????移除紅燈是否真的屬于“無(wú)政府主義”范疇？呼吁更大的自主權(quán)和問(wèn)責(zé)制是否才是此處最重要的寓意？盡管斯科特談了如此多關(guān)于“無(wú)政府主義”的哲思，但他的這部著作也能夠、同時(shí)也應(yīng)該被解讀為一項(xiàng)宣言，身處組織的個(gè)人到底應(yīng)該如何選擇自我管理方式，把自己當(dāng)成公民，而不是臣民；當(dāng)成員工，而不是工資奴隸；當(dāng)成專業(yè)人士，而不是尋租者。就這個(gè)意義而言，斯科特與其說(shuō)是一位無(wú)政府主義者，倒不如說(shuō)是一位民粹主義者。

????因此，在《為無(wú)政府主義喝兩聲彩》一書(shū)中似乎看不到Twitter和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的存在，是一個(gè)令人扼腕的漏洞。不管馬克思作為一個(gè)人和一位政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家具有怎樣的缺點(diǎn)，但他的確對(duì)技術(shù)及其影響有著深刻的觀察。就這方面而言，無(wú)論出于何種原因，斯科特都不是一位眼光犀利的觀察者。鑒于數(shù)字媒體（維基解密和匿名者，說(shuō)的是你們哦?。﹩?dòng)了這么多權(quán)力關(guān)系和顛覆機(jī)會(huì)，斯科特錯(cuò)失了面向后工業(yè)化時(shí)代提升其政治組織理論深度的良機(jī)。

????同樣，斯科特最感興趣的市場(chǎng)是黑市和灰市。要是斯科特至少能夠把他對(duì)日常抵抗行為的某些觀察重新放入更多的經(jīng)濟(jì)背景之中，本書(shū)將增色不少。書(shū)中并沒(méi)有提到自己動(dòng)手運(yùn)動(dòng)和開(kāi)源技術(shù)的興起，盡管這兩場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)都支持了他的無(wú)政府主義觀點(diǎn)和同情心。

????盡管如此，評(píng)論界應(yīng)給予《為無(wú)政府主義喝兩聲彩》的喝彩聲又何止兩聲而已，因?yàn)樗箍铺赜行У財(cái)U(kuò)大了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和管理者需要掌握的、涉及權(quán)力、控制和抵抗等關(guān)鍵議題的詞匯。筆者所認(rèn)識(shí)的每一位高效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者都夜不能寐，不知道怎樣才能最好地為他們的人才授權(quán)，富有建設(shè)性地與下屬結(jié)盟。我所認(rèn)識(shí)的成功的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者（特別是具有創(chuàng)造性破壞精神的企業(yè)家）至少都有那么一點(diǎn)無(wú)政府主義傾向。就沖著這一點(diǎn)，他們也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)斯科特的見(jiàn)解和煽動(dòng)性語(yǔ)言值得一讀。

????譯者：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.