• 标题：
• 来源：
• 原文作者： Murray N. Rothbard

几十年来，保守主义的信徒把“国际共产主义是铁板一块”视作不证自明的一条公理。亦即，所有赤色政权的每一个方面、每一个表现都仅是单纯的邪恶，（因为只 从定义上来看它就是“无神论的”和/或极权主义的）并且他们中的每一个成员都必然xx一样。

For one thing, this meant that all Communist parties everywhere were of necessity simply "agents of Moscow." It took conservatives years to disabuse themselves of this mythology (which was true only during the 1930s and most of the 1940s). Tito's courageous break with Stalin and world Communism in 1948 was considered a trivial exception; and for many years after the bitter China-Russia split, conservatives clung to the fond hope that this split must be a hoax designed to deceive the West. However, now that China has shifted from attacking Russia for not being opposed enough to US imperialism, to urging the United States ever onward to a war with Russia; and now that the Vietnamese Communists have crushed the Cambodian Communist regime in a lightning thrust, this myth of a world Communist monolith has at last had to be abandoned.

这就是说，世界各地的GCD都不过是“莫斯科的代理人”罢了。但仅仅在1930年代至1940年代的大部分时间里，这个判断才算得上正确。保守主义者花了 很长时间才从这个幻觉中摆脱出来。铁托于1948年与斯大林的和世界共产主义的勇敢的决裂被看作是无关紧要的例外；而即便是在尖刻的中苏论战很多年过后， 保守主义者仍然顽固的认为这不过是双方为了愚弄西方而耍的把戏。不管怎么说，如今中国的立场已经从仇视苏俄对美帝国主义不够坚决滑动到敦促美国注意俄国的 战争危险上来；越南GCD也对高棉的赤色政权发动了闪电突袭，关于共产世界铁板一块的迷思到底还是破裂了。

Why should all Communist parties and groups necessarily form a monolith? The standard conservative answer is that Communists all have the same ideology, that they are all Marxist-Leninists, and that therefore they should necessarily be united. In the first place, this is an embarrassingly naive view of ideological movements. Christians, too, are supposed to have the same religion and therefore should be united, but the historical record of inter-Christian warfare has been all too clear. Secondly, Marx, while eager enough to criticize feudalist and "capitalis" society, was almost ludicrously vague on what the future Communist society was supposed to look like, and what Communist regimes were supposed to do once their revolution had triumphed. If the same Bible has been used to support an enormous and discordant variety of interpretations and creeds, the paucity of details in Marx has allowed for an even wider range of strategies and actions by Communist regimes.

为什么一切赤色政党与团体都必然要团结一致呢？标准的保守主义回答是“共产主义者持有同样的意识形态，他们都是xxx-列宁主义者，因此他们肯定要团结在 一起。”首先，这是对于意识形态运动令人尴尬的幼稚观点。基督徒也被看作是拥有相同宗教观点的人，所以也应该团结在一起。但是我们都对历史上基督教文明圈 内的战争了解的一清二楚。其次，xxx在热心的批判封建主义和“资本主义”社会的同时，对将来的共产主义社会该是怎样、共产政权在革命成功后该怎样行动， 仅有着荒唐模糊的描述。如果同一本《xx》可以支撑数不清的互相分歧的解释与信条，那么xxx那缺乏细节的论述也能允许不同的共产政权在更广范围内选择自 己的战略与行动。

Moreover, ideology is not all. As libertarians should be aware, whenever any group, regardless of ideology, takes over a State, it immediately constitutes a ruling class over the people and the land governed by that State. It immediately acquires interests of State, which can readily clash with the interests of other State ruling classes, regardless of ideology. The splits between Yugoslavia and Russia, China and Russia, and now Vietnam and Cambodia, were mixtures in varying proportions of inter-State and ideological clashes. And generally when one of these conflicts launched the fray, the other soon caught up.

