第5章 在70寿辰宴会上的讲话
On His Seventieth Birthday
乔治·萧伯纳/George Bernard Shaw
乔治·萧伯纳（1856—1950），爱尔兰作家、戏剧家和政论家，生于都柏林一个公务员之家，曾当过抄写员、会计，赴伦敦后开始从事创作。1925年获诺贝尔文学奖，他的主要作品有：《巴巴拉上校》《苹果车》《圣女贞德》等。
这些年来，公众舆论一直想方设法为难我，一无所获后，却又把我吹捧为伟人，任何人遇到这种事都足以称之为可怕的灾难。现在，显然又有人想故伎重施。因此，对于我70岁寿辰的庆祝活动，我根本不想发表任何意见。不过，当我的工党老朋友们请我到这里来时，我知道我不会有麻烦。
现在，不管怎样，我们已经建立了一个立宪党，一个建立在社会主义基础之上的立宪党。我和我的朋友西德尼·韦布先生及麦克唐纳先生一开始就明确地说过，我们必须做的就是把社会党变成一个拥护宪法的党，使任何可敬的、虔诚的人都能在个人尊严丝毫不受侵犯的情况下加入这个党。我们革除了陈规陋习，这也是为什么比起任何持激进观点的人来，当下的政府更害怕我们的原因。
我们的立场非常简单，也非常明确，我们的极大优势就在于我们充分理解自己的立场。我们用社会主义来对抗资本主义。
根据资本主义者的观点，国家的每个人都能得到一份工作。他们不主张高薪，因为如果工资很高，一个星期就可以攒下足够的钱，而下一个星期就可以不必工作了。所以，他们决定以仅能养家糊口的工资使工人们马不停蹄地工作，而他们自己则享受着资本的增长所带来的利益。
他们认为资本主义不仅为工人提供了保证，而且，确保了巨额财富掌握在少数人的手中，这些人不论是否愿意也都会把钱积攒下来，并且不得不用于投资。这就是资本主义，我们的政府却总是妨碍它。政府既不为一个人提供工作，又不让他挨饿，而是在确认他已经为得到救济先付过钱之后，而施舍给他一点救济金。政府给资本家补助金，制定出各种打破自己制度的规定。政府一直在忙于此事。我们告诉政府这是破坏，而政府却并不理解。
我们在批评资本主义时说：你们的制度自公布以来，就从未信守过自己的诺言。我们的生产是可笑的、荒唐的，当需要建造更多的房屋时，我们却在生产80马力的汽车。当孩子们正在挨饿时，我们却在生产最豪华的奢侈品。你们把生产颠倒了，不生产国民最需要的东西，反而背道而驰。我们认为分配制度已经演变到荒谬绝顶的地步，以至于在4，700万国民当中，只有两个人赞成现行的分配制度——一个是诺森伯兰公爵，另一个是班伯里勋爵。
我们反对那种理论。社会主义理论明白无误地指出，你们必须关注的问题就是分配，我们也必须由此着手。同时，如果私有财产妨碍了公正的分配也必须予以废除。
那些掌管公共财产的人必须受到社会的制约。例如，我虽然手持拐杖却不能随心所欲使用，它必须受到社会的制约。我不能拿它敲诸位的脑袋。我们认为如果分配出了问题，一切都会出问题，包括宗教、道德、政府等。因此，我们说（这是我们的社会主义的全部意义），我们必须从分配着手并采取一切必要的措施。
我想我们都能记住这一点，因为我们的工作就是要关注世界财富的分配问题，而正如我刚才对你们说过的，我现在还要对你们重复一遍，我认为在4，700万人口的国家里，不应该只有两个人——或许只有一个人赞成现行的财富分配制度。我甚至还要说，在整个文明世界里，你们也找不出一个赞同现行财富分配制度的人。这种分配制度已经堕落得极其荒谬了。
我认为，我们将自己同资本主义者区分开来的一天终将到来。我们必须把一些必要的指导思想在人民面前公布。我们必须宣布，我们所致力的不是那些陈旧的再分配观念，而是收入的再分配。我们要让再分配始终以收入为核心。
今晚我在这里感到非常高兴。我们的主席刚才说，你们认为我享有全社会的尊敬，并赢得了你们一定程度的喜爱，我完全理解对我的这番褒奖。我不是一个感情冲动的人，但是你们所说的这一切感动了我。我知道它的价值，在我年届70的时候（一生只有一次70岁，因此这也是我第一次这样说），我能说出许多人不能说的话，这使我感到了极大的快乐。
Of late years the public have been trying to tackle me in every way they possibly can， and failing to make anything of it they have turned to treating me as a great man. This is a dreadful fate to overtake anybody.There has been a distinct attempt to do it again now， and for that reason I absolutely decline to say anything about the celebration of my seventieth birthday.But when the Labor Party， my old friends the Labor Party， invited me here， I knew that I should be all right.
