[翻譯文] 帝國主義的經濟寄生蟲 Economic parasites of imperialism
註：一年前翻的，生手撰文如有不順之處敬請見諒。
Although the new imperialism has been bad business for the nation, it has been good business for certain classes and certain trades within the nation. The vast expenditure on armaments, the costly wars, the grave risks and embarrassments of foreign policy, the stoppage of political and social reforms within Great Britain, though fraught with great injury to the nation, have served well the present business interests of certain industries and professions.
帝國主義即使對國家而言不是件好處理的事，它對於特定的階級與國內貿易仍頗為有利。武裝軍備上的龐大開支、耗資巨額的戰爭、外交政策上的巨大風險和蒙羞、大英帝國政治社會改革的停滯等，即使讓這個國家傷痕滿佈，對於現行的一些商務與產業，仍有許多好處。
It is idle to meddle with politics unless we clearly recognize the central fact and understand what these sectional interest are which are the enemies of national safety and the commonwealth. We must put aside the merely sentimental diagnosis which explains wars of other national blunders by outbursts of patriotic animosity or errors of statecraft. Doubtless at every outbreak of war not only the man in the street but the man at the helm is often duped by the cunning with which aggressive motives and greedy purposes dress themselves in defensive clothing. There is, it may be safely asserted, no war within memory, however nakedly aggressive it may seem to the dispassionate historian, which has not been presented to the people who were called upon to fight as a necessary defensive policy, in which the honour, perhaps the very existence, of the state was involved.
除非認知到核心的事實，以及理解與國安、全民福祉相衝突的特定利益，涉入政治一點用處都沒有。我們應該要先撇除純粹感性的結論，這些結論解釋了突然迸發的愛國、仇外情緒、政治權術上的失誤，所導致戰爭與混沌。無疑地，每一次戰爭的爆發，不僅普羅大眾受到愚弄，連在上位者都受到偽飾過的野心與貪婪欺瞞。我們可以保守地下結論，即使這個結論對失望的歷史學家來說無疑是激進的：對那些被召喚上戰場的人來說，沒人告訴他們這個必要的防衛政策、國家榮譽與一國之存續和一次次的戰爭不是直接相繫的。
The disastrous folly of these wars, the material and moral damage inflicted even on the victor, appear so plain to the disinterested spectator that he is apt to despair of any state attaining years of discretion, and inclines to regard these natural cataclysms as implying some ultimate irrationalism in politics shows that the aggressive imperialism which we seek to understand is not the main the product of blind passions of races or of the mixed folly and ambition of politician. It is far more rational than at first sight spears. Irrational from the standpoint of the whole nation, it is rational enough from the standpoint of certain classes in the nation. A completely socialist state which kept good books and presented regular balance-sheet of expenditure and assets would soon discard imperialism; an intelligent laissez-faire democracy which gave duly proportionate weight in its policy to all economic interests alike would do the same. But a state in which certain well-organized business interests are able to outweigh the weak, diffused interest of the community is bound to pursue a policy which accords with the pressure of the former interests.
戰爭災難性的混亂，帶來物質與道德上的損害，甚至波及戰勝者，對於毫無利益糾葛的旁觀者而言，應該對於國內的統治都會深感絕望，也會認為這些自然的劇變暗示著極不理性政治所反映的激進帝國主義。我們應要理解如此的帝國主義不僅是對種族的盲目熱或是野心政客造出的混亂所導致。它比我們一眼所認知的還要理性。從一國的角度來看的確是不理性的，然後從特定階級的角度，一切都即為合理。一個完全的，看似良好、維持收支平衡的社會主義國家可以立即放棄帝國主義；一個能適當地調配對各項經濟利益政策的開明、自由開放的民主政體，亦然。但一個坐擁組織完善企業利益的國家會臨於虛弱乏力的人群之上，追求符合先前利益所帶來的壓力。
In order to explain imperialism on this hypothesis we have to answer two questions. Do we find in great britian today any well-organized group of special commercial and social interests which stand to gain by aggressive imperialism and the militarism it involves? If such a combination of interests exists, has it the power to work its will in the arena of politics?
要解釋這個帝國主義的假說，我們必須先回答兩個問題：在當今的大英帝國有沒有任何組織完善的特殊商業、社會利益團體從有侵略性的帝國主義和軍國主義中獲益？如果這樣的利益關係存在，它們有沒有能力在政治角力的戰場上施展意志，為其所欲？
What is the direct economic outcome of imperialism? A great expenditure of public money upon ships, guns, military and naval equipment and stores, growing the productive of enormous profits when a war, or an alarm of war, occurs; new public loans and important fluctuations in the home and foreign bourses; more posts for soldiers and sailors and the diplomatic and consular services; improvement of foreign investments by the substitution of the british flag for a foreign flag; acquisition of markets for certain classes of exports, and some protection and assistance for trades representing british houses in these manufactures; employment for engineers, missionaries, speculative miners, ranchers and other emigrants.
帝國主義直接的經濟成果為何？大量花費在船艦、槍械等軍武裝備與存放的公共開支，在戰事開始，或只是戰事的警訊出現之際，獲取大量的利潤。新的公債與國內外交易的動盪產生；徵兵與水手的告示與外交顧問服務出現；取代英國的外資挹注；特定種類的出口被收購，以及對英國內部交易的保護與補助措施；工程師、傳道士、投機的採礦人、莊稼人以及其他的移民也能領到薪水。
Certain definite business and professional interests feeding upon imperialistic expenditure, or upon the results of that expenditure, are thus set up in opposition to the common good, and, instinictively feeling their way to one another, are found united in strong sympathy to support every new imperialist exploit.