  不仅如此，意识形态还不是一切。正如自由至上主义者应该意识到的，任何团体（不管持有怎样的意识形态）一旦控制了国家机器，就会立刻产生出一个跃居人 民之上的统治阶级，并产生一个由政府控制的领域。该团体会立刻拿到国家的利益，并且这一行为很容易就会与其他国家的统治阶级的利益发生冲突——不论意识形 态如何。发生在南斯拉夫与俄国，中国与俄国，以及如今越南与高哦啊面之间的争论，一部分是因为国家利益的冲突，一部分是因为意识形态上的龃龉。并且通常来 说，在这两个领域中的任何一个发生冲突，都会马上蔓延到另一个领域。

But if everyone must now concede that there can be and are clashes and even bitter warfare between Communist states, libertarians have been slow to realize that Communism is not a monolith in yet another sense — in the sort of "domestic" or internal regime that Communist rulers will impose. There are now vast differences among the various Communist regimes throughout the globe, divergences that literally spell the difference between life and death for a large part of their subject populations. If we want to find out about the world we live in, therefore, it is no longer enough for libertarians to simply equate Communism with badness, and let it go at that.

不过，就算现在大家都承认了在共产国家之间可能并且确实存在冲突甚至严重的战争，自由至上主义者们对“共产国家并非铁板一块”这一命题的另一层含义也理解 的也并不很好——在“国内”或者政权内部，不同的赤色政权所强加的秩序也是不同的。如今世界上不同的赤色政权之间存在着大量的不同，这些分歧确实使得他们 治下的大部分人民之间有了生死一般的差别。如果我们想更好的理解我们所生活的这个世界，自由至上主义者就不能仅仅再满足于简单的把共产主义定义为邪恶，然 后从此不管不顾。

This necessity for grasping distinctions is particularly vital for libertarians: For our ultimate aim is to bring freedom to the entire world, and therefore it makes an enormous difference to us in which direction various countries are moving, whether toward liberty or toward slavery. If, in short, we consider a simplified spectrum of countries or societies, with total freedom at one end and total slavery at the other, different varieties of Communist regimes will range over a considerable length of that spectrum, from the horrifying slave state of Pol Pot's Cambodia all the way to the quasi-free system of Yugoslavia.

抓住这些区别对于自由至上主义者来说显得格外重要：既然我们的最终目的是为整个世界带来自由，那么那些国家正在向哪个方向前进——是自由还是奴役——对于 我们来说就有很大的不同。假如，简单的说，我们设想一个衡量社会或者国家的简单光谱，一端是全面自由，另一端是全面奴役，不同的共产政权在光谱上的分布将 呈现出很大的差异——从波尔布特的柬埔寨这样的恐怖奴隶国家，一直到南斯拉夫这样的准自由体制。

Until World War II, Soviet Russia was the only example of a Communist regime. And even it had gone through remarkable changes. When the Bolsheviks assumed power in late 1917, they tried to leap into full "communism" by abolishing money and prices, an experiment so disastrous (it was later dubbed "War Communism") that Lenin, always the supreme realist, beat a hasty retreat to a mere semisocialist system in the New Economic Policy (NEP). During the mid and late 1920s, the ruling Communist apparatus debated within itself what path to pursue in the future. Nikolai Bukharin, Lenin's favorite theoretician, advocated moving forward to a free-market economy, with peasants allowed to develop their land voluntarily and to purchase manufactured goods from abroad. For a while it looked as if Bukharinism would win out, but then Stalin seized power in the late 1920s and early 1930s and brutally collectivized the peasantry and the rest of the economy, ushering in two decades of the classic Stalinist model: collectivized economy, forced industrialization and political terror.

