占领华尔街运动给商界的启示

    移除红灯是否真的属于“无政府主义”范畴？呼吁更大的自主权和问责制是否才是此处最重要的寓意？尽管斯科特谈了如此多关于“无政府主义”的哲思，但他的这部著作也能够、同时也应该被解读为一项宣言，身处组织的个人到底应该如何选择自我管理方式，把自己当成公民，而不是臣民；当成员工，而不是工资奴隶；当成专业人士，而不是寻租者。就这个意义而言，斯科特与其说是一位无政府主义者，倒不如说是一位民粹主义者。

    因此，在《为无政府主义喝两声彩》一书中似乎看不到Twitter和互联网的存在，是一个令人扼腕的漏洞。不管马克思作为一个人和一位政治经济学家具有怎样的缺点，但他的确对技术及其影响有着深刻的观察。就这方面而言，无论出于何种原因，斯科特都不是一位眼光犀利的观察者。鉴于数字媒体（维基解密和匿名者，说的是你们哦！）启动了这么多权力关系和颠覆机会，斯科特错失了面向后工业化时代提升其政治组织理论深度的良机。

    同样，斯科特最感兴趣的市场是黑市和灰市。要是斯科特至少能够把他对日常抵抗行为的某些观察重新放入更多的经济背景之中，本书将增色不少。书中并没有提到自己动手运动和开源技术的兴起，尽管这两场运动都支持了他的无政府主义观点和同情心。

    尽管如此，评论界应给予《为无政府主义喝两声彩》的喝彩声又何止两声而已，因为斯科特有效地扩大了领导者和管理者需要掌握的、涉及权力、控制和抵抗等关键议题的词汇。笔者所认识的每一位高效领导者都夜不能寐，不知道怎样才能最好地为他们的人才授权，富有建设性地与下属结盟。我所认识的成功的领导者（特别是具有创造性破坏精神的企业家）至少都有那么一点无政府主义倾向。就冲着这一点，他们也会发现斯科特的见解和煽动性语言值得一读。

    译者：任文科

    Is red light removal really "anarchic?" Or is the call to greater autonomy and accountability what's most important here? For all Scott's philosophizing about "anarchism," his book can and should also be read as a manifesto about how individuals should choose to govern themselves in organizations -- as citizens, not subjects; as employees, not wage slaves; as professionals, not rent-seekers. In this sense, Scott comes across more as a populist than an anarchist.

    Consequently, it's both a pity and a flaw that Two Cheers is written as if Twitter and the Internet didn't exist. Marx, whatever his shortcomings as a person and political economist, was an astute observer of technology and its implications. For whatever reason, Scott is not. Technology appears in the scenery rather than as a major character or context. Given that so many power relationships and so many opportunistic subversions are enabled by digital media (hello, Wikileaks and Anonymous!), Scott missed real opportunities to upgrade his politico-organizational insights for the post-industrial age.

    Similarly, the markets that most interest Scott are the black and gray ones. This would have been a better book had Scott recast at least a few of his everyday resistance arguments into more economic contexts. The maker movement and the rise of open-source technologies go unmentioned, although both support his anarchic arguments and sympathies.

    Nevertheless, Two Cheers for Anarchism deserves more than two cheers in review because Scott usefully expands the vocabularies that leaders and managers need to have around the critical issues of power, control, and resistance. Every effective leader I know loses sleep over how best to empower their talent and constructively align their people. And all the successful leaders I know -- especially the entrepreneurs -- have at least a little streak of anarchism -- of creative destruction -- inside of them. For this reason alone, they will find Scott's insights and incites worth their time.