[加评论] 页面有问题?请点击打印板-》打印版                  [推荐此文给朋友]
[博讯主页]->[大众观点]
   

马克思的阶级论和阶级对立论是完全错误的/王澄
(博讯北京时间2011年11月07日 首发 - 支持此文作者/记者)
     *一 阶级的概念是虚构的,不存在的
    
     马克思把复杂的人类社会分工简化成两个阶级,无产阶级和资产阶级,是非常荒唐无知的事。人类社会的进步就是因为分工,分工使生产更加有效,分工使个人的才智得到最大的发挥,分工产生了文明和进步。比如,中国人的文字,据说就是夏商时代掌管祭祀的人发明的,如果那些人不能够脱离农业生产劳动,还要为自己的吃饭种地,那么我们可能今天连文字都没有。 (博讯 boxun.com)

    
    知识分子也是一种分工,脱离了农业生产,专心研究思想,教育和科学等问题,才促进了人类精神和物质文明的进步。毛泽东的马克思主义说知识分子是小资产阶级,邓小平的马克思主义说知识分子是工人阶级的一部分,共产党要整肃这帮人,就说这帮人是资产阶级,共产党要利用这帮人,就说这帮人是无产阶级,共产党的嘴像鸡屁股,乱讲话的。
    
    人类社会今天到底有多少种职业?多少种社会阶层?我还一下子还数不出来。马克思把复杂的人类社会分工错误地简化成两个阶级,这是完全错误的。直至今日,中共还沿用两个阶级的概念,完全是一种僵尸思想体系。
    
    *二 阶级对立论是完全错误的
    
    2010年10月25日民主党全委会在博讯上发表了一篇重要文章《全世界为什么只有中国人“进京上访”》,文中指出,中国过去两千多年的中央集权大一统国体被中共继承下来,已经到了非改不可的时候了。中共的中央集权大一统国体像是个宝塔(圆锥形),而民主国家的政体像“帽盒子”形,比如美国是很多很多小的“市city”组成的,每个市都有自己的市政府,法院,治安(警察)机关,这些政府机构距民众居住地(家)只有开车不到20分钟的距离。
    
    因此,民主党全委会竭力主张取消中共的中央集权大一统国体,变成松散的邦联国体,民主党全委会支持民族独立,各个“邦”有自己独立的政府,和其它邦愿意“邦联”就联。在《全世界为什么只有中国人“进京上访”》一文中,我们说到:“西方社会认为,政权的地理位置离老百姓越近越老百姓越感到安全”。这篇文章发表几天后,中共的御用文人发文诘责说,你们不是说政权离老百姓越近越安全吗?为什么美国有了替人民群众说话的众议院,还要有一个替资本家说话的参议院压在众议院头上呢?(王澄注:吴邦国说,我们不搞西方两院制。因为中国人只信一个皇帝。)
    
    这真是一个让人啼笑皆非的问题,我们觉得是跟一个木乃伊在说话。今天,我们就批判马克思的阶级对立观点来回答中共木乃伊的问题。
    
    *第一 美国众议院不代表穷人,美国参议院也不代表富人。希望中共的御用文人今后学习好了历史学习好了英文再发问,不要瞎问。
    
    英文的维基百科介绍美国国会United States Congress 的成立历史中有一段话:Government powerlessness led to the Convention of 1787 which proposed a revised constitution with a two–chamber or bicameral congress.[13] Smaller states argued for equal representation for each state.[14] The two-chamber structure had functioned well in state governments.[7] A compromise plan was adopted with representatives chosen by population (benefitting larger states) and exactly two senators chosen by state governments (benefitting smaller states).[7]
    
    (中译)美国政府无权力的状况导致了1787年国事会议要求修改宪法,成立两院制。因为人数少的州怕被人数多的州欺负,所以最后确定了参议院每州出两个人,而众议院议员人数按各州人数(比例)定。
    
    这是1787年的美国人想到的,可以简单地说,众议院代表人民,参议院代表本州(人民)的利益。中共无知,套用马克思阶级论,说美国的众议院代表人民,参议院代表资本家,让世人耻笑。
    
    维基百科介绍一些学者评论美国国会说,“国会体制反映了我们美国人的长处和短处。它反映了美国国家独有的特质,美国的伦理,宗教,族群,众多不同的专业,和美国人对各种不同问题的思想智慧的光彩,这些问题可以从战争的价值观到为了价值观的不同而引起的战争。国会是政府的体现,国会基本功能就是针对今天各种重大公共政策产生的众多观点的融合。--- (学者)Smith, Roberts, and Wielen”
    
    Several academics described Congress:
    
    Congress reflects us in all our strengths and all our weaknesses. It reflects our regional idiosyncrasies, our ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, our multitude of professions, and our shadings of opinion on everything from the value of war to the war over values. Congress is the government's most representative body ... Congress is essentially charged with reconciling our many points of view on the great public policy issues of the day. — Smith, Roberts, and Wielen[4]
    