  直到二战为止，苏俄是{wy}存在的共产政权的实例。就算是这样，它也经历了明显的改变。当布尔什维克在1917年下半叶夺取政权之时，他们尝试着通过废 除货币与价格来直接过渡到xx的“共产主义”，这个实验（在后来被称作战时共产主义）的毁灭性是如此之强，使得列宁（他总是一个超级现实主义者）匆匆地以 新经济政策为名将体制回撤到仅仅是“半社会主义的”程度。在1920年代的中文期，执政的GCD当局在内部有过一场关于未来应走什么道路的辩论。列宁最为 亲睐的理论家尼古拉·布哈林支持自由市场的方案，在那样的经济体系里，农民可以经营自己的土地并从国外购买工业品。在一段时间内，似乎布哈林主义占据了上 风，但是随之而来的事态则是斯大林于1920年代末-1930年代初攫取了权力，并推行了农业和经济集体化。这开启了之后20年的经典斯大林主义模式：集 体化经济，强制工业化，以及政治恐怖。

The Case of Yugoslavia

南夫拉斯的例子

The first break from the Stalinist model was that of Tito, who followed his 1948 political break two years later with a remarkably rapid shift away from the collectivized economy and toward the market. By the late 1960s, Yugoslavia, which had never dared to collectivize agriculture, allowed numerous small private businesses, while the "socially owned sector" had been shifted to producers' coops, owned by the workers in each particular firm. Among these firms, a roughly free-price and free-market system was allowed to operate, and taxes were drastically lowered so that each worker-controlled firm controlled its investments out of its own profits. Along with the shift to the market came the welcoming of foreign investment, the freedom of emigration and return, extreme decentralization for the nationalities within Yugoslavia, and even limited contested elections and limited check by parliament upon the executive.

  斯大林模式的{dy}道裂缝是铁托砸开的。与苏联的政治决裂（1948年）仅仅过去两年，他就随之进行了快速的、显著的改革，将经济从集体体制向自由市场 转变。到了1960年代晚期，从来没有实行过农业集体化的南斯拉夫允许不计其数的小型私人商业自主经营，与此同时，那些“社会所有制企业”也已经转变为生 产者合作社，由各个部门中的工人所拥有。在这些企业之间，一种粗糙的自由价格以及自由市场系统被允许运作，并且他们的税收也非常低，因此每一个工人所有的 企业除掌握了自己的利润之外也掌握了自己的投资.与转向市场经济一道的，是对外来投资的欢迎，移民与回国的自由，南斯拉夫内部国家彻底的xx化，以及有限 的竞争性选举以及有限的议会对行政权的监督。

Even philosophically, the Yugoslavs began to stress the primacy of the individual over the collective; and while political prisoners continue to exist there and free speech is feeble, the contrast with Stalinism is enormous. The Titoites have even decided to take seriously the long-forgotten Marxian promise of the "withering away of the State"; the way to do it, they have concluded, is to start withering. All observers remark that Belgrade and especially Croatian Zagreb are the only Communist cities in the world where the spirit of the people is happy, consumer goods are diverse and plentiful, and life is not simply a dim gray haze of shortages, queueing up, rationing, and enforced silence.

甚至在哲学领域内，南斯拉夫也开始强调个人相对于集体的优先性；随着政治犯不断被释放以及言论自由环境的改善，与斯大林主义之间的矛盾就显得突出了。铁托 主义者甚至已决定严肃考虑蒙尘许久的xxx主义承诺——消灭国家，他们得出结论认为，消灭国家的方法就是开始让它凋零。所有的观察家都注意到贝尔格莱德还 有克罗地亚的萨格勒布是世界上{wy}达到如下成就的赤色城市：人民精神愉快，消费品种类多样，供应充足，生活并非与短缺、排队与敢怒不敢言的黯淡阴霾相伴。

Following Yugoslavia's lead, the rest of Eastern Europe has also gone far along the path to free markets and a price system, although not nearly as far as pioneering Yugoslavia. The least degree of liberalization has occurred in Russia, although even here the status of dissidents today is far better than under Stalin.

