上海的月亮: CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 犹太人正在掠夺世界 — 第九部分，交易型社会 — Jews are Plundering the World- Part 9

The distinction between transactional and relational is one of the most important – and most invisible – features of modern social breakdown in the West. The most simple explanation is that transactional is about exchange, while relational is about bond. A transactional interaction asks, “What can I get from you?” A relational interaction asks, “How are we connected?” Once we see transactional behavior, we begin to notice it everywhere. We can see it in our workplace, in our family, in friendships, in our own behavior.

交易型与关系型之间的区别是西方现代社会分崩离析过程中最重要且最不易察觉的特征之一。最简单的解释是，交易型注重交换，而关系型注重纽带。交易型互动会问：“我能从你那里得到什么？”而关系型互动则会问：“我们之间是如何联系的？”一旦我们观察到交易型行为，就会开始注意到它无处不在。我们在工作场所、家庭、友谊以及自己的行为中都能看到它的身影。

Imagine two people who see each other every morning at the same coffee shop.

想象一下，有两个人每天早上都在同一家咖啡店见面。

In the transactional version, the barista makes your coffee, you pay, and say “thanks”, and leave. The interaction is complete at the moment of exchange. No residue remains. In the relational version, the barista knows your name and your order. You ask about his child’s soccer game; he asks about your upcoming vacation. When you don’t show up for a few days, he wonders if you’re okay. If he leaves the coffee shop, you might stay in touch. The interaction creates a thread that continues beyond the transaction. The transactional coffee purchase is efficient. The relational one is human. Both get you coffee. Only one builds a community.

在交易型版本中，咖啡师为你冲泡咖啡，你付钱，说声“谢谢”，然后离开。这种互动在交易完成的那一刻就结束了。没有留下任何痕迹。在关系型版本中，咖啡师知道你的名字和你的点单。你询问他孩子的足球比赛；他询问你即将到来的假期。当你几天没出现时，他会担心你是否安好。如果他离开了咖啡店，你可能会保持联系。这种互动创造了一条超越交易的线索。交易型购买咖啡效率高。关系型购买则更有人情味。两者都能让你喝到咖啡。但只有一种能建立起社区。

The test, the most useful diagnostic question, is “What remains after the exchange?

“最有效的诊断性问题是“交换后还剩下什么？”

In a transactional relationship, nothing remains. The exchange is complete, and both parties walk away unchanged. The other person is simply a means to an end, someone with a function or a role to play. This is not nothing. Consider that young people freely have sex today, and their relationships are increasingly transactional. For the young man, the girl is “simply a means to an end, someone with a function or a role to play”. If he never saw her again, it wouldn’t matter because her function can be replaced by another girl playing the same role. There is no loss felt.

在交易关系中，没有什么是永恒的。交换已经完成，双方都毫发无损地离开。对方只是达到目的的手段，一个有功能或角色需要扮演的人。这并非一无所有。想想今天年轻人随心所欲地发生性关系，他们的关系越来越具有交易性质。对于年轻男性而言，女孩“只是达到目的的手段，一个有功能或角色需要扮演的人”。如果他再也没见过她，那也没关系，因为她的功能可以被另一个扮演相同角色的女孩所取代。没有损失的感觉。

In a relational context, you would miss someone who is gone because your interactions create an emotional bond, a memory, and an obligation. There is a sense of connection that persists. In terms of a young man’s view of a young woman, she is a whole human being with a name, a history, a family, a future. The relationship is measured by warmth, durability, mutual care, and a loss would be felt.