Now， however， we have built up a Constitutional Party. We have built it up on a socialistic basis.My friend， Mr.Sidney Webb， Mr.Macdonald and myself said definitely at the beginning that what we had got to do was to make the Socialist Party a constitutional party to which any respectable God-fearing man could belong without the slightest compromise of his respectability.We got rid of all those traditions that is why Governments in the present day are more afraid of us than they were of any of the Radical people.
Our position is a perfectly simple one and we have the great advantage of understanding our position. We oppose socialism to capitalism.
According to the capitalists， there will be a guarantee to the world that every man in the country would get a job. They didn't contend it would be a well-paid job， because if it was well paid a man would save up enough one week to stop working the next week， and they were determined to keep a man working the whole time on a bare subsistence wage—and， on the other hand， divide an accumulation of capital.
They said capitalism not only secured this for the working man， but， by insuring fabulous wealth in the hands of a small class of people， they would save money whether they liked it or not and would have to invest it. That is capitalism， and this Government is always interfering with capitalism.Instead of giving a man a job or letting him starve they are giving him doles after making sure he has paid for them first.They are giving capitalists subsidies and making all sorts of regulations that are breaking up their own system.All the time they are doing it， and we are telling them it is breaking up， they don't understand.
We say in criticism of capitalism：Your system has neverkept its promises for one single day since it was promulgated. Our production is ridiculous.We are producing eighty horsepower motor cars when many more houses should be built.We are producing most extravagant luxuries while children starve.You have stood production on its head.Instead of beginning with the things the nation needs most， you are beginning at just the opposite end.We say distribution has become so glaringly ridiculous that there are only two people out of the 47，000，000 people in this country who approve of the present system of distribution one is the Duke of Northumberland and the other is Lord Banbury.
We are opposed to that theory. Socialism， which is perfectly clear and unmistakable， says the thing you have got to take care of is your distribution.We have to begin with that， and private property， if it stands in the way of good distribution， has got to go.
A man who holds public property must hold it on the pub1ic condition on which， for instance， I carry my walking stick. I am not allowed to do what I like with it.I must not knock you on the head with it.We say that if distribution goes wrong， everything else goes wrong—religion， morals， government.And we say， therefore (this is the whole meaning of our socialism)， we must begin with distribution and take all the necessary steps.
I think we are keeping it in our minds because our business is to take care of the distribution of wealth in the world and I tellyou， as I have told you before， that I don't think there are two men， or perhaps one man， in our 47，000，000 who approves of the existing distribution of wealth. I will go even further and say that you will not find a single person in the whole of the civilized world who agrees with the existing system of the distribution of wealth.It has been reduced to a blank absurdity.
I think the day will come when we will be able to make the distinction between the capitalists and us. We must get certain leading ideas before the people.We should announce that we are not going in for what was the old-fashioned idea of redistribution， but the redistribution of income.Let it always be a question of income.
I have been very happy here tonight. I entirely understand the distinction made by our Chairman to night when he said you hold me in social esteem and a certain amount of personal affection.I am not a sentimental man， but I am not insensible to all that.I know the value of all that， and it gives me， now that I have come to the age of seventy (it will not occur again and I am saying it for the first time)， a great feeling of pleasure that I can say what a good many people can't say.