跟随着南斯拉夫的榜样，其他的东欧国家也已经在建立自由市场和价格系统的路上走了很远，尽管还没有{lx1}的南斯拉夫走的那么远。自由化程度{zd1}的国家是俄 国，但即便在那里抗议者的待遇也比斯大林时代要好得多。

This does not mean, of course, that Yugoslavia is "libertarian," or that the free market has been fully established there. But it does mean that there is hope for freedom and for the human spirit when Eastern Europe has come so far in a relatively short time from collectivized misery to at least a semifree system. Conservatives have always believed that once a nation goes Communist it is irrevocably doomed — that collectivism, once adopted, is irreversible. Yugoslavia, and to some extent the remainder of Eastern Europe, have shown that this is not true, that the spirit of freedom can never be extinguished.

这并不意味着——很显然——南斯拉夫是“自由至上主义的”，或者自由市场在那里已经被xx的建立了。但东欧国家在较短的时间内走得如此之远，从集体经济的 苦难走向了至少是半自由的体制，这仍然昭示着自由与人类精神的希望。保守主义者总是相信一旦一个国家走向共产主义它就不可挽回地面临着末日——一旦集体主 义变成现实，一切就已不可避免。南斯拉夫——某种程度上其它东欧国家也是——告诉我们这不是事实。自由的精神从来不会衰竭。

The Liberalization of China

中国的自由化改革

For a long while it looked as if China would never be liberalized, that it would remain locked in the super-Stalinism of Maoism. For nearly a decade after their takeover, the Chinese Communists did retain a semi-free-market system, only to extirpate it in two savage thrusts into totalitarianism: the Great Leap Forward of the late 1950s (which featured such disastrous economic experiments in self-sufficiency as a steel plant in every rural commune's backyard), and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s (in which the division of labor was crippled, education was stifled, economic incentives were eliminated, and compulsory communes were strengthened with a repressive apparatus extending into each urban block and rural village). Art, literature, and speech were all brutally suppressed.

长久以来中国被视作一个与自由化无缘的国家。它将永远的被斯大林主义的加强版-毛主义所禁锢。在夺取政权的最初十年里，中国的共产主义者确实维系了一个半 自由市场的体制，但自由的因素被两场野蛮的战役根除，整个体制随之走向极权主义：1950年代的大跃进运动（这一灾难性的经济实验为了达成经济自给自足的 目标试图在每一个乡村公社的后院里都架起炼钢炉），以及1960年代晚期的无产阶级文化大革命（在这个过程中摧毁了劳动分工、压制了教育、经济刺激被根 除，强制性的公社被强化为覆盖每个街区、每个乡村的镇压机构）。艺术、文学以及言论被野蛮的压制。

It all came apart with the death in 1976 of the founding absolute despot himself, Mao Tse-tung. The "Gang of Four," led by Mao's widow Chiang Ching and leaders of the radical Left, were arrested, to the tune of spontaneous outpourings of joy by the Chinese populace, even in "red" Shanghai. Mao's successors, led clearly over the last year by the twice-disgraced Teng Hsiao-p'ing, have moved with remarkable speed to dismantle totalitarian Maoism and to shift rapidly toward a far freer economy and society. Western culture is now permitted and encouraged. Wall posters are allowed that call for ever-greater democracy and human rights, one even quoting from the American Declaration of Independence. And consumers are permitted to escape the compulsory anthill uniformity of clothing and to buy a variety of consumer goods. Workers are allowed to respond to economic incentives to produce and consume (instead of the "moral" incentives imposed by the bayonet and by Communist Party snoops). A far greater interplay of small-scale private property and free markets is permitted. A rule of law is soon to replace arbitrary whim by ad hoc military and party committees. And particularly important is that the Chinese are now telling their people that Mao, and even Marx himself, were not always right, that even Marxism must pass judgment before the bar of truth (now called, in Tengian jargon, "the Norm of Truth"). Foreign investment and trade is being encouraged.