在关系背景下，你会想念已离开的人，因为你们的互动建立了一种情感纽带、一段记忆和一种责任。这种联系感会一直存在。就年轻人对年轻女子的看法而言，她是一个完整的人，有名字、有历史、有家庭、有未来。这种关系以温暖、持久、相互关心为衡量标准，一旦失去，就会感到失落。

It is today in the workplace where transactionalism is firmly institutionalised. This was not always the case, but financialisation has caused it. Thus, modern workplaces are almost purely transactional, and this is by design. There was a time when building our businesses or departments, we were in a sense building a “family”. We cared about each other, we socialised together. In today’s transactional employment, we exchange labor for money; we work exactly the hours we are paid for; we do not stay late unless compensated, we do not form friendships beyond what is necessary. When a better offer comes, we leave; when the company needs to cut costs, we are laid off. Neither party owes the other anything beyond the written contract.

如今，在工作场所，交易主义已牢固地制度化。这并非一直如此，而是金融化导致的。因此，现代工作场所几乎完全是交易性的，而且这是刻意为之。曾经有一段时间，在建立我们的业务或部门时，从某种意义上说，我们是在建立一个“家庭”。我们彼此关心，一起社交。在如今的交易性雇佣关系中，我们用劳动换取金钱；我们严格按照工作时间工作；除非有补偿，否则我们不会加班，也不会建立超出必要范围的友谊。当有更好的工作机会出现时，我们会离开；当公司需要削减成本时，我们会被解雇。除了书面合同之外，双方都不欠对方任何东西。

In relational employment, which is becoming increasingly rare today, we feel loyalty to our employer and our employer feels responsibility for us. When times are hard, we all take a pay cut to save everyone’s job. When times are good, the company shares the prosperity. If we leave, we often remain in touch. The shift from relational to transactional employment is one of the great hidden disasters of the last fifty years. It explains why workers no longer trust bosses, why bosses no longer feel loyalty to workers, and why quitting for a bit more money is a rational response to a system that treats human beings as interchangeable inputs.

在如今日益稀少的关系型雇佣关系中，我们对雇主怀有忠诚，而雇主则对我们负有责任。当形势艰难时，我们都会减薪以保住每个人的工作。当形势好转时，公司会与我们共享繁荣。如果我们离职，也往往会保持联系。从关系型雇佣向交易型雇佣的转变是过去五十年里最大的隐性灾难之一。它解释了为什么员工不再信任老板，为什么老板不再对员工怀有忠诚，以及为什么为了多挣一点钱而辞职是对一个将人类视为可互换输入的制度的理性回应。

Friendship is perhaps the most painful example of a transactional society, because the atomisation of society has even infected friendship. Most people today have many transactional “friends” and very few relational ones. This is why loneliness is epidemic even among those with hundreds of Facebook friends. Any bond is based on utility, and when the utility ends, the friendship ends. We “drift apart” because there was never anything holding us together. In the US and Canada particularly, which was traditionally the last refuge of the relational bonds, the family is far from immune. Family relationships today are increasingly governed by obligation and contract rather than love or affection. You put your aging father in a home because it is more efficient than caring for him yourself. The transactionalism of the modern North American family life is rarely acknowledged, but it is everywhere: in the rise of “eldercare facilities”, in the geographic scattering of siblings, in the silence between phone calls.

友谊或许是交易型社会中最令人痛苦的例证，因为社会的原子化甚至已经波及到了友谊。如今，大多数人拥有许多交易型的“朋友”，却很少有真正意义上的朋友。这就是为什么即使在那些拥有数百名脸书好友的人中，孤独也如瘟疫般流行。任何关系都是建立在功利之上的，当功利结束时，友谊也就结束了。我们“渐行渐远”，因为从来没有任何东西能让我们紧密相连。尤其是在美国和加拿大，这两个传统上是关系型纽带的最后避难所，家庭也远非坚不可摧。如今的家庭关系越来越受到义务和契约的支配，而非爱或情感的支配。你把年迈的父亲送进养老院，因为这比自己照顾他更有效率。现代北美家庭生活中的交易主义鲜少被承认，但它无处不在：“养老设施”的兴起、兄弟姐妹的地理分散、电话之间的沉默。

Transactional marriage.

