【英语翻译】求大神帮忙翻译啊。。。

Question

请帮忙翻译一下吧，我要完不成任务了，【不要用翻译软件直译过来那种】，那种翻译出来根本念不通。先谢谢谢谢啦~~~！！！！！
The measure of that possibility appears in the desperate attempts of existing political
powers (for example, the NGOs and international institutions, including the World Bank, assembled at the Rio World Urban Forum in 2010) to co-opt that language to their own purposes. In the same way that Marx depicted restrictions on the length of the working day as a first step down a revolutionary path, so claiming back the right for everyone to live in a decent house in a decent living environment can be seen as the first step towards a more comprehensive revolutionary movement. There is no point in complaining at the attempt to co-opt. The left should take it as a compliment and battle to sustain its own distinctive immanent meaning: all those whose labors are engaged in producing and reproducing the city have a collective right not only to that which they produce, but also to decide what kind of urban ism is to be produced where, and how. Alternative democratic vehicles (other than the existing democracy of money power) such as popular assemblies need to be constructed if urban life is to be revitalized and reconstructed outside of dominant class relations. The right to
the city is not an exclusive individual right, but a focused collective right. It is inclusive not only of construction workers but also of all those who facilitate the reproduction of daily life: the caregivers and teachers, the sewer and subway repair men, the plumbers and electricians, the scaffold erectors and crane operators, the hospital workers and the truck, bus, and taxi drivers, the restaurant workers and the entertainers, the bank clerks and the city administrators. It seeks a unity from within an incredible diversity of fragmented social spaces and locations within in numerable divisions of labor. And there are many putative forms of organization-from workers' centers and regional workers' assemblies (such as that of Toronto) to alliances (such as the Right to the City alliances and the Excluded Workers Congress and other forms of organization of precarious labor) that have this objective upon their political radar. But, for obvious reasons, it is a complicated right partly by virtue of the contemporary conditions of capitalist urbanization, as well as because of the nature of the populations that might actively pursue such a right.Murray Bookchin, for example, took the plausible view (also attributable to Lewis Mumford and many
others influenced by the social anarchist tradition of thinking) that capitalist processes of urbanization have destroyed the city as a functioning body politic upon which a civilized anti-capitalist alternative might be built.

Answer 1

The measure of that possibility appears in the desperate attempts of existing political
powers (for example, the NGOs and international institutions, including the World Bank, assembled at the Rio World Urban Forum in 2010) to co-opt that language to their own purposes. In the same way that Marx depicted restrictions on the length of the working day as a first step down a revolutionary path, so claiming back the right for everyone to live in a decent house in a decent living environment can be seen as the first step towards a more comprehensive revolutionary movement. There is no point in complaining at the attempt to co-opt. The left should take it as a compliment and battle to sustain its own distinctive immanent meaning: all those whose labors are engaged in producing and reproducing the city have a collective right not only to that which they produce, but also to decide what kind of urban ism is to be produced where, and how. Alternative democratic vehicles (other than the existing democracy of money power) such as popular assemblies need to be constructed if urban life is to be revitalized and reconstructed outside of dominant class relations. The right to
the city is not an exclusive individual right, but a focused collective right. It is inclusive not only of construction workers but also of all those who facilitate the reproduction of daily life: the caregivers and teachers, the sewer and subway repair men, the plumbers and electricians, the scaffold erectors and crane operators, the hospital workers and the truck, bus, and taxi drivers, the restaurant workers and the entertainers, the bank clerks and the city administrators. It seeks a unity from within an incredible diversity of fragmented social spaces and locations within in numerable divisions of labor. And there are many putative forms of organization-from workers' centers and regional workers' assemblies (such as that of Toronto) to alliances (such as the Right to the City alliances and the Excluded Workers Congress and other forms of organization of precarious labor) that have this objective upon their political radar. But, for obvious reasons, it is a complicated right partly by virtue of the contemporary conditions of capitalist urbanization, as well as because of the nature of the populations that might actively pursue such a right.Murray Bookchin, for example, took the plausible view (also attributable to Lewis Mumford and many
others influenced by the social anarchist tradition of thinking) that capitalist processes of urbanization have destroyed the city as a functioning body politic upon which a civilized anti-capitalist alternative might be built.
英语翻译到中文简体的大概意思是：
衡量这种可能性似乎在拼命现有的政治权力（例如，非政府组织和国际机构，包括世界银行，聚集在里约在2010年的世界城市论坛）增选语言来达到自己的目的。以同样的方式，马克思描绘限制的长度一天的工作下来的革命道路的第一步，索回的权利每个人都可以被看作是一个像样的房子住在一个体面的居住环境的第一步一个更全面的革命运动。在抱怨试图增选是没有意义的。左应把它作为一种恭维和战斗，以维持其自己独特的内在含义：所有那些劳动力所从事的生产和再生产的城市不仅他们产生的集体权利，但也决定什么样的城市主义是产生在哪里，以及如何。替代民主辆（比其他现有的民主社会，金钱的力量），如流行的组件需要兴建的城市生活，是振兴和重建的统治阶级关系之外。权
城市是不是一个专属个人的权利，但有重点的集体权利。这是包容性不仅是建筑工人，但所有这些促进再现日常生活的照顾者和教师，下水道，地铁修理工，水电工，支架的建设者和起重机操作员，医院工作人员和卡车，公共汽车和出租车司机，餐馆工人和演艺人员，银行职员和城市管理。它寻求一个统一从一个令人难以置信的多样性，分散的社会空间和地点内可数的劳动分工。有许多公认的组织形式，从工人中心和地区工人的组件（如多伦多）联盟（如城市联盟和排除的工人代表大会和其他形式的危险的劳动组织的权利）有此目标后，他们的政治雷达。但是，出于明显的原因，它是一个复杂的权利，部分原因是由于当代的资本主义城市化的条件，以及由于人口可能会积极地追求这样的right.Murray的布克金的性质，例如，采取了看法似是而非， （也刘易斯·芒福德和许多
其它受到影响的社会无政府主义者传统的思维），资本主义的城市化进程已经破坏了身体政治上创建一个文明的反资本主义的另一种可能是作为一个正常运作的城市。

