Complementary and Opposing Tendencies. In the 19^th century both types of liberalism performed the same task of weakening traditional authorities, and there was considerable cooperation between them. Classical liberalism is embedded in the constitutional and legal practices of the English-speaking countries, among others. It exhibits the belief, classically stated by Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), that the state is an institution established by rational individuals to deal with the public business of society in order that each person might be free to pursue his own concerns. In this view, liberty is, in the famous phrase used by Hobbes in Chapter 21 of Leviathan, “the silence of the law.” Because the power of the state was regarded with suspicion, constitutional checks and balances were devised by liberals to prevent the emergence of despotism.

互补与对立的趋势。在19世纪，两种类型的自由主义执行了弱化传统权威的相同任务，而且在它们之间存在着相当重要的合作。古典自由主义根植于说英语国家的宪法和法律实践中。它展示了洛克在其《政府论下篇》（1689年）中经典阐述的信念，即国家是由理性个体建立的机构，用于处理社会的公共事务，以便每个人都可以自由地追求他自己关心的事。从这一观点来看，用霍布斯在《利维坦》第21章中使用的名言，自由就是“法律的沉默”。由于对国家权力的怀疑，自由主义者设计了宪法制衡来避免专制政治的出现。

Classical liberalism generally has been hostile to attempts by governments to make appeals or exhortations to their subjects, visualizing the business of government as that of making laws, or else leaving their subjects alone. Again, although classical liberalism has found it easy to accommodate democracy, and liberals everywhere have supported extensions of the franchise, they consistently have been opposed to plebiscites and other forms of “direct democracy,” which they regard as the legitimizing devices of despots.

古典自由主义通常对政府向其臣民发出呼吁或劝诫，将政府事务想象为制定法律的工作，或让其臣民无依无靠的各种企图持敌对的态度。还有，虽然古典自由主义发现它容易适应民主，而且各地的自由主义者都支持扩大选举权，但他们始终反对公民投票和其它形式的“直接民主”，他们将这些视为专制者的合法化手段。

Nothing in classical liberalism prohibits a government from regulating business, except for a disposition to leave individuals alone. During the 19^th century, however, liberalism often was confused with laissez-faire, an economic doctrine opposed to state regulation of business. Laissez-faire, however, was borrowed from the theorists of enlightened despotism, who took the view that regulation of business was antipathetic to the state’s aim of increasing its total wealth. It thus began as a subordinate doctrine. But liberalism has often been confused with such subordinate doctrines, which have been passionately espoused as the one true means of establishing individual freedom.

除了单独留给个人的支配权外，古典自由主义并不禁止任何政府对商业的调节。然而在19世纪，自由主义与自由放任，一种反对国家对商业调节的经济学说相混淆。不过，放任自由是借鉴开明专制的理论，这种理论认为，对商业的调节是与国家增加其总财富目标的背道而驰。因此，它开始作为一种从属的学说。但自由主义常常与这种从属学说相混淆，它被强烈地信奉为建立个人自由的唯一真正手段。

Modern liberalism, by contrast, regards the state as an organization for the efficient pursuit of some purpose. The purpose has often been military victory, inasmuch as most major modern states have devoted a good proportion of their substance to war, but it may just as easily be the greatest happiness of the greatest number, industrial modernization, or putting a man on the moon. Given such an end as a basis for policy, politics ceases to be seen as the art whereby individuals manage to live in society without collision, and turns into an especially powerful agency for bringing about a given purpose. And while, in this tradition, declarations of natural rights are common, in practice they are likely to be qualified by strong tendencies requiring the individual to subordinate his desires to the “common good” –a term of only rhetorical significance in classical liberalism.

相比之下，现代自由主义将国家视为有效追求某个目的的一个组织。该目的常常是军队的胜利，在某种程度上，大多数的现代国家都致力于将它们相当多的物资用于战争，但它也可能很容易成为大多数人的最大幸福，工业的现代化，或把人员送上月球。考虑到将这种目的作为政策基础，政治学不再被视为是个人设法在社会中生活而无冲突的一门艺术，而是转变成给定目的的特别强大机构。尽管在这种传统中，自然权利的声明很常见，但在实际操作中，它们很可能会受到要求个人将其欲望从属于“共同利益”的强烈倾向的限定—一个在古典自由主义中只有修辞意义的术语。

The gap between modern and classical liberalism has generally been bridged with ideas like “happiness” and “self-fulfillment.” It is argued that classical liberalism falsely assumes that all men are rational and have the cultural equipment necessary to enjoy the exercise of freedom. In fact, however, many persons are bound to low horizons by their station in life and lack the education or even the nourishment that are as essential to individual freedom as the rule of law and the right of man. Supplying these deficiencies has become to a large extent the “social purpose” of many liberal states.

