it for accepting an oppression that can be realized in the future. In this regard, it can be considered hierarchical.

邊緣化是個被盜用跟弱化到對我來說幾乎變成沒用的術語的地步。我大方做出來的定義就是為了要保護一群的優越地位而排斥另一群的情形；那優越的地位就叫做特權。壓迫總是會產生邊緣化的結果，但有邊緣化不一定表示有壓迫。邊緣化，對我來說，算是要壓迫的威脅。當壓迫在場的時候隨時都有威脅。但當壓迫不在場的時候，威脅是個預備社會的試圖，要讓社會準備接受未來能實現的壓迫。在那方面，邊緣化能算是有等級制度的特性。

Marginalization is primarily concerned with social exclusion; thus I find that most people who rely on the concept of marginalization to talk about politics often make othering among individuals the central point, instead of focusing on systemic problems. If they bring up evidence of discrimination beyond individual interactions, it's to get others to take them seriously as opposed to argue for any specific political program. I am not going to mince words—most of these people are liberals or radlibs. Radlibs are liberals who co-opt radical or revolutionary politics; no radlib calls themself a radlib—they'll nebulously call themselves “leftists” or “progressives.” I know because I've been one.

邊緣化大部分主要關心的是在社交方面的排斥；因此我發現依賴邊緣化的概念來討論政治的人常常把中心點作為個人之間創造的他者化，不是在注意根本性的問題。如果要提出超越個人互動的歧視證據的話，目的是希望別人能認真地對待他們，不是為了說理某種政治綱領。直言不諱—這些人大部分都是自由主義或是激進自由主義份子。激進自由主義份子就是盜用激進或革命性政治的自由主義者；沒有人會自稱是激進自由主義份子—他們會模糊地說自己是「左派」或是「進步主義者」。我當過所以知道。

So what do these people want? They want to be included, represented, seen as valid, normalized, or accepted without regard to a norm. In other words, they want to be assimilated or integrated into society. Is that so wrong?

所以這些人要的是什麼？他們要被共融、被代表、被視為合理、被正常化或是不顧準則地被接受。換句話說，他們要的是被同化或是跟社會成為一體。難道這是有問題嗎？

It's a question, because most of the time, for me, these expectations for society are not enough. In The Revolution of Everyday Life, Raoul Vaneigem says: “The proletariat’s problem is no longer how to seize power but how to abolish Power forever.” I do not want to raise the social status denied to me by privileged people, but to completely abolish privilege and all forms of hierarchical power. I do not want to be embraced by the society of privileged people—I want to completely destroy it. I don't care if we share the same experiences of marginalization—I care if we share the same goals on the level of politics. And if you still don't know what those are, I don't have time to wait.

的確是問題，因為大部分的時候，對我來說，這些都是對社會不夠的期望。在《日常生活的革命》之中，拉烏爾．范內格姆說：「無產階級的問題不再是要攫取權力而是廢除大勸力的永遠。」我要的不是提升自己被特權人否定的社會地位，而是完全廢除特權和所有等級制度性的權力形式。我不想在特權人的社會中受到歡迎—我要的是完全破壞那個社會。我不在乎我們有沒有共同被邊緣化的經驗—我在乎的是我們在政治上有沒有共同的目標。而且如果你還不知道那些目標是什麼的話，我沒時間等你搞清。

within and beyond oppositional affiliation: “queer,” “leftist,” “liberationist” 在對立性關係的之間和之外：「酷兒」、「左派」、「解放派」

What do I mean by “oppositional affiliation?” I mean that both “queer” and “leftist” are all defined according to some opposing concept: the opposite of queer is cisheteronormativity, and the opposite of the political left is the political right. Thus, queer can be negatively defined as any gender or orientation that goes against cisheteronormativity, and leftism can be defined as any political ideology or thinking that goes against that of the right. Furthermore, identifying as queer or leftist affiliates you with other queer people or other leftists. There is a demand that you answer to the imagined community of queer people, or to the big tent-style cause of left unity.

我用「對立性關係」這句子的意思到底是什麼？意思就是說，「酷兒」跟「左派」這兩詞都是按照某種對立的概念做出定義：酷兒的對立是順性別加異性戀正統主義，左派的對立是右派。因此，酷兒的消極式定義能說是任何反對順性別加異性戀正統主義的性別和傾向，而左派的否定式定義能說是任何反對右派的政治主義和思想。此外，認同自己是酷兒或是左派會讓你跟其他的酷兒或左翼份子的人形成關係。有要求要對想像的酷兒共同體負責，或是對大帳篷式的左翼團結事業負責。

So then what gets to count as going against cisheteronormativity, and what gets to count as going against the right? These subjective categorizations will reveal your political position and those you recognize (or refuse to recognize) as your political enemies. I'm against definitions of queer that refuse to recognize any political enemies, that treat queerness as a complete matter of personal identity and not as a political alliance against cisheteronormativity; it's both. I'm against definitions of the left that haphazardly recognize political enemies, that treat leftist as a synonym for “being a good person” and “bad people” as political enemies, that have no political programs in mind besides disciplining everyone into accepting a certain moral view.