    *第二 随着时间的推移,两院之间的制衡也有了新的意义。比如,众议院议员是2年一选,而参议院议员是6年一选,这样以来,众议院议员关心的往往是2年短期的事,而参议院议员关心的是6年国家的长期的事。
    
    *第三 毫无疑问,两百年前美国成立政府的时候很多方面都是从英国学来的。成立参众两院的时候,的确有人建议就像英国的上院和下院(贵族院house of lord和民众院house of commons)那样,美国人模仿英国的主要目之一是继承这个优秀的传统,并且看到两院的相互制约作用。
    
    因为马克思提出阶级对立论是在19世纪的英国,中共御用文人不学无术,只记得英国上议院的名字是贵族院,他们想当然地认为“贵族院当然是为贵族服务的了”。从后面我附录的英国人编写的英国贵族院house of lord简史中可以看到:
    
    11世纪的贵族院前身是国王的“御前会议”的大臣们,这些大臣有宗教界领袖,有贵族(爵)和富人代表。大臣体制是为了节制国王的权力。
    
    13世纪的贵族院已经有了各个地区的代表。
    
    14世纪英国出现了两院制,贵族院是上院,议员是宗教界领袖和贵族(爵)/富人代表;而众议院是下院,是各区域代表。
    
    15世纪的英国贵族院议员是世袭和男性。
    
    对于马克思主义的批评之一是讨论英国15世纪到19世纪的贵族院是不是“有钱人压迫穷人的工具”,换句话说,英国历史上的贵族院不为国家和人民办事吗?如果回答是肯定的,那么马克思就接着往下编故事“穷人对抗压迫他们的政府就是推动历史进步的动力”。如果回答是否定的,马克思就是胡说八道。
    
    要回答这个问题,得写很长的文章,不是本文的意图。我只是在此扼要地告诉大家,15世纪到19世纪的英国贵族院对英国和人类的文明进步起到了重大的作用,不应当用“有钱人压迫穷人的工具”的视角来看问题。马克思的阶级论是不存在的,马克思的阶级对抗论也是不存在的。
    
    *第四 诚然,在任何一个国家里,政府和富人的关系远比政府和穷人的关系密切。穷人说政府听富人的话为富人做事,不是没有道理。我说的政府是全世界的政府,也包括中共的那个权贵勾结的政府。富人有两件事是穷人不可及的:(一)富人的财富和他的经济行为是富人的事也是国家的事,国家要帮助富人实施其经济运作计划,造福国家,惠及人民。(二)人类社会一定是上层的少数智者和下层的多数不智者组成。智者的一般成长过程有以下几个方面,1.从小被看好,2.上好学校,被精心培养,3. 就学的时间很长。我个人认为当代一个智者的培养年头最好是从小到35岁,我指大学毕业研究生毕业后也要有老师的指导,学习直到35岁左右,如果一定要提到文凭,也就是现代人说的博士后毕业水平。(我并不是说必须上全日制学校到35岁。)这样长时间的学习,有钱人家很容易做到,只要孩子是那块料,有钱人家会全力支持。而穷人就做不到,因为付不出那么多的学费。
    
    所以,进入社会上层的人当中富人家庭出身的比较多,容易替富人说话,容易忽视穷人的利益,这是每个政府要特别当心的事。
    
    (我常常说,人和狗的智力区别看看后天的教育就知道了。一个小狗出生后6个月就可以离开父母独立生活了。如果一条狗能活15年,那么小狗在父母身旁受到保护和“接受教育”的时间是他一生的三十分之一时间。而一个人类的智者要在父母的保护下,在老师的教育下学习到30多岁,占其人生的三分之一时间,人类的智力就是这样一代人接一代人开发出来的。也就是这样,人类离动物界越来越远。)
    
    结束语:一个思想木乃伊的马克思主义中国共产党怎么能够领导中国13亿人民?美国人都不知道美国的参议院是为资本家服务的,中国人从哪儿知道的?
    
    参考阅读,英国贵族院(上院)的简要历史
    
    HOUSE OF LORDS
    
    BRIEFING
    
    [email protected]
    
    www.parliament.uk/lords
    
    *
    
    11th century
    
    Origins of Parliament in the Witans; councils consulted by Saxon Kings and attended by religious leaders, magnates and the King’s own ministers.
    
    
    13th century
    
    Attendance includes representatives of counties, cities and boroughs.
    
    
    14th century
    
    Two distinct houses emerge: one composed of shire and borough representatives became known as the Commons; the other, of religious leaders (Lords Spiritual) and magnates (Lords Temporal), became known as the Upper House.
    
    
    15th century
    
    Membership of Lords Temporal had by now become almost entirely hereditary and male, Members being summoned by writ rather than chosen by the monarch. The Lords Temporal became known as ‘peers’, i.e. equal among themselves but with five ranks: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron.
    
    
    16th century
    
    Until the suppression of the monasteries in 1539 the Lords Spiritual consisted of bishops, abbots and priors. After 1539, only bishops attended and the Lords Temporal formed the majority for the first time.
    