在现代自由主义与古典自由主义之间的差距通常与“幸福”和“自我现实”等观念相连接。有观点认为，古典自由主义错误地假定所有人都是理性的，并且拥有享受行使自由必需的文化设备。然而，实际上许多人注定会被生活中的地位束缚在低矮的眼界中，并且缺乏教育，甚至缺乏如同法治和人权一样，对于个人自由来说是必不可少的营养。弥补这些不足在很大程度上已经成为许多自由国家的“社会目的”。

This line of thought usually ends by suggesting individual duties to the state that would not be countenanced by most classical liberals. Nonetheless, the links between classical and modern liberalism are many, so that for most people liberalism is a single, complex doctrine rather than a loose alliance of many diverse tendencies.

这种思路通常通过建议个人对国家的责任而结束，而大多数自由主义者不会支持这些责任。尽管如此，在古典自由主义和现代自由主义之间的联系是多方面的，因此对大多数人来说，自由主义是一个单一、复杂的学说，而不是一个由许多不同倾向组成的松散联盟。

Liberalism in the Modern World. Liberalism has been the chief political doctrine of the modern world and a prolific generator of other doctrines. Democracy and nationalism can both be viewed as special applications of liberal ideas. Socialism and communism, to a large extend, are heretical concentrations on one part of liberal thought, although, in other respects, they are opposed to liberalism. But while it is tempting to point to these interrelationships, it should be remembered that liberalism is a purely political doctrine, whereas most other political “isms” are more portentous doctrines, part political and part religious, purporting to be guides to life as well as politics.

现代世界中的自由主义。自由主义一直是现代世界的主要政治学说，并且是其它学说多产的发生器。民主政体和民族主义都被视为自由主义思想的特殊应用。在很大程度上，社会主义和共产主义都是在一部分自由主义思想上的异端集中。虽然在其它方面，它们反对自由主义。但是，尽管指出这些相互关系是诱人的，但应该记住的是，自由主义是一种纯粹的政治学说，而大多数其它政治“主义”更多是预示性的学说，部分是政治的，部分是宗教的，声称自己是生活和政治活动的指南。

Liberalism, however, has a legend of its own past, in which men are presented as fighting “for freedom” against the prejudiced upholders of tradition or despotism. In this view of European history, liberalism is presented as a steady progress from the misery of the Dark Ages to the tolerant enlightenment of modern times. Again, the liberal legend presents the Revolution of 1688 as if it were the application of liberal principles in fact, the liberal principles were not so much the motives of the leaders as their justification on winning. The liberal legend commits anachronism by presenting people of other times as if they had the same motives and beliefs as have since been found plausible.

然而，自由主义拥有它自己过往的传奇，其中，人类被展现为“为自由”而战，反对传统或专制偏见的维护者。在这种欧洲的历史观中，自由主义被展现为一种从黑暗时代的苦难到近代的宽容开明的稳定进步。同样，自由主义的传奇将1688年的革命展示为仿佛是实际上自由主义原则的应用，自由主义的原则与其说是领导人的动机，不如说是他们获胜的正当理由。自由主义的传奇通过呈现其它时代人们所犯的时代错误，好像他们具有了后来被发现似乎合理的相同动机和信仰一样。

Liberalism has generated not only doctrines but institutions. Early in the 19^th century, liberalism went into partnership with nationalism, and the combination a century later was fatal to the great multinational empires of Europe. The culmination of this work was the Versailles peace settlement of 1919, after World War I. It carved such states as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Bulgaria out of what had been the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires. The architect of this settlement, U. S. President Woodrow Wilson, hoped that the new states would be homogeneous enough to sustain liberal and democratic governments.

自由主义不仅产生了学说，而且产生了制度。在19世纪早期，自由主义与民族主义成为了伙伴，而一个世纪后的结合对欧洲重要的多民族帝国产生了致命影响。这一工作的高潮是1919年，第一次世界大战后的凡尔赛和平协议。它雕刻出像捷克斯洛伐克，匈牙利，南斯拉夫，罗马尼亚以及保加利亚这样一些摆脱了奥-匈帝国和土耳其帝国的国家。这项协议的缔造者，美国总统伍德罗·威尔逊希望新的国家会足够同质，以维持自由主义和民主政府。

Meanwhile, liberal doctrines had spread to the rest of the world. Wherever British and French flags were planted, schools followed, in which the native peoples learned to admire the tyrannical kings. In the name of liberty, indigenous politicians in each colony demanded for themselves the rights of free speech, political organization and self-government. Liberal European governments found it difficult to resist these demands, and some liberal sections of opinion construed the colonial peoples as another deprived group who must be supplied with the conditions of freedom. Liberalism, thus was a major influence in shortening the span of European colonialism.