那什麼才算是在反對順性別加異性戀正統主義，什麼才算是在反對右派？這些主觀性的分配會泄露出來你的政治立場和你所認識（或拒絕認識）的政治敵人。我反對拒絕認識有任何政治敵人的酷兒定義，把酷兒當作完全是個人認同感的東西而不是反順性別加異性戀正統主義的政治聯盟的定義；酷兒兩個都是。我反對隨意認識政治敵人的左派定義，把左翼份子當作是「當好人」的同意詞和「壞人」當做是政治敵人的定義，除了要規訓大家接受某種道德觀沒有其他政治綱領的定義。

I am not interested in debating who gets to identify as queer or leftist. What I am interested in is getting the hell away from people whose politics I want nothing to do with. If queer community or left unity means I have to abandon anarchy and communism, then count me out. I don't care about shared experiences, but shared goals. I don't care for shared goals defined by the lowest common political denominator, but by the most extreme praxes that are most capable of arriving at the revolutionary abolition of hierarchy.

我沒興趣去爭誰有資格認同自己是酷兒或是左翼份子。有興趣的是離那些政治讓我反感的人遠一點。如果酷兒的共同體或左翼團結必須要我放棄無治和共產，那就別把我算在內。我重視的不是共同的經驗，而是共同的目標。我要的不是被政治上最小公分母界定的共同目標，而是界定為最極端最能達到完全革除所有等級制度的實踐。

For me, because queerness as a concept only exists due to oppression under cisheterosexism, queer liberation means the abolition of queerness as a social category, and not the reclamation of queerness as a concept of queer joy that “has nothing to do with being oppressed.” Joy under oppression will always be joy limited by oppression. We can act as if we're already free, but unless we are free, we should not pretend that these two are the same thing. Why should I be happy with acting as if the entire class of people think my gender and orientation are wrong do not exist, when I could be happier creating a classless society without any oppression of genders and orientations altogether? Why should I more positively identify with my oppressed class, instead of destroying the oppression that created it?

對我來說，因為酷兒這概念只有因為順性別加異性戀主義的壓迫才會存在，酷兒解放的意思就是廢除酷兒的社會類別，不是把酷兒的概念新取用為「跟被壓迫無關」的酷兒喜悅。在壓迫之下的喜悅也永遠就是被壓迫限制的喜悅。我們可以當作是已經有自由地行動，但除非是我們有了那自由的話，我們不該假裝這兩個是同一樣的事情。為什麼我該樂意地當作一整個認為我的性別跟傾向是不正確階級不存在地行動，而不是去創造讓我更快樂的無性別或傾向壓迫的無階級社會？為什麼我該更積極地認同自己被壓迫的階級，而不是去消滅製造那階級的壓迫？

Speaking of creating oppressed classes, the right, to me, is any political ideology or thinking that seeks to maintain hierarchical systems of power. Because of how “far” I am to the left, my “right” covers a lot of ground. Liberals—those who base their politics on the protection of individual rights—who are often included by U.S. Americans as leftists, are right-wing to me, because they look to the state (a monopoly of violence) for that protection, justify expanding liberal states' monopoly over violence internationally “for everyone's protection,” and have historically associated individual rights with capitalist property rights. Generously, everyone to the left of liberalism for me is “leftist;” more strictly, they also have to be anticapitalist; most polemically, they also have to be antistate (although at this point some anti-left anarchists would rather split off from the left entirely).

說到被壓迫階級的製造，右派，對我來說，就是任何試圖維持等級制度權力系統的政治主義或思想。因為我是那麼「極端」的左，我「右」的範圍很廣。常被美國人歸類於左派的自由主義者—就是把個人權利的保護作為政治基礎的人—對我來說算是右翼，因為他們希望國家（就是暴力的獨佔）能提供那保護、認為「要保護大家」是在國際方面擴大自由主義國家暴力獨占的正當理由、而且在歷史上把個人權利跟資本主義性的產權聯繫在一起。大方地說，所以比自由主義更左的對我來說算是「左派」；再嚴格一點，也要反資本主義；最反調似地說，也要反國家（雖然到了這地步有些反左的無治主義者寧願完全脫離左派這群體）。

A leftist is anyone I tentatively assume is on my side when it comes to certain major issues. Not everyone will be on the same side every time, but we will be on the same side often enough that I cannot easily classify them as political enemies who uphold hierarchy. Instead, they're the ones who I think will most likely be my comrades—those who will take risks together to destroy hierarchies and create liberation. I don't care whether or not you identify as a leftist, but whether or not you're willing to take risks for that political goal, and what risks you're willing to take with me.