    
    17th century
    
    In 1642 during the Civil War bishops were excluded from the House of Lords but returned by the Clergy Act 1661. In 1649 the House itself ceased to exist but resumed separate sittings in 1660. The Commons pre-eminence in financial matters was given an official basis in the passing of resolutions in 1671 and 1678 after attempts by the Lords to breach the convention. The Declaration of Rights established Parliament’s authority over the King. It was later embodied in an Act, initiated by the Commons—known as the 1689 Bill of Rights.
    
    
    18th century
    
    The Acts of Union (1707 with Scotland and 1800 with Ireland) entitled Scottish and Irish peers to elect representatives from among their number to sit in the Lords.
    
    
    19th century
    
    The Bishopric of Manchester Act 1847 (and later Acts), limited the number of bishops entitled to sit. Most of the Irish and all the Welsh bishops ceased to sit when their respective churches were disestablished in 1869 and 1920. Retired bishops cannot sit or vote in the House. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 created the judicial functions of the House of Lords in its modern form and enabled the sovereign to create Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) to continue to sit and vote. They were, in effect, the first life peerages.
    
    
    20th century
    
    1909 The Lords rejected the Liberal Government’s budget. The Liberals then introduced a Bill to end the power of the Lords to reject legislation approved by the Commons, which was passed under the threat of the creation of a large number of Liberal peers.
    
    1911 The Parliament Act 1911 provided that:
    
    • Money Bills approved by the Commons became law if not passed without amendment by the Lords within one month;
    
    • other Public Bills, except one to extend the life of a Parliament, became law without the consent of the Lords if passed by the Commons in three successive sessions providing two years elapsed between Second Reading and Final Passing in the Commons.
    
    1922 Elections for Irish representative peers ceased.
    
    1941 Commons Chamber destroyed by enemy action. The Lords give up their Chamber to the Commons and use the Queen’s Robing Room when they sit.
    
    1949 The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the delaying power of the 1911 Act in respect of Public Bills other than money Bills to two sessions and one year respectively.
    
    1958 The Life Peerages Act 1958 permitted the creation of peerages for life, with no limit on numbers, to persons of either sex. At about the same time allowances for peers’ out-of-pocket
    
    expenses and the system of ‘leave of absence’ for Members who did not wish or could not attend the House for a long period were introduced.
    
    1963 The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peeresses to be Members of the House, hereditary peerages to be disclaimed for life and for all Scottish peers to sit.
    
    1968 The Labour Government introduced the Parliament (No.2) Bill, which would have created a two-tier House of created Members who could speak and vote and others who could speak but not vote. The Bill was so held up in the House of Commons by both Labour and Conservative MPs that it had to be abandoned.
    
    1999 The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House. An amendment to the Bill, tabled by former Commons Speaker and, at the time, Convenor of the Crossbenchers Lord Weatherill, was accepted by the Government: it enabled 92 hereditary peers to remain until the House was fully reformed.
    
    
    21st century
    
    2005 The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removed the judicial function of the House of Lords from Parliament and set up a new, independent supreme court (from October 2009). It also
    
    changed the role of the Lord Chancellor; ending his role as a judge and indirectly as Speaker of the House of Lords.
    
    2006 The House held its first election for a Lord Speaker and Baroness Hayman was elected on 4 July 2006. The role was previously one of the Lords Chancellor’s responsibilities. Debate and consideration of further Lords reform continues. [博讯首发,转载请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者(博讯 boxun.com)
(本文只代表作者或者发稿团体的观点、立场)
2081212
[发表评论] [查阅评论]
(不必注册笔名,但不注册笔名和新注册笔名的发言需要审核,请耐心等待):

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名

主题:

   
相关报道(更多请利用搜索功能):
·西中哲学史比较(十四)/王澄
·薄熙来这种人/王澄
·点着自己,照亮西藏和中国/王澄
·质疑中共49年建政的正当性/王澄
·自然人,自然神,自然法/王澄
·西中哲学史比较(十三)/王澄
·西中哲学史比较(十二)/王澄
·《建议中医退出国家体制》发表五周年/王澄
·西中哲学史比较(十一)/王澄
·中国哲学是伪科学/王澄
·台湾学者对中共历史观的批判/王澄
·中共编造伪科学/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(十一)/王澄
·西中哲学史比较(十)/王澄
·王澄:“形而上学”折射中共大清朝情结
·西中哲学史比较(九)/王澄 (图)
·西中哲学史比较(八)/王澄
·西中哲学史比较(七)/王澄
·韦伯对中国历史的看法/王澄
联系我们


All rights reserved
博讯是畅所欲言的场所、所有文章均不一定代表博讯立场
声明:博讯由编辑、义务留学生、学者维护,如有版权问题,请联系我们。另外,欢迎其他媒体 转载博讯文章,为尊重作者的辛勤劳动以及所承担风险,尊重博讯广大义务人士的奉献,请转载时注明来源和作者。