Nov 20th, 2010, 15:07
|
只看该作者 #41 | |
|
Senior Member
   
注册日期: Jul 2004
帖子: 3,127
积分:1
精华:1
   |
试与Tanghan老吴等讨论清楚两个层面的分歧点
引用:
按以上回复看，显然Tanghan已经同意文革确具两党之争和社会主义与资本主义之争的性质。老吴、Kevin、Sunday等对此是否尚有异议？欢迎提出来进一步讨论。 2、史论层面：就是在对史实本身不存争议的前提下，对意在维护社会主义纯洁性之文革的好坏，以及更为根本性的社会主义资本主义孰优孰劣之争议，展开价值评判与分析。 为此，特转爱因斯坦相关文章，期待由此深化第二个层面的思想交流与争论。 Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein From Monthly Review, New York, May, 1949. [Re-printed in Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein] Transcribed by Lenny Gray Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?" I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society." It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? |
|
“多伦多太极拳推手角” 每周六下午3时-6时，Goldhawk Library, 西南侧（有遮顶风雨无阻）295 Alton Towers Circle, Toronto, M1V 4P1, ON, |
||
|
|
|
感谢 witty 此篇文章之用户： |
wuyong (Nov 25th, 2010) |
|
Nov 22nd, 2010, 12:51
|
只看该作者 #42 |
|
维稳办副秘书长
 
注册日期: Dec 2006
帖子: 21,246
积分:17
精华:4
声望: 2147483647
|
暂时先看看几位的讨论. 看看以前谁是真正的社会主义  今天谁是真正的社会主义?---总结现实和实际的例子是最好的证明. 而不仅仅是一种美好的空想或一箱情愿的理论阐述.爱因斯坦当时要是跑到苏联就好了. 此帖于 Nov 23rd, 2010 13:23 被 宋祖德 编辑。 |
|
Why they are friends, because they believe in your dreams, no matter how silly they may seem. I love you MY FRIENDS  be specific, be logical, be reasonable 一些中国同胞不远万里来教育落后的加拿大同胞 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 25th, 2010, 12:37
|
只看该作者 #45 | ||
|
Senior Member
注册日期: Jul 2004
帖子: 5,843
积分:128
精华:28
声望: 8005150
|
对不起， 最近太忙， 没有注意到这里. 这些大话题我不参与讨论， 没有能力， 也没有精力。 引用:
引用:
|
||
|
----------------- 向往天空那一朵云 ----------------- |
|||
|
|
|
|
Dec 3rd, 2010, 16:41
|
只看该作者 #57 |
|
Senior Member
注册日期: Jul 2004
帖子: 3,127
积分:1
精华:1
声望: 1311488
|
美报：阶级斗争仍在继续
两极分化令美国社会危机四伏 鲍勃•赫伯特 美国《纽约时报》11月27日文章 原题：打赢阶级战争（作者鲍勃•赫伯特） 没有人愿意提及的阶级战争仍在继续，没有减弱。 就在数以百万计失业的和其他为生计而挣扎的美国人勒紧裤腰带过节的时候，美国的精英阶层还有数百万甚至数十亿的金钱滚滚而来，他们穿上舞鞋像贵族一样参加聚会。 衰退是对于小人物而言的，而不是针对那些位于美国统治阶级核心的企业负责人和华尔街巨头。他们对其他所有人发动了经济战争，并且赢得了快乐的时光。 贫困阶层在不断扩大，因无力还贷被赶出家门的家庭或许要经历一段不愉快的节日时光。而美国企业刚刚经历了有史以来利润最高的一个季度。据《泰晤士报》本周报道，美国企业在第三季度获得了1.659万亿美元的利润——这是自60多年前开始有记录以来的最高数字。 企业界的权贵们正在令人担忧地膨胀。他们的利润在过去7个季度中飞速增长，他们难以掩饰地高兴。 如果有人认为美国精英阶层的财富和那些在贫困中挣扎的大量人群之间的这种巨大悬殊会有任何好处的话，那他就是愚蠢。这对精英阶层来说也并非好事。 如果失业率长期居高不下、薪资水平停滞不前并且新增的工作机会都是低级别的职位，那就没办法让美国的消费经济回到健康的正轨上来。如果普通美国人无法用好工作带来的收入进行消费，那么任何有意义的、长期的经济复苏都是没有希望的。 除此之外，极度的经济不平等有可能导致社会的不稳定。处于贫困状态的家庭会面临越来越大的压力：要筹钱支付房租或是贷款，要躲避票据收款人，要应对疾病和突发状况，还要面对每天的极度焦虑。 随着愤怒的积聚和替罪羊的出现，社会矛盾会逐渐转移。 最终会有人借着这种环境起来煽动生事。富人们可能会觉得大众不可能站到他们的对立面。但千万别这么想，别忘了上世纪30年代动荡的历史。 纽约市的例子就说明了出现真正矛盾的可能。亿万富翁市长迈克尔•布隆伯格任命了一个美国贵族的榜样来担任该市的教育主管。赫斯特杂志集团董事长凯瑟琳•布莱克是一个很有能力的企业主管，但她绝对没有教育领域的背景。 布莱克将会发现，在她和她将服务的工薪阶层家长和学生间，有一条几乎无法逾越的鸿沟。更糟糕的是，布隆伯格已经明确表示，由于预算不足，她需要集中精力对教育系统的开支进行缩减。 于是，我们看到亿万富翁和百万富翁告诉穷人和为生计而挣扎的人们，他们将不得不靠着更少的资源凑合着过下去。你几乎可以感受到仇恨在增加。 极端的不平等已经在加剧美国在政治和其他方面的两极分化。并且它大大地削弱了一种观念，即作为公民，我们应当以相当团结的方式来面对这个国家的问题，不管是经济还是其他方面的问题。当太多的人滑向底层的时候，他们就会倾向于互相争夺越来越贫乏的资源。 真正要做的是让美国劳动者组成联盟，并以善意的精神找到公正合理的办法，来解决许多普通个人和家庭所面对的大量问题。我们需要强有力的领导人来组织这种联盟并反击那种几乎毁了经济、让劳动者陷入困境的力量。 贵族曾被认为是美国人所厌恶的。现在，当这个国家的其他许多人都在受苦的时候，他们是唯一还能笑得出来的人。 （《环球视野》第330期，摘自2010年11月27日美国《纽约时报》） |
|
|
|
