My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
我今天的目的是要提出兩個主要觀點：（1）展示為什麼納粹德國是一個社會主義國家，而不是一個資本主義國家。以及（2）展示為什麼社會主義，被理解為基於政府擁有生產手段的經濟體制，必然需要一個極權獨裁統治。
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
將納粹德國視為一個社會主義國家，是路德維希· von 米塞斯許多偉大貢獻之一。
When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?
當我們記得「納粹」這個詞是「德國國家社會主義工人黨」的縮寫——在英語翻譯中是「National Socialist German Workers' Party」時，米塞斯的這種認定可能看起來並不是那麼引人注目。因為一個以「社會主義」命名的政黨所統治的國家的經濟體制，難道不應該是社會主義嗎？
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
然而，除了米塞斯和他的讀者之外，幾乎沒有人將納粹德國視為一個社會主義國家。普遍的看法是，它代表了一種資本主義的形式，這是共產黨和其他所有馬克思主義者所主張的。
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
納粹德國被認為是資本主義的根據，在於納粹德國的大多數工業似乎仍由私人擁有。
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
米塞斯指出，在納粹時期，生產手段的所有權僅僅是形式上的，實際的所有權權力則掌握在德國政府手中。是德國政府而非名义上的私人擁有者行使了所有權的所有實質性權力：是德國政府決定生產什麼、生產多少、使用什麼方法、以及產品分發給誰，還有價格和工資如何設定，以及私人擁有者被允許獲得多少股息或其他收入。米塞斯顯示，所謂的私人擁有者的地位基本上等同於政府退休人員。
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
事實上由政府掌控生產手段，正如米塞斯所稱，這在納粹主義所秉持的基本集體主義原則中是合乎邏輯的推論，這些原則認為公共利益應優先於私人利益，而個體的存在是為了國家的目的。如果個體是為了國家目的而存在，那麼當然，他的財產也是為了國家目的而存在。正如個體被國家擁有，他的財產同樣被國家擁有。
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
但是，納粹德國事實上的社會主義確立的具體因素，是 1936 年引入的價格和工資控制。這些控制是對納粹主義從 1933 年初上台後實施的貨幣供應量膨脹作出的反應。納粹主義通過膨脹貨幣供應量來籌集公共工程、補貼和再-armament 計劃所需的巨大政府支出。價格和工資控制是對隨著貨幣供應量膨脹而開始上升的價格作出的反應。
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
通膨與價格及工資控制的結合效果是造成供不应求，也就是人們嘗試購買的商品數量超過可供銷售的商品數量。
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.
供不应求又導致經濟混亂。不僅是那些清晨就到商店的消費者能夠搶購完所有商品，而讓後來到的消費者一無所得——政府通常會採取配給制來應對這種情況。供不应求在整個經濟體系中引發混亂。它在地理區域之間、生產要素在不同產品之間、勞動和資本在不同經濟部門之間引入了隨機性。
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
面對價格控制和供應短缺的結合，物品供應減少的效應並非如自由市場那樣，提高價格並增加盈利，從而阻止供應減少，或若供應減少過度則反轉供應減少。價格控制禁止價格上漲，從而阻止盈利增加。同時，價格控制導致的短缺阻止供應增加降低價格和盈利。當存在短缺時，供應增加的效果僅僅是減輕短缺的程度。只有在短缺完全消除時，供應增加才需要降低價格並帶來盈利減少。
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
因此，價格控制與短缺的結合，使得供應的隨機變動不再影響價格和盈利性。在這種情況下，即使是最微不足道和不重要的商品，如寵物石頭，其生產也可以在最迫切需要和重要的商品，如救命藥物的生產受到影響的情況下擴大，而對兩種商品的價格或盈利性均無影響。價格控制會阻止藥物的生產因供應減少而變得更為盈利，而即使寵物石頭供應減少，其生產也不會因供應增加而變得不那麼盈利。
As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.
如米塞斯所顯示的，為了應對價格控制帶來的這些未預見的影響，政府必須 EITHER 廢除價格控制 OR 加入更多的措施，即對生產什麼、生產多少、使用什麼方法以及分配給誰的精確控制，這正是我之前提到的。價格控制與這些附加控制的結合，事實上等於將經濟體制社會化。因為這意味著政府行使了所有實質上的所有權權力。
This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.