与此同时，自由主义的学说传播到世界其它地区。无论英国和法国的旗帜插到哪里，学校就会出在已习惯了仰慕暴虐国王的当地人那里。以自由之名，每个殖民地的本土政客都要求他们享有言论自由，政治组织以及自治政府的权利。自由主义的欧洲政府发现很难对抗这些要求，而一些自由派的观点将殖民地的人们解释为必须提供自由条件的另一个贫困群体。因此，自由主义成为缩短欧洲殖民主义跨度的主要影响。

The extent of liberal influence on modern politics can be gauged from the fact that virtually every new state has equipped itself with a liberal constitution. Parliaments are the most visible parts of an entire liberal political kit, which also includes declarations of rights, a written constitution, a nonpolitical civil service, freedom of the press, competing political parties, and an independent judiciary.

自由主义对现代政治的影响程度事实上可以从每个新国家都拥有了自己的自由主义宪法来判定。议会是整个自由主义工具箱中最引人注目的部分，它还包括权利宣言，成文的宪法，非政治性的公务员制度，出版自由，相互竞争的政治党派，以及独立的司法系统。

In many cases this political kit has not been entirely serviceable, and modifications have been required. Civil liberties often have been withdrawn, and legislatures, ceasing to be the watchdogs of freedom, have become the domesticated pets of dictatorial rulers. The strength of liberal respectability, however, may be measured by the absurdities that states will tolerate in order to appear liberal. The notion of a “one-party state,” for example, is inherently paradoxical because a party by definition is merely one among a plurality of groups.

在许多情况下，这种政治工具箱并不是完全有用，而且需要修改。公民的自由权经常被剥夺，而立法机关不再是自由的看门狗，变成了独裁统治者驯养的宠物。然而，自由主义可尊敬的力量可以通过国家为了显得自由而容忍荒谬来衡量。例如，“一党制国家”的概念天生就是自相矛盾的，因为从定义上说，一个政党仅仅是多个团体中的一个团体。

Liberalism in international relations has had rather similar consequences. The League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945 were established on the basis of liberal hopes that a forum for public discussion would increase compromises between states, and that collective security agreements would make international aggression a bad bargain for the aggressor.

在国际关系中的自由主义产生过相当类似的后果。1919年的国际联盟和1945年的联合国都是建立在自由主义希望的基础之上，即一个公开讨论的论坛会增加国家间的妥协，而对侵略者而言，集体的安全协议会让国际上的侵略得不偿失。

Enduring Values. Criticisms of liberalism for its apparent intellectual defects have sometimes mistaken it for what it is not—namely, an academic understanding of society. It is, on the contrary, a political doctrine that states the beliefs that make a certain type of politics possible. Liberalism assumes that each individual is rational, has his own desires to pursue, and is prepared to compromise with his neighbor. On many occasions each of these assumptions is false. This is not to say that liberalism is false, but rather that sometimes it is inappropriate.

持续的价值观。对自由主义显而易见的智力缺陷的批评有时误以为它不是什问题—就是说，是一种对社会的学术理解。相反，它是一种陈述使某种类型的政治活动成为可能的政治学说。自由主义假设每个个体是理性的，有他自己追求的欲望，并愿意与其邻居妥协。在许多情况下，这些假设中的每一个都是站不住脚的。但这并不是说，自由主义是错误的，而是，有时它是不合适的。

In the 20^th century, liberalism has often lost favor to socialist beliefs emphasizing man’s dependence on society for his cultural heritage and present happiness. Marxism is the most formidable such critic of liberalism. But to prefer Marxism to liberalism on the ground that it gives a truer picture of man in society is to mistake both doctrines for mere academic theories. Each is, in fact, stating the political experiences of two different sets of people, who seek different kinds of politics. Socialism in all its forms obviously supplies the doctrine for a kind of political life that is widely demanded in the modern world, but it is unlikely, in the long run, to replace liberalism’s emphasis on man’s capacity for rational initiative and discussion.

在20世纪，自由主义常常失去对强调人类对其文化遗产和当下幸福的社会主义信仰的青睐。马克思主义是对自由主义最令人敬畏的这类批评家。但是，更喜爱马克思主义而不是自由主义，理由是它描绘了人在社会中更真实的画面，误以为两种学说仅仅是学术理论。事实上，每一个都是在陈述寻求不同类型政治活动的两组不同人们的政治经历。显然，各种形式的社会主义为现代世界广泛要求的一种政治生活提供了学说，但从长远来看，它不太可能替代自由主义着重于人所具有的理性主动性和讨论的能力。

                                             K. R. MINOGUE

                                  London School of Economics

                                              K. R. 米诺格

                                            伦敦政治经济学院

                                            2024年8月12日译

（译者注：该部分词条位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第17卷，第296页至297页）