这一切随着1976年暴君Mao Tse-tung的去世而宣告终结。由毛的未亡人江青以及激进的左翼{lx}所领导的“四人帮”被逮捕，人民群众的愉悦之情即便是在“红都”上海也自发的倾泻 而出。在过去的一年里，由曾备受打击的xxx领导的毛的继承者们以惊人的速度废弃了极权主义的毛主义并迅速的向一个远为自由与的经济与社会过渡。西方文化 如今被允许并被鼓励。吁求更为广泛的民主与人权的墙报被允许张贴（指西单民主墙————译注），而有一张墙报甚至引用了美国独立宣言。消费者可以不再强制 性的身着难看的制服并可以自由的购买各种消费品。工人也可以根据经济刺激来进行生产与消费（而不再是由刺刀与GCD暗探所强加的“道德刺激”）小范围内的 私人产权及自由市场获得了极大的解放。法律的统治很快就要取代肆意妄为的军人及党委的裁决。特别重要的一点是，中国人目前告诉他们的人民说，毛，甚至马克 思本人，并非一贯正确，甚至连xxx主义也必须接受真理的考验（行话称之为“真理的标准”）。外资与外贸也正在被鼓励。

In a sense, China has only now gone as far as Stalinism, although even that is a great improvement over Mao. But there are signs that it will go much further toward the Eastern European system. When Chinese Premier Hua Kung-fo visited Yugoslavia last year, he clapped his hands with glee when he heard that worker-owned firms there can actually go bankrupt. In the October 6, 1978, issue of China's major journal, the People's Daily, the veteran economist and historian Hu Chiao-mu, once a secretary to Mao, dumped during the Cultural Revolution, and now president of the new Tengian Academy of Social Sciences, published a highly significant article charting the nation's new economic course — "Observe Economic Laws and Speed Up the Four Modernizations" (People's Daily, Oct. 6,1978; for an analysis, see China News Analysis, #1139, Nov. 10, 1978).

从某种程度上来说，中国目前仅仅前进到了“斯大林主义”的程度，但尽管如此相对于毛这也是一个了不起的进步。有迹象显示，中国将向进一步的向东欧的道路靠 拢。当中国总理（原文如此）华国锋在南斯拉夫听说工人所有制的企业被允许破产时，他愉快的鼓起了掌。1976年10月6日发表的《人民日报》（中国的主要 报纸）上发表了老牌经济学家及历史学家胡乔木的文章（他曾经是毛的秘书，现在则是社科院的院长），文章高调地阐释了这个国家的新经济战略——“按照经济规 律办事 ，加快实现四个现代化”（《人民日报》1978年，10月6日；来自于一个分析，见中国新闻分析#1139，1978年11月10日）

Hu called for radical reorganization of the Chinese system, and for "rule by contracts instead of mandatory rule of the economy, with minimum government interference, which would also entail the withdrawal of the Party from running the economy. He advocated division of labor, freer trade, and putting economics above political power. Hu's statement that "experience has shown that socialism cannot guarantee that political power will not do immense damage to economic development" is a remarkable one, considering the source. China News Analysis concludes that

胡呼吁对中国的体制进行激进的重组，并要求”用政府干预最小化的合同机制而不是命令机制来管理经济”，这一改革也将限制党直接运营经济的规模。他为劳动分 工、更自由的贸易进行辩护，并把经济发展置于政治权力之上。胡关于“经验表明社会主义并不能保证政治权力一定不会对经济发展做出重大破坏”的论述是原文中 非常重要的一段。《中国新闻分析》认为

What Hu describes is a free economy in which the workers sign a contract with the enterprise, the enterprise makes its own decision in the form of contracts with other enterprises or with the State, and the implementation of the contracts is controlled by the judiciary. What Hu envisages is, though this is not stated explicitly, an independent judiciary competent to adjudicate on contracts not only between individuals but also between the State and individual firms. Similarly the villages are to be left free to decide what to sow, and they are not to come under the authoritative rule of officials.