這是納粹主義實行的社會主義。而米塞斯稱之為德國或納粹模式的社會主義，與蘇聯或布尔什维克模式的社會主義相比，後者的社會主義特徵更加明顯。
Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)
當然，社會主義並不能終結由價格體系破壞所造成的混亂。它只是持續著這種混亂。如果在沒有價格控制的前提下引入社會主義，其效果就是啟動這種混亂。因為社會主義並不是一個積極的經濟體系。它僅僅是資本主義及其價格體系的否定。因此，社會主義的本質與價格和工資控制所導致的經濟混亂本質上是一致的。（我想指出的是，布尔什维克式社會主義強制實施生產配額制度，並在各處設置超額完成配額的激勵，這是一種確保普遍短缺的確切公式，就如同在全面價格和工資控制下所存在的那樣。）
At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government’s control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.
至多，社會主義僅僅改變了混亂的方向。政府對生產的控制可能使某些對政府特別重要的商品生產得以增加，但這只是以整個經濟體系的其他部分陷入混亂為代價。這是因為政府無法知道其確保生產這些重要商品對整個經濟體系的影響。
The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.
價格和工資控制制度的執行需求，對社會主義的獨裁本質提供了重大啟示——最顯然的是德國或納粹社會主義的獨裁本質，同樣也包括蘇聯式社會主義的獨裁本質。
We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?
我們可以從這樣一個事實開始：在價格控制下運作的賣方的財務利益是逃避價格控制並提高價格。否則無法獲得商品的買家願意，甚至樂於支付這些較高的價格，以確保他們想要的商品。在這種情況下，價格為什麼不會上漲，並導致龐大的黑市發展？
The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.
答案是結合嚴厲的懲罰與極大的被逮到的可能性，以及實際遭受這些懲罰。單純的罰款不太可能提供足夠的阻嚇力。它們將被視為額外的營業費用。如果政府-serious about its price controls，它必須施加與重大重罪相當的懲罰。
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
但單純存在這些懲罰是不夠的。政府必須讓進行黑市交易變得實際上很危險。政府必須讓人們害怕在進行這種交易時可能會被警察發現，最終入獄。為了創造這種恐懼，政府必須培養一支間諜和秘密舉報人的軍隊。例如，政府必須讓店家和顧客害怕，如果他們進行黑市交易，店裡的其他顧客可能會向警方舉報他們。
Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.
由於許多黑市交易可以在隱私和秘密中進行，政府必須讓任何考慮進行黑市交易的人害怕對方可能會是警察特務，想要陷害他。政府必須讓人們害怕甚至他們的長期合作伙伴、朋友和親屬，以免他們竟然成為密告者。
And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.
最後，為了獲得判決，政府必須將黑市交易中無罪或有罪的決定權交給行政法庭或其現場的警察人員。它不能依賴陪審團審判，因為很少有陪審團願意在案件中作出有罪判決，而在這些案件中，一個人因售出幾磅肉或一雙鞋子超出 Ceiling 价格而入獄幾年是可能的。
In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
总而言之一句，僅僅是執行價格控制規範，就需要採用極權國家的基本特徵，即設立「經濟犯罪」類別，將和平追求物質利益視為犯罪行為，並建立充滿密探和告密者的極權警察機制，擁有任意逮捕和監禁的權力。
Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)
顯然，實施價格控制需要類似希特勒德國或斯大林俄羅斯的政府，在這種政府中，幾乎任何人都可能成為警察密探，並且存在秘密警察並擁有逮捕和監禁人民的權力。如果政府不願意採取這種程度的措施，那麼，到這種程度為止，其價格控制將無法執行並簡單地失效。黑市於是佔據了重要地位。（顺便提一下，這一切並不是說價格控制是納粹實施恐怖統治的原因。納粹在價格控制頒布之前很久就開始了他們的恐怖統治。因此，他們在一個已經準備好價格控制執行環境的背景下頒布了價格控制。）
Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government’s regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.
黑市活動涉及進一步犯罪。在事實上的社會主義下，黑市生產和銷售商品意味著違背政府關於生產和分配的規定，以及違背其價格控制。例如，政府本意是將這些商品按照其計劃進行分配，而不是在黑市銷售。用來生產這些商品的生產要素同樣是政府計劃中的用途，而不是為了供應黑市。
Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.
在法律上明確將生產手段歸屬於政府的社會主義體制下，例如蘇聯時期的社會主義，所有黑市活動必然涉及對國家財產的挪用或盜竊。例如，在蘇聯時期，那些將產品出售到黑市的工廠工人或管理者，被視為盜用了國家提供的原材料。
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government’s economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.