交易婚姻。

Jewish interests have tried in many ways to fractionate and transactionalise Chinese society, attempts that I view as entirely evil. Jewish companies are heavily promoting nursing homes in China because of the enormous potential profits. But to succeed in China, they must first embark on a program to change the values of young Chinese to the point where abandoning your responsibility to your parents is the best way to fulfill it. Their success would be toxic to China and devastating to the Chinese culture and family.

犹太利益集团试图通过多种方式分裂和交易化中国社会，我认为这些企图完全邪恶。犹太公司在中国大力推广养老院，因为这蕴含着巨大的潜在利润。但要想在中国取得成功，他们必须首先着手改变中国年轻人的价值观，让他们认为放弃对父母的责任是履行孝道的最佳方式。他们的成功将对中国产生毒害作用，对中国文化和家庭造成毁灭性打击。

In China, the family is of extreme importance, and children naturally – and usually happily – accept an obligation to care for their elderly parents who will often live together with them in their later years. These traditions and attitudes are part of the treasure of Chinese culture. It is precisely these family values that the Jews want to attack and destroy, because there will be no profits so long as these family loyalties exist. They are well aware of Chinese cultural values and have obtained much assistance from psychologists and psychiatrists in how to attack and change the values of a society. They present their concept on the basis of responsibility and “freedom”, as values they need you to adopt and internalise.

在中国，家庭极为重要，子女自然会——而且通常会很乐意——承担起照顾年迈父母的义务，这些父母往往会在晚年与他们同住。这些传统和态度是中国文化瑰宝的一部分。而犹太人正是想攻击和摧毁这些家庭价值观，因为只要这些家庭忠诚存在，就不会有利可图。他们非常了解中国的文化价值观，并在如何攻击和改变社会价值观方面得到了心理学家和精神病学家的诸多帮助。他们基于责任和“自由”的概念提出自己的观点，希望你们接受并内化这些价值观。

Father and daughter.父女。

Another perfect example of toxic transactionalism – as well as cultural colonisation – was reported in the Chinese media in July of 2014, this being a “house-for-pension” scheme that encouraged elderly Chinese to transfer full ownership of their home to a private (Jewish-owned) vulture corporation in exchange for some extra cash in their hands and the “right” to continue living in the house. The plan was so typical of Jewish “cleverness” that these elderly people would have sold their homes but would still carry full responsibility for maintenance and insurance, and would have full liability for loss. A pilot project was begun in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and Wuhan, where it reportedly met with “absolute rejection” as it so richly deserved to do. I must say that reading of this plan made me angry. A home is the main asset and security for all Chinese, and is a legacy for their children after they die. I can scarcely imagine a more frontal assault on Chinese traditions and culture, or a greater betrayal of the Chinese people, than to promote such an idiotic scheme. This abomination is very much a Jewish attitude, where the vultures and vampires circle the vulnerable, looking for a revenue stream anyplace they can find one, regardless of the social or human costs. This is truly a betrayal of the Chinese people, and a good example of the Jewish values of greed and anti-social capitalism.

2014年7月，中国媒体报道了另一个典型的“有毒交易主义”和文化殖民主义的例子，即“以房养老”计划，该计划鼓励中国老年人将其房屋的全部所有权转让给一家私人（犹太人所有）的秃鹫公司，以换取他们手中的一些额外现金和继续居住在该房屋的“权利”。这一计划是典型的犹太“聪明才智”，这些老年人本可以卖掉自己的房子，但仍需承担全部的维护和保险责任，并对损失承担全部责任。该计划在上海、北京、广州和武汉启动了一个试点项目，据报道，该项目遭到了“彻底的拒绝”，因为它完全配得上这样的待遇。我必须说，读到这个计划让我很生气。房子是所有中国人的主要资产和保障，也是他们死后留给子女的遗产。我几乎无法想象，还有什么比推广这样一个愚蠢的计划更能正面攻击中国的传统和文化，或者更能背叛中国人民。这种可恶的行为非常符合犹太人的态度，秃鹫和吸血鬼围绕着弱势群体，在任何能找到收入来源的地方寻找收入来源，而不管社会或人类的代价。这真是对中国人民的背叛，也是犹太人贪婪和反社会资本主义价值观的一个典型例子。