胡描述的是一个自由经济体制，在这个体制内工人与企业签订劳动合同，企业在与其他企业或者国家签订的合同之框架内开展自主经营，而合同的履行则通过司法加 以保障。胡所设想的情景，尽管没有明确的点出，乃是一个独立的司法系统，它不仅裁决个人与个人之间的合同，也裁决个人企业与国家之间的合同.与此相似的 是，乡村也被允许自行其是，而不再处在官员无所不达的统治之下。

Again, no one is saying that China is or will soon become a libertarian paradise, but the contrast with anthill Maoism is staggering.

再一次强调，没人说中国已经成为或者将要成为自由至少主义的天堂，但与自由至少主义相对立的毛主义确实已遥遥欲坠

This brings us finally to Vietnam and Cambodia. With its unfortunate and vicious nationalization of the merchants in the South last year, Vietnam has now taken its place as a typical Stalinist country. But Cambodia ("Democratic Kampuchea") was something else again. It was undoubtedly the most horrendous regime of this century anywhere in the world. Not only did the Cambodian Communists quickly murder millions after taking power, and forcibly evacuate the cities at one blow; not only was death the penalty for the slightest infraction or disobedience to the regime: the key to its diabolic control was its abolition of all money, abolition is also enforced through murder and terror. Even Stalin, even Mao, retained the use of money; and so long as money exists, there is some sort of price system, and people are able to buy goods of their choice and move from place to place, even if in black markets or in disobedience to government regulations. But if money is abolished, then everyone is helpless, dependent for his very subsistence on the meager rations grudgingly handed to him by the regime in power. From the abolition of money came compulsory rural communalism, including the abolition of private eating, the institution of compulsory marriages, and the eradication of learning, culture, the family, religion, etc. Cambodia was horror incarnate.

这一段将最终把我们的视线带往越南语柬埔寨。在去年对南方商人进行悲惨与不幸的国有化之后，越南现在已经成为了一个典型的斯大林主义国家。但是高棉（“民 主柬埔寨”）则又是另一种不同的东西。它毫无疑问的是一个世纪以来世界范围内最为恐怖的政权。并不仅因为高棉共产党在夺取政权后玄迅速的屠杀了几百万民 众，并不仅因为它在一举之间把城市变成了荒无人烟的废墟，也并不仅因为对这个政权有罪轻微的不满与反抗就会导致死亡——恐怖统治的关键在于，它透过暴力与 谋杀的手段彻底的废止了金钱。甚至连毛与斯大林这样的人都保留了金钱的使用，而只要金钱存在，就存在某种程度的价格系统，人们可以买些自己想买的东西，并 多少自由的进行前夕——哪怕透过黑市或者违法的手段。但是一旦金钱被废止了，一切希望就都没了。人们的生存将依赖于统治者半心半意施舍的那一点儿配给哦口 粮。与废止金钱相伴的就是强制性的乡村共产主义，包括废止私人食物，强制婚姻制度，压制研究，文化，家庭，宗教等等。高棉乃是恐怖的具体化身。

The Vietnamese lightning thrust that smashed the Cambodian regime was not solely or even primarily caused by ideological considerations. Undoubtedly uppermost were ancient ethnic hostility between the more prosperous Vietnamese and the more backward Khmers (inhabitants of Cambodia); the desire of the Vietnamese rulers to dominate all of Indochina; anger at long-repeated border incursions by Cambodian troops; and the Vietnamese fear of growing encirclement by the combined forces of the United States and China, supporting Cambodia on its southwestern flank. But there is no denying the horror that even the Vietnamese Stalinists felt for the Cambodian monstrosity. When they entered the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, the Vietnamese described the desolation of that city, and spoke of the deliberate mass murders, the forced evacuations. A top Vietnamese Communist official, Phan Trong Tue, spoke of the late Cambodian regime as having killed masses of people "with hammers, knives, sticks and hoes, like killing wee insects."