此外，在任何種類的社會主義國家，無論是納粹或共產主義，政府的經濟計劃都是國家最高法律的一部分。我們對社會主義所謂的計劃過程的混亂狀態都有所了解。工人和管理者將材料和供應品轉移以供黑市生產，這種行為從邏輯上說，社會主義國家有權將其視為對國家經濟計劃的破壞，而社會主義國家的法律也確實將其視為破壞。這一事實與此一致，在社會主義國家，黑市活動往往會受到死刑的懲處。
Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual’s economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual’s life a nightmare.
現在，我認為社會主義下普遍存在的恐怖統治之所以能夠得以施行，主要是因為社會主義國家在對待其公民方面所面臨的難以置信的困境。 一方面，它承擔著完全保障個人經濟福祉的責任。 俄國或布爾什維克式的社會主義公開宣稱這一點，這也是其廣受歡迎的主要原因。 另一方面，無論從何種方式來看，社會主義國家都把這項工作做得一塌糊塗，使得個人的生活變成了一場噩夢。
Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.
每一位社會主義國家的公民，每天都要花時間排無盡的長隊。對他來說，美國人在 1970 年代汽油短缺時所經歷的問題是常態；他並不是在汽油方面經歷這些問題——因為他沒有車，也沒有希望擁有車——而是他在衣服、蔬菜，甚至面包等簡單物品方面經歷這些問題。更糟糕的是，他經常被迫做一份不喜歡的工作，因此他一定會恨這份工作。（因為在短缺情況下，政府會決定勞動力的分配，就像決定生產要素的分配一樣。）他還生活在令人難以置信的過度拥挤中，幾乎沒有隱私的機會。（面對住房短缺，政府會分配房客；家庭被迫共用公寓。為了限制在國家較為理想的地區住房短缺的嚴重程度，政府還採用了內部護照和签证制度。）簡言之，被迫生活在這種環境中的人一定會充滿怨恨和敵意。
Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
現在，公民們對誰表現出更多的怨恨和敵意會更加合理呢？對他們來說，應該是那同一個社會主義國家本身。這個社會主義國家宣稱對他們的生活負責，承諾他們將過上幸福的生活，而事實上卻讓他們過著地獄般的生活。事實上，社會主義國家的領導人每天都在鼓勵人民相信，社會主義是一個完美的體制，其不良的結果只能是惡人所為。如果這是真的，那麼這些惡人能是誰呢？除了那些已經讓生活成為地獄的當權者之外，還有誰呢？他們不僅歪曲了一個據稱完美的體制，還用它來達成這些目的。
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
因此，社會主義國家的統治者必須生活在人民的恐懼之中。他們的行為邏輯和教誨表明，人民的沸騰和激動的怨恨應該湧現並在血腥報復的狂歡中將他們吞噬。統治者們意識到這一點，即使他們不公開承認；因此，他們最大的擔憂總是保持對公民的控制。
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
因此，僅僅說社會主義缺乏新聞自由和言论自由是正確的，但卻非常不夠。當然，它缺乏這些自由。如果政府擁有所有報紙和出版社，如果它決定新聞紙和紙張用於何種目的，那麼顯然任何政府不希望印刷的內容都無法印刷。如果政府擁有所有會議廳，那麼任何政府不希望發表的公開演說或講座都無法進行。但是，社會主義遠遠超出了僅僅缺乏新聞自由和言论自由的範疇。
A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.
一個社會主義政府會完全剷除這些自由。它會將媒體和每一個公共論壇轉變為為其自身狂熱宣傳的工具，並對任何敢於稍微偏离其官方黨線的人進行不懈的迫害。
The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers’ terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work ‘round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people’s attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people’s misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers’ terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.
這些事實的原因在於社會主義統治者對人民的恐懼。為了保護自己，他們必須命令宣傳部和秘密警察日夜不停地工作。宣傳部負責不斷地將人民的注意力從社會主義及其統治者對人民困苦的責任上轉移開。秘密警察則負責將任何可能暗示社會主義或其統治者責任的人悄悄地消除，並讓這些人開始展現獨立思考的跡象。正是由於統治者的恐懼，以及他們對找替罪羊來解釋社會主義失敗的急切需求，所以社會主義國家的媒體總是充斥著關於外國陰謀和破壞活動的報導，以及下屬官員的腐敗和管理不善的報導，並且每隔一段時間就需要揭露大型國內陰謀，並在大規模整肅中犧牲重要官員和整個派系。
It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.