Answer 2

衡量这种可能性似乎在拼命现有的政治
权力（例如，非政府组织和国际机构，包括世界银行，聚集在里约在2010年的世界城市论坛）增选语言来达到自己的目的。以同样的方式，马克思描绘限制的长度一天的工作下来的革命道路的第一步，索回的权利每个人都可以被看作是一个像样的房子住在一个体面的居住环境的第一步一个更全面的革命运动。在抱怨试图增选是没有意义的。左应把它作为一种恭维和战斗，以维持其自己独特的内在含义：所有那些劳动力所从事的生产和再生产的城市不仅他们产生的集体权利，但也决定什么样的城市主义是产生在哪里，以及如何。替代民主辆（比其他现有的民主社会，金钱的力量），如流行的组件需要兴建的城市生活，是振兴和重建的统治阶级关系之外。权
城市是不是一个专属个人的权利，但有重点的集体权利。这是包容性不仅是建筑工人，但所有这些促进再现日常生活的照顾者和教师，下水道，地铁修理工，水电工，支架的建设者和起重机操作员，医院工作人员和卡车，公共汽车和出租车司机，餐馆工人和演艺人员，银行职员和城市管理。它寻求一个统一从一个令人难以置信的多样性，分散的社会空间和地点内可数的劳动分工。有许多公认的组织形式，从工人中心和地区工人的组件（如多伦多）联盟（如城市联盟和排除的工人代表大会和其他形式的危险的劳动组织的权利）有此目标后，他们的政治雷达。但是，出于明显的原因，它是一个复杂的权利，部分原因是由于当代的资本主义城市化的条件，以及由于人口可能会积极地追求这样的right.Murray的布克金的性质，例如，采取了看法似是而非， （也刘易斯·芒福德和许多
其它受到影响的社会无政府主义者传统的思维），资本主义的城市化进程已经破坏了身体政治上创建一个文明的反资本主义的另一种可能是作为一个正常运作的城市。

Answer 3

这项措施的可能性出现在绝望的试图现有的政治
权力(例如,非政府组织和国际机构,包括世界银行,聚集在力拓在2010年世界城市论坛)来拉拢,语言来自己的目的。同样,马克思描绘限制工作日的长度作为第一步下来一个革命性的路径,所以声称支持适合每个人生活在一个体面的房子在一个体面的居住环境可以被视为第一步一个更全面的革命运动。抱怨是没有用的,企图拉拢。左边应该把它看作是一种恭维和战斗来维持自己的独特的内在含义:所有那些劳动力从事生产和再生产这座城市有一个集体权利不仅对他们产生,但也决定什么样的城市ism如何产生,以及如何。替代民主车辆(除了现有的民主力量的钱)比如流行的组件需要建立如果城市生活要恢复和重建的统治阶级关系之外。有权力这个城市不是一个专属个人权利,但一个集中的集体权利。它不仅具有包容性的建筑工人也所有那些促进生殖的日常生活:护理人员和教师、下水道和地铁维修工人、水管工和电工,脚手架基层网点建设者和起重机操作员,医院员工和卡车、公共汽车和出租车司机,餐馆工人和艺人,银行职员和城市管理员。它寻求一个团结在一个令人难以置信的多样性的支离破碎的社会空间和地点在可计算的劳动分工。还有许多假定的形式的机构—工人的中心和地区工人的组件(例如,多伦多的)联盟(如正确的城市联盟和排除
恩恩、、、、

Answer 4

这项措施的可能性出现在绝望的试图现有的政治
　　权力(例如,非政府组织和国际机构,包括世界银行,聚集在力拓在2010年世界城市论坛)来拉拢,语言来自己的目的。秋如果?克思描绘限制工作日的长度作为第一步下来一个革命性的路径,所以声称支持适合每个人生活在一个体面的房子在一个体面的居住环境可以被视为不好的