弗洛姆 《存在的艺术》 (12)
💛 版权©️归Erich Fromm所有，本文仅作读文学习使用。如侵权，请联系搬运工删除。
PART V 第五章 (2)
15. On the Philosophy of Having
十五 占有哲学
1. That which one has is one’s property, and inasmuch as everybody “has” his body it could be argued that property is rooted in the very physical existence of man. But even though this would appear to be a good argument for the universality of property, it hardly serves this purpose, because it is not correct: A slave does not own his body; it can be used, sold, destroyed, according to his owner’s will and whim. The slave, in this respect, differs from even the most exploited worker; the latter does not own his body energy because he is forced to sell it to the owner of capital who buys his working power. (However, since he has no choice, under the conditions of capitalism, one must admit that even his ownership of his body is questionable.) What does it mean that I own something when somebody else owns the right to use what I have?
人所拥有的就是一个人的财产，人人都“有”身体，因此可以说财产概念植根于人的存在。这看似可以论证财产的普遍性，其实不然，因为它不正确——比如奴隶就不拥有身体，根据主人的意愿（或一时兴起），受差遣、被贩卖甚至摧残。在这方面，奴隶和最受剥削的工人也不同；后者并不拥有劳动力，因为他被迫将其出售给资本所有者（但是在资本主义条件下，他别无选择，他是否拥有自己的身体也值得商榷）。那么，我所拥有的东西，别人却拥有使用权，这如何解释？
2. We are here in the middle of a much-disputed problem, in which still a great deal of confusion exists, that of property. A clear understanding of property has been greatly obscured by the passionate feelings related to the revolutionary demands for abolition of private property. Many people have thought that their personal property—their clothes, books, furniture, and so on, even their spouses—would be taken away and “nationalized” (Of course, the swingers today have, in fact, begun to “socialize” their wives, among each other, although otherwise sharing politically conservative views.)
财产权仍是备受争议的问题，我们仍有诸多困惑。无法获得准确理解，很大程度上是受与废除私有财产的革命要求相关的狂热情感所阻碍。很多人以为他们的个人财产，如衣服、书籍、家具甚至配偶都会被拿走充公。[插图]（当然，如今就有人在“换妻”，虽然持保守的政治观点。）
3. Marx and other socialists had never proposed anything as silly as that the personal property or things one uses should be socialized; they were referring to the ownership of capital—i.e., the means of production that enable an owner to produce commodities that were socially undesirable and to impose on the worker his conditions because he, the owner, “gave” him work.
马克思和其他社会主义者从来没有提议过个人财产或个人使用的东西应该充公；他们指的是资本的所有权，即所有者可以运用资金，生产并不需要的商品，并且迫使工人就范，因为他是所有者，“赐给”工人这份工作。
4. As a reaction against socialist demands, the professors in political economy asserted that property was a “natural” right, inherent in human nature, and that it had existed as long as human society. Attending several courses on economic history in 1918 and 1919, I heard two (at the time) outstanding professors lecture, in all seriousness, that capital was not characteristic of capitalism alone, but that even the primitive tribes who used cowrie shells as means of exchange thus proved that they had capital—ergo, that capitalism was as old as mankind. Their example from primitive peoples was actually badly chosen. We know now, even better, that the most primitive peoples had no private property, except in the things that served their immediate personal needs, such as cloth, jewelry, tools, nets, arms, and weapons.
与社会主义者的吁求相反，政治经济学的教授断言财产权是“自然”的权利，是人性所固有，与人类社会一起诞生。在一九一八年和一九一九年，我选过几门经济史的课程，认真听了两位教授（那时颇具声望）的讲座，他们认为资本并不是资本主义所独具的特征，原始部落就使用贝壳货币，足以证明他们拥有资本，那么资本主义可谓和人类一样古老了。他们选择原始人的例子来作论证其实并不妥当。我们现在清楚地知道，最原始的人类并没有私有财产，除了切身需求的，如衣物、首饰、工具、网、大小武器，等等。
5. In fact, most of the classical accounts of the origin and function of private property have taken for granted that in nature all things were held in common (the views of anthropologists I have presented in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness). Even the Church Fathers indirectly accepted this view. According to them, property was both the consequence and the social remedy for the sin of covetousness that came with the Fall of Man; in other words, private property was a result of the Fall, just as was male domination over women and the conflict between man and nature.
事实上，对私有财产的起源和功能的大多数经典论述都认为在自然界中，万物是共有的（这种人类学家观点可参见《人的破坏性剖析》一书）。连神父也婉转地接受了这一观点。他们认为财产是对人的堕落所带来的贪婪的后果，也是社会补救；换句话说，私有财产是堕落的结果，就像是男性对女性的统治，以及人与自然之间的冲突。
6. It is useful to distinguish between various concepts of property that are sometimes confused. First there is the view of property as an absolute right over an object (living or non-living) regardless of whether the owner has done anything to produce it, or whether he inherited it, received it as a gift or inheritance, or acquired it by theft. Aside from the latter point, which requires certain qualifications both in the relations between nations and the laws in civil society, the great law systems of Rome and of the modern state speak of property in this sense. Possession is always guaranteed by national or international law, i.e., fundamentally by the violence that “enforces” the law.
区分时而会混淆的各种有关财产的概念很有益处。第一种观点认为财产是对一种物品（生物或非生物）的绝对拥有权，不管此人是否生产，或作为馈赠或遗产，或盗窃得来的。除了后者跟国家和民法社会法律之间有关系，需要某种认证以外，大罗马和现代国家的法律制度都是从这个意义上解说财产的。拥有权始终要由国家或国际法律保证，即“强制执行”的法律。
7. A second concept, particularly popular in the philosophy of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, stresses that one’s title to possess something depends on the effort one has made to create it. Characteristic is John Locke’s view that if one adds one’s labor to something that, at this point, is nobody’s property (res nullius) it becomes one’s own property. But Locke’s emphasis on one’s productive part in establishing property, originally, loses most of its significance by his additional qualification that the title to property one has established could be freely transferred to others who had not worked for it. Locke apparently needed this qualification because otherwise he would have run into the difficulty that workers could claim the products of their work as their property.
第二种观点，在十八世纪启蒙运动时期尤其流行，即强调人拥有财产的权利取决于创造财产的努力。约翰·洛克的观点堪称代表：如果一个人将自己的劳动施加于某物（不属于任何人），那么它就成为他的财产。但洛克又说所有权可自由转让给并未努力去获得的其他人，这就削弱了人要努力才能获得所有权这一观点。洛克显然需要这个附加观点，否则工人可以把他们的劳动产品看作是自己的财产。