左翼份子就是任何我猶豫地認為面對某些重要的問題的時候會是跟我站在同一邊的人。不是每個人每次都會站在同一邊，但會在同一邊的次數大到我不能輕易地把他們歸類於維護等級制度的政治敵人。相反，他們是我認為最有可能的同志—那些會一起承擔風險毀滅等級制度和創造解放的人。我重視的不是你認不認同自己是左翼份子，而是你願不願意為那政治目標承擔風險，願意跟我一起承擔的風險。

Recently, as a positively defined affiliation, I've experimented with using “liberationist” instead of “leftist.” A liberationist is someone who's for liberation, for creating a world where no one's individual power comes at the expense of another's. Liberationism is more precise and demanding than leftism (the anti-right); it requires you to accept the specific program of “liberation.” Even though not every radical or revolutionary politics will use “liberation,” especially my kind of Eurocentrically derived liberation, as its basis, I do search for affinity based on liberation and don't want to pretend that isn't my politics. This is only a problem in English, but liberationism first and foremost is not an ideology (主義) but a sect (派). Additionally, this is a sect I have identified, not one others have identified into. Once again, like “leftist,” it is an inconvenient term of convenience. It outlines what “my side” looks like, outlines what “our” goal ultimately is. It clarifies the “we” of my position. And if you find that this “we” does not include your politics, it's a signal for you to leave.

最近，作為積極性定義的關係，與其「左派」我試圖利用「解放派」。解放派者就是要推行解放的人，要推行不以犧牲別人的權力來維護其他人權力的世界的創造。解放派比左派（反右派）還要更明確，還要要求更多；它需要你接受「解放」特定的綱領。雖然不是每個激進或革命性政治都會以「解放」，尤其是我這種以歐洲為中心而來的解放，為基礎，我的確是按照解放來尋找同寅，也不想假裝這不是我的政治。在英文方面才有的問題，但是解放派（liberationism）首要的不是主義，而是派。此外，這又是我自己確定的派，不是別人自己的認同。跟之前的「左派」一樣，它是為了方便的不方便術語。它略述了「我這一邊」的長相，略述了「我們」這裡的目標到底是什麼。它闡釋我自己立場所謂的「我們」到底是誰。而如果你發現這樣的「我們」不包括你自己政治的話，你便能按照它信號離開。

politics (and for my next trick, i'll eat myself) 政治（看好下一把戲，我要自我吞食）

Politics is the organization of power—that is to say, the organization of the ability to control. To control what? At the most basic level, I'm for the power of controlling one's own life, autonomous power. I'm against all ideologies, behaviors, and systems that attempt to monopolize power. I believe the present world is based on those systems, and so it's necessary to abolish the current state of things before we can have our so-called autonomy.

政治就是權力的組織—也就是說，控制能力的組織。但要控制的是什麼？在最基本的方面，我支持的是控制自己生活的權力，自治的權力。我反對一切試圖獨占權力的主義、行為跟系統。我認為現在的世界就是以這些系統為基礎，所以我認為必須先廢除現行狀況才能擁有所謂的自治。

But these are abstractions, yes? I'm using the universalized concept of “power” to construct the entirety of my criticisms, ahistorically but also unafraid of history. I believe that my definition of “power” is broad enough to account for every problem of interest to me across time and space. But perhaps this broadness still isn't enough. Perhaps I am only classifying everything that looks like what I consider to be “power” as power, and following the same method to diagnose “domination,” “exploitation,” “class,” “hierarchy,” and “liberation.” Perhaps “power” and the struggle over and away from it is not the only way to understand history or the present day. Perhaps it is actually my interests that are far too narrow.

可是這都是抽象，不是嗎？我是在利用「權力」這普篇化的概念來創造一切的批評，不顧史實但也不怕史實。我認為我為「權力」做的定義夠廣泛，能解釋所有時空之內對我有興趣的問題。但或許這樣的廣泛還是不夠。我只是把一切所有看起來像我視為「權力」一樣的東西歸類成權力，再按照同樣的方式診斷「宰制」、「剝削」、「階級」、「等級制度」、「解放」。或許「權力」和為了爭取和逃避「權力」的鬥爭不必是解釋歷史或現今唯一的方法。或許太狹窄的其實是我自己的興趣。

When I extend solidarity to other movements and moments of resistance against Power, what am I really doing? Is it really solidarity or am I just assimilating their resistance under my ideology to make it legible to me? But what if I refused to extend solidarity based on similarity? What if I treated solidarity like an assemblage, and resistance like lines of flight converging and diverging? Let me stop thinking of my resistance as a totality. Let me give up the hope of explaining and integrating all resistance with my theory. Let these definitions sketch out some basic principles—then let me rebuild my understanding in the midst of every resistance, putting those principles to the test.

當我向其他反大勸力的抵抗運動和行動給予團結，我到底在做什麼事？這樣真的是團結嗎，還是我只是在自己的主義之下同化他們的抵抗，讓自己能辨認出來？但如果我拒絕用相似度來給予團結的話，那樣行嗎？如果我把團結當作是一種聚合體，和和抵制當作會合跟分叉的逃逸路線的話，這樣能不能辦？讓我不再把自己的抵制當作是整體。讓我放棄用我的理論解釋和融合所有抵制的希望。讓這些定義勾勒一些基本的原則—然後讓我在每一場抵制之中重新建造理解，對這些原則考驗。