由於他們的恐懼，以及他們迫切需要壓制任何潛在的對抗，社會主義的統治者不敢允許任何不受國家控制的純粹文化活動。如果人們僅僅為了參加一次不受國家控制的藝術展或詩人朗讀會而聚集，統治者便會擔心危險思想的傳播。任何未經授權的思想都是危險的，因為它們可能會讓人們開始獨立思考，從而開始思考社會主義及其統治者的本質。統治者必須害怕房間裡幾個自发聚集的人，並利用秘密警察及其間諜、告密者和恐怖手段，要么阻止這些會議，要么確保其內容從國家的角度看完全無害。
Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.
社會主義若非靠恐怖手段長時間統治，否則難以維持。一旦恐怖手段鬆弛，統治者便會受到怨恨和敵對情緒的邏輯反彈。於是，革命或內戰便成為必然。事實上，在缺乏恐怖手段，或更正確地說，缺乏足夠的恐怖手段的情況下，社會主義將會經歷無休止的革命和內戰，因為每一批新的統治者都證明自己與之前的統治者一樣，無法成功運行社會主義體制。由此可得出的不變結論是，社會主義國家經歷的恐怖手段並非僅僅是像斯大林這樣的惡人所為，而是源自社會主義體制的本質。斯大林之所以能崛起，正是因為他異常願意且機靈地使用恐怖手段，這些特徵正是社會主義統治者為了維持權力所最需要的。他通過社會主義自然選擇的過程躋身高位：選出最差的。
I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.
我必須預先預防一個可能的誤解，關於我的論點：社會主義本質上就是極權主義。這涉及到由社會民主黨統治的所謂社會主義國家，例如瑞典和其他北歐國家，這些國家顯然不是極權主義獨裁政體。
In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.
在這種情況下，有必要意識到這些國家不僅不是極權主義，也並不是社會主義國家。他們的執政黨可能將社會主義作為他們的哲學和最終目標，但他們實際上實施的經濟體制並不是社會主義。他們實際上的經濟體制是米塞斯所謂的受阻市場經濟。雖然在重要方面比我們自己的經濟體制更受阻，但他們的經濟體制在本質上與我們自己的經濟體制相似，生產和經濟活動的主要推動力不是政府的命令，而是私人所有者受私人利潤前景驅動的主動性。
The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.
社會民主黨人在掌權後並未建立社會主義，原因在於他們不願採取必要的行動。將生產手段轉為社會主義經濟體制所需的是一場巨大的掠奪行為——生產手段必須從其所有者手中強行奪取並轉交給國家。這種掠奪幾乎可以肯定會引發所有者的強烈抵抗，而這種抵抗只能通過使用巨大的武力來克服。
The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.
共產黨人過去和現在都願意使用這種武力，這在蘇維埃俄羅斯得到了證明。他們的本性就像武裝搶劫者，準備在必要時殺人以完成他們的搶劫。相比之下，社會民主黨人的本性更像扒手，他們可能口頭上說有朝一日要幹大案，但實際上他們並願意去做那種需要殺人的事，因此在遇到任何嚴重抵抗的跡象時就會放棄。
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
對於納粹分子而言，他們通常不需要殺人便能佔有除猶太人之外的德國人的財產。這是因为，如前所述，他們通過價格控制悄悄地建立了社會主義，這些價格控制維持了私人財產權的外在表象。因此，私人所有者在不知情的情況下失去了他們的財產，也就沒有必要用武力來保護它。
I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.
我认为我已经证明了，社會主義（真正的社會主義）本质上就是極權主義。
In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.
目前在美国，我們並沒有任何形式的社会主義。我们也没有獨裁，更不用說極權獨裁了。
We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship. We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed.
我們還沒有法西斯主義，雖然我們正在朝這個方向發展。其中必不可少的要素還缺少一個，那就是一黨統治和新聞檢查。我們仍然擁有言論自由和新聞自由，以及自由選舉，雖然這些都受到了削弱，其持續存在也不能得到保證。
What we have is a hampered market economy that is growing ever more hampered by ever more government intervention, and that is characterized by a growing loss of individual freedom. The growth of the government’s economic intervention is synonymous with a loss of individual freedom because it means increasingly initiating the use of physical force to make people do what they do not voluntarily choose to do or prevent them from doing what they do voluntarily choose to do.