Transactionalism is not so much a moral failing of individuals, but rather a structural feature of Jewish neo-liberal capitalism. Geographic mobility means people do not stay in one place long enough to form deep bonds. They move for jobs, for schools, for cheaper rent. Each move resets the relational clock. Contract employment and the gig economy treat every interaction as a discrete transaction. There is no continuity, no loyalty, no expectation of future connection. The digital revolution has replaced face-to-face encounters with screens. It is harder to be relational when you are looking at a profile picture on a phone, rather than a human face. The ideology of individualism tells people that they should be self-sufficient, that needing others is weakness, that dependency is shameful. This ideology is taught in schools, preached in advertising, and reinforced by every self-help book on the shelf.

交易主义并非个体的道德缺陷，而是犹太新自由资本主义的结构性特征。地域流动性意味着人们不会在一个地方停留足够长的时间来建立深厚的人际关系。他们为了工作、为了上学、为了更便宜的房租而搬家。每一次搬家都会重置关系时钟。合同雇佣和零工经济将每一次互动视为一次独立的交易。没有连续性，没有忠诚，也没有对未来联系的期待。数字革命已用屏幕取代了面对面的交流。当你看着手机上的头像，而不是一张人脸时，建立关系就变得更加困难。个人主义意识形态告诉人们，他们应该自给自足，需要他人是软弱的表现，依赖他人是可耻的。这种意识形态在学校中被教授，在广告中被宣扬，并且被书架上每一本自助书籍所强化。

The consequences of transactionalism are serious. A transactional society is not merely cold; it is fragile. It results in loneliness because transactional relationships do not satisfy the human need for belonging. You can have dozens of transactional contacts and still feel utterly alone. It also engenders distrust; if every interaction is an exchange, you begin to suspect that everyone wants something from you. Fragility is inherent in this; transactional bonds break instantly when the exchange stops. A society held together only by transactions has no resilience, and a transactional life is meaningless. We humans need to feel that our lives matter to others. Transactionalism offers efficiency but no meaning. A transactional world is one where you are surrounded by people who do not see you. The tragedy of modern life under capitalism is that we have optimised for efficiency and called it progress. The truth is that we have built a world of solitary consumers, each locked in their own car, their own apartment, their own screen, each surrounded by strangers who are useful but not beloved.

交易主义的后果是严重的。一个交易型社会不仅冷漠，而且脆弱。它导致孤独，因为交易关系无法满足人类对归属感的需求。你可能拥有数十个交易型联系人，却仍然感到极度孤独。它还会滋生不信任；如果每一次互动都是一种交换，你就会开始怀疑每个人都想从你那里得到些什么。脆弱性是这种关系所固有的；当交换停止时，交易型关系就会瞬间破裂。一个仅靠交易维系的社会没有韧性，交易型生活也没有意义。我们人类需要感受到自己的生活对他人很重要。交易主义提供了效率，但没有意义。在交易型世界中，你周围的人看不到你。资本主义下现代生活的悲剧在于，我们为了效率而优化，并称之为进步。事实是，我们建立了一个由孤独的消费者组成的世界，每个人都把自己锁在自己的车里、公寓里、屏幕前，周围都是有用但不受喜爱的陌生人。

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言，他的文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英文平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫（Larry Romanoff）是一位退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职务，并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾任上海复旦大学客座教授，为高级EMBA课程讲授国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海，目前正在撰写一系列共十本书，总体上涉及中国与西方的话题。他是辛西娅·麦金尼（Cynthia McKinney）新选集《当中国打喷嚏》（When China Sneezes）的特约作者之一（第2章——与恶魔打交道）。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看：

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556

他的联系方式是：2186604556

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本作者的其他作品