越南对高棉政权粉碎性的闪电突袭并不仅仅因为——甚至不主要是因为——意识形态原因。置于xx被考虑的是如下因素：长久以来富裕的朝鲜人与落后的柬埔寨人 （高棉的居民）之间的种族矛盾；越南统治者想要支配整个印度支那的野心；对反复不停地高棉xx边境袭扰的愤怒；以及对在越南西南翼支持高棉的美国与中国日 渐合拍的力量的恐惧。不过我并不否认，即便是越南的斯大林主义者也对高棉的暴政感到恐惧。当越南xx跨入高棉首都金边的时候，他们看到的是对城市的废弃、 有计划的大规模屠杀以及强制迁徙。越共的一位高级领导人Phan Trong Tue说到，赤色高棉政权“像杀灭害虫一样用锤子、刀具、棍子以及锄头大批谋杀他们的人民”

And then Tue rose to a pitch of eloquence:

整个国家已被摧毁殆尽；没有迁徙自由，没有结社自由，没有言论自由，没有宗教自由，没有学习自由，没有婚姻自由，没有货币，没有商业，没有贸易。再没有什 么佛塔，也再没有什么眼泪来控诉人民遭致的苦难 (D.P.I. dispatch, January 12, 1979)

与此相对的是，美国又做了什么呢？在与高棉的良师益友——中国拉进了距离以后，美国媒体恬不知耻的对高棉进行洗白。美国政府在联合国为了反对越南而替高棉 进行辩护并且赤裸裸的压制对其“可能的反人道在罪行”的指控。

I hasten to add — for the benefit of attentive readers — that I do not condone the Vietnamese violation of the principle of nonintervention, and that if I were a Vietnamese, and in the unlikely event that I could express my dissent freely, I would have opposed the invasion. But now that the invasion has been concluded, we can all surely be permitted to rejoice at the death of the most monstrous, bizarre, and evil State in many centuries. As I tried to make clear at the collapse of the Thieu dictatorship in South Vietnam, one can hail the death of a State without implying approval of the State that replaces it. The new Vietnamese-backed Salvation Front regime of Heng Samrin has already restored money, freedom of religion, freedom of marriage, freedom to return to cities, and freedom to cook and eat in one's own home (symbolized by the new regime's restoring a cooking pot to each family previously dragooned into communal kitchens). The new Salvation Front regime is indeed a haven of freedom for the individual Cambodian compared to the previous slavery under Pol Pot. But this by no means implies that the new regime is libertarian or that its own statism should not be opposed and combated by the Cambodian people.

我得立刻加上一句——为那些热心读者考虑——我绝不宽恕越南人对不干涉原则的破坏，假如我是一个越南人，并且（尽管不太可能）我能够自由的表达自己的抗 议，我将反对这次入侵。不过既然这次入侵已经成为既成事实，我们大可以放心大胆的对这一几个世纪以来最荒谬、最诡异、最邪恶的政权的倒掉感到愉快。正如我 在论述南越阮文绍政权的倒掉时所阐述的观点，我们可以在黄庆一个政权的终结的同时拒绝接受它的替代品。以越南为后台的韩桑林救国民族团结阵线政权已经恢复 了金钱的使用、宗教的自由、婚姻的自由、返回城市的自由、以及在自己的家里烹饪用餐的自由（以新政权将先前没收至公共食堂的锅返还给家庭为标志）新的救国 阵线政权对于先前处在波尔布特奴役中的柬埔寨国民来说，的确是自由的天堂了。但是从任何意义上来讲，新政权都不是自由意志主义的——它的国家主义应到受到 柬埔寨的人民批评与反抗。

But for the people of China and Cambodia, recent events have meant a leap toward freedom that can only bring rejoicing to the hearts of libertarians everywhere.