我們所面對的是一个受到越來越多政府干預的市場經濟，這個經濟體制正日益受到干預的限制，並且個體自由正在逐漸流失。政府經濟干預的擴大等同於個體自由的流失，因為這意味著越來越多地使用物理強制力來讓人們做他們不情願做的事情，或者阻止他們做他們情願做的事情。
Since the individual is the best judge of his own interests, and at least as a rule seeks to do what it is in his interest to do and to avoid doing what harms his interest, it follows that the greater the extent of government intervention, the greater the extent to which individuals are prevented from doing what benefits them and are instead compelled to do what causes them loss.
由於個體是最了解自己利益的人，至少在大多數情況下，個體會追求有利於自己的行為，並避免損害自身利益的行為，因此可以推論，政府干預程度越深，個體就越難做有益於自己的事情，反而被迫去做損害自身的事情。
Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.
今日，在美國，政府支出，包括聯邦、州和地方的支出，已幾乎佔去不為政府工作公民 Monetary 收入的一半。十五個聯邦部長部門，以及數量更多的聯邦監管機構，通常在大多數情況下與州和地方的對應部門一起，定期侵入個人公民生活的幾乎每一領域。他無數次地被徵稅、強迫和禁止。
The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.
如此巨大的政府干預效果是失業率上升、物價上漲、實質工資下降、需要工作更長時間和更努力，以及經濟不確定性增加。進一步的效果是怒火和怨恨的增長。
Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.
雖然政府的干預主義政策是他們邏輯上的目標，但人們感到的怒火和怨恨通常卻指向商人和富人。這是一種錯誤，大多數是由於一個无知且嫉妒的知識界和媒體所煽動的。
And in conformity with this attitude, since the collapse of the stock market bubble, which was in fact created by the Federal Reserve’s policy of credit expansion and then pricked by its temporary abandonment of that policy, government prosecutors have adopted what appears to be a particularly vengeful policy toward executives guilty of financial dishonesty, as though their actions were responsible for the widespread losses resulting from the collapse of the bubble. Thus the former head of a major telecommunications company was recently given a twenty-five year prison sentence. Other top executives have suffered similarly.
而與此態度一致，自股市泡沫崩潰以來，該泡沫實際上是由聯邦準備局的信用擴張政策所造就，並因聯邦準備局暫時放棄該政策而被刺破，政府檢察官採取了一種特別報復性的政策，針對那些因金融不誠實而受罪的執行長，似乎他們的行為應對廣泛損失負責任。因此，某大型電信公司的前總裁最近被判二十五年監禁。其他高級執行長也遭受了類似的命運。
Even more ominously, the government’s power to obtain mere criminal indictments has become equivalent to the power to destroy a firm, as occurred in the case of Arthur Andersen, the major accounting firm. The threatened use of this power was then sufficient to force major insurance brokerage firms in the United States to change their managements to the satisfaction of New York State’s Attorney General. There is no way to describe such developments other than as conviction and punishment without trial and as extortion by the government. These are major steps along a very dangerous path.
更加令人不安的是，政府取得普通刑事指控的權力已經等同於摧毀一家企業，例如 Arthur Andersen 會計事務所的案例。這種權力威脅的使用，足以迫使美國的主要保險經紀公司改變管理層，以符合紐約州總檢察長的意願。這些發展無法用其他方式描述，只能說是無罪推定被破壞，政府的脅迫行為。這些都是走向非常危險道路的重大步驟。
Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.
幸運的是，在美國仍然有足夠的自由來糾正所造成的所有損傷。首先，有公開命名它並譴責它的自由。
More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.
更根本的是，有分析和批駁那些導致採用或可能採用的破壞性政策的思潮的自由。而這正是關鍵所在。因為干預主義以及當然還有社會主義，無論是納粹還是共產主義，其根本因素不過是錯誤的思潮，尤其是關於經濟學和哲學的錯誤思潮。
There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.
現在已經有一大體系且不斷增長的文獻，這些文獻在這兩個關鍵領域提出了穩健的觀點。依我之見，這類文獻中最重要兩位作者是路德維希· von 米塞斯和艾倫·蘭德。對他們著作的廣泛了解是成功捍衛個人自由和自由市場不可或缺的前提。