一些特定的企業與專業利益仰賴帝國主義的開支，或是依靠帝國主義所造成後果的開始，因此採取有違於公眾福祉的立場，也因此自然而然地感同身受，為每一項帝國主義式的剥削團結起來，給予有力的同理與支持。
If the 60,000,000 british pound which may now be taken as a minimum expenditure on armaments in time of peace were subjected to a close analysis, most of it would be traced directly to the trills of certain big firms engaged in building warships and transports, equipping and coaling them, manufacturing guns and rifles, and ammunition, supplying horses, wagons, saddler, food, clothing for the serves, contracting for barracks, and for other large irregular needs. Through these main channels the millions flow to feed many subsidiary trades, most of which are quite aware that they are engaged in executing contracts for the services. Here we have an important nucleus of commercial imperialism. Some of these trades, especially the shipbuilding, boiler-making, and gun and ammunition trades, and conducted by large firms with immense capital, whose heads are well aware of the uses of political influence for trade purposes.
如果和平時期的軍備最低開支達六千萬英鎊，會受到嚴密的評估，大多數的款項會溯及至建造、運輸、裝甲與填煤軍艦的特定大公司，業務還含括槍械彈藥炸藥的製造、提供軍隊馬隻、馬車、馬具、糧草、衣物，軍營的駐紮，以及其他大量且不定期的需求。即使這些數以萬計的主要物資流動供養了許多支持性的貿易，大部份的還是對他們履行的契約感到非常小心謹慎。在這裡，我們找到了商業帝國主義的重要核心。其中一些貿易，特別是船集建造、鍋爐的製作，以及槍炮彈藥的交易，都由大公司掌握巨額資本，這些公司之首對於政治影響力在貿易目的上的運用都非常小心。
These men are imperialists by conviction; a pushful policy is good for them.
這些人無庸置疑的是帝國主義者，一個強硬的政策對他們有利。
By far the most important economic factor in imperialism is the influence relating to investment. The growing cosmopolitanism of capital is the greatest economic change of this generation. Every advanced industrial nation is tending to place a larger share of its capital outside the limits of its own political area, in foreign countries, or in colonies, and to draw a growing income form this source.
很顯然的，帝國主義最重要的經濟因素在於影響投資。在這個世代最顯著的轉變在於世界主義的成長。每個先進的產業國都傾向於將更大部份的資本投入在政權掌握的範圍之外，在海外、在殖民地，並從中獲取成長性的收入。
The statistics of foreign investments, however, shed clear light upon the economic forces which are dominating our policy. While the manufacturing and trading classes make little out of their new markets, paying, if they knew it. Much more in taxation than they get out of them in trade, it is quite otherwise with the investor.
然而，對外投資的統計數據可以看出經濟的推力主宰著這些政策。即使製造商與貿易階級從這些新市場中獲取些微利潤，甚至是虧損的，如果他們知道的話。比獲益更多的稅收加諸在他們（意即製造商等）頭上，對投資者來說就不是這種狀況了。
It is not too much to say that the modern foreign policy of great Britain is primarily a struggle for profitable markets of investment. To a larger extent every year great Britain is becoming a nation living upon tribute from abroad, and the classes who enjoy this tribute have an ever-increasing incentive to employ the public policy, the public purse, and the public force to extend the field of their private investments, and to safeguard and improve their existing investments. This is, perhaps, the most important fact in modern politics, and the obscurity in which it is wrapped constitutes the gravest danger to our state.
英國的現行對外政策純粹是為獲利市場投資的努力，這麼說一點都不過份。英國在很大的程度上逐年成為一個仰賴國外貢獻的國度，而享用這種好處的階級即擁有更大的動機去動員公共政策、公款與公眾的力量來拓展自己私人的投資，並確保、改善既有的投資。這個便是現代政治最重要的事實，而在這方面含混不清將對國家造成極大的危害。
What is true of Great Britain is true likewise of France, Germany, the United States, and of all the countries in which modern capitalism has placed large surplus savings in the hands of a plutocracy or of a thrifty middle class.
在英國所發生如此真切的事，同樣也適用於法國、德國、美國與所有將巨額盈餘交由權貴或興盛的中產階級之手的現代資本主義國家。
Aggressive imperialism, which costs the tax-payer so dear, which is of so little value to the manufacturer and trader, which is fraught with such grave incalculable peril to the citizen, is a source of great gain to the investor who cannot find at home the profitable use he seeks for his capital, and insists that his government should help him to profitable and secure investments abroad.
侵略式的帝國主義，對納稅人的代價如此沉重，給予製造與貿易商如此微小的利益，使人民陷入難以估量的危害之中，皆成為那些無法在國內以資金獲取利益者的投資人獲利的源頭，投資人並堅持他們的政府應該要幫助並維護他們在海外的獲益投資。
If, contemplating the enormous expenditure on armaments, the ruinous wars, the diplomatic audacity of knavery by which modern governments seek to extend their territorial power, we put the plain, practical question, Cui bono? The first and most obvious answer is, the investor.
如果精密計算軍備的龐大開支、毀滅性的戰爭、外交上現代政府為了延展國土勢力所進行魯莽的詐欺行為，我們便能提出個平直的、實際的問題：「誰的利益？(拉丁文)」最初且最顯而易見的答案即是：投資者。
