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]
   

王澄:学习耶鲁大学公开课《欧洲文明》(三)
(博讯北京时间2013年1月14日 来稿)
    
    中国民主党美国委员会学习《欧洲文明》的目的是用人类主流文明(指西方文明)比照中国野蛮人的支流文明。
    

    *一。 彻底批判中共马克思主义历史观
    中共马克思主义历史观把人类社会(欧洲历史)简化成原始社会,奴隶社会,封建社会,资本主义社会。耶鲁大学公开课的《欧洲文明》说的是从17世纪到20世纪的欧洲历史,在马克思主义历史观看来是资产阶级革命史。马克思主义历史观是完全错误,因为它过于简化,所以不能准确地说明其中的每一个内容。
    
    *1. 法文bourgeois 中产阶级,中国人(马克思主义者)把它翻译成“资产阶级”,英文(dictionary.com)解释如下:
    1) the middle classes
    2) (in Marxist thought) the ruling class of the two basic classes of capitalist society, consisting of capitalists, manufacturers, bankers, and other employers. The bourgeoisie owns the most important of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class.
    
    Websters 韦伯大词典第三版的解释更为准确:Bourgeois指一个中产阶级社会阶层,他们的财富来自于商业和工业赚的钱(利润)。特别要和(不务农的)地主,(有自己的土地的)农民,挣工资的,知识分子相区别。 one of the social class whose income derives from the profits of commercial and industrial enterprise esp. as distinguished from the landed gentry, the wage earners, and farmers, and sometimes the professions.
    
    在17世纪到19世纪,Bourgeois指中产阶级,指靠赚取利润的阶层。
    
    Bourgeois 这个词随着马克思主义的消亡已经退出历史舞台,西方人已经不再使用这个词了。原因是:只用两个阶级(资产阶级和无产阶级)来说明社会分工的复杂性是远远不够的,是错误的。中国人还在用Bourgeois的概念因为中国人是弱智,傻子。
    
    *2. 从下面维基对英国革命的(中文)描述,我们可以学习到,英国革命的过程1.非天主教徒争取信仰自由;2. 代表民意之英国国会与代表君主之英国国王争权,并获得胜利。Bourgeois在这段历史时期的斗争是“靠自己的劳动”(不仅指体力劳动)获得财产的人,与不靠自己的劳动,靠家族遗产获得财产的人之间的斗争。这个斗争一直延续到今天,比如,每个国家征收巨额遗产税就是打击后者。
    
    因此,马克思主义的“资产阶级”概念是完全错误的,现代社会是“劳动光荣”,这个劳动指能力,各种能力,当然不仅仅指体力。这和“英国革命”的进步内容一脉相承。
    
    *3. 西方人不喜欢马克思主义历史观的词,把英国的这段历史时期说成是“革命”。 请详读英文维基。
    
    在英文维基中,我们读到Woolrych的评论,他说,把1640-1660年英国这段历史时期说成是“革命”的错误在于,1. 这段时期太短,没有产生明显的社会变化,2. 不能合理地衔接之后的早期现代化时代。(意指这段时期和之后的早期现代化时代是不能割裂的。)Woolrych argues that the notion that the period constitutes an "English Revolution" not only ignores the lack of significant social change contained within the period, but also ignores the long-term trends of the early modern period which extend beyond this narrow time-frame.
    
    *4. 说“英国革命”不流血是错误的,这场变革曾经历了很长时间的内战。不把内战算进来是不全面的。请读香港李大立的总结。
    
    
    *二。英国光荣革命(中文维基)
    *1.
    1685年詹姆斯二世不顾国内普遍反对,违背以前政府制定的关于禁止天主教教徒担任公职的规矩,委任天主教徒到军队里任职。此后进而任命更多天主教徒到英国政府部门、教会、大学担任重要职务。
    
    1687年4月和1688年4月先后发布两个“信仰自由宣言”(Declaration of Indulgence 或 Declaration of Liberty of Conscience),给予包括天主教徒在内的所有非国教徒以信仰自由,并命令英国国教会的主教在各主教区教坛宣读,引起英国国教会主教们普遍反对。同时詹姆斯二世残酷迫害清教徒,还向英国工商业主要竞争者---法国靠拢,危害bourgeois利益。
    
    1688年6月20日,詹姆斯得子。其信仰英国国教的女儿玛丽没有希望继承王位。当时,支持议会的辉格党人与部分托利党人为避免信奉天主教的詹姆斯二世传位给刚出生的儿子,而把詹姆士二世废黜。废黜詹姆士国王之后,7月由辉格党和托利党七位名人出面邀请詹姆斯二世女婿、其女儿玛丽之丈夫荷兰执政奥兰治亲王威廉入主英国国王宝座。
    
    1688年11月5日威廉率领1.5万人,400艘运输船,53艘军舰在托尔湾登陆。詹姆士二世仓惶出逃德意志,途中被截获送回伦敦。后经威廉伉俪同意,詹姆斯二世流亡法国。议会重掌大权,1689年1月在伦敦召开的议会全体会议上,宣布詹姆斯二世逊位,由威廉和玛丽共同统治英国,称威廉三世和玛丽二世。同时议会向威廉提出《权利宣言》。宣言谴责詹姆斯二世破坏法律的行为;指出以后国王未经议会同意不能停止任何法律效力;不经议会同意不能征收赋税;天主教徒不能担任国王,国王不能与天主教徒结婚等。威廉接受宣言提出的要求。宣言于当年10月经议会正式批准定为法律,即《权利法案》。
    
    因为这场革命没有人命伤亡或受伤(即没有流血——“bloodless”),故史称光荣革命。至此,代表民意之英国国会与代表君主之英国国王近半个世纪的斗争,以议会的胜利而告结束。
    
    这场革命与欧洲大陆上的大同盟战争密切相关,可以被看作该战争的一个组成部分。
    
    *2.
    香港李大立总结如下
    1, 英國之所以能夠實現君主立憲作為過渡,是因為英國的封建社會從一開始形成,就是地方分權制而非中央集權制,貴族擁有自己的領地和軍隊,信教者眾,教會有強大的勢力,互相形成制衡,王權不是一權獨大,各方為維護自身的利益,在政治妥協下實現了君主立憲。
    2, 英國的君主立憲也來之不易,並非如邵建先生等改良派所說,光榮革命一槍不發大功告成,而是經過數十年國王與貴族之間,復辟與反復辟的戰爭最後才成功的。完全是因為雙方力量對比所決定的,並非完全和平非暴力,更並非英國的國王自願交出權力。
    3, 君主立憲成功後,貴族為保持他們的政治特權,使君主立憲到民主共和這一過程歷時六、七百年,直至今天仍未最後取消所有貴族特權,在政治權力面前人人平等,唯其如此,才是真正的徹底的民主政體。
    (李大立博客http://davidyung.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html
    
    (民主党全委会美国委员会。参加2012年12月22日党课学习的有全委会王军涛主席,还有党员曹晗,张玉红,张寿光,江丽,徐田,吴江,李学东,张开利,郑永进,陈幼乔,涂明,毛耀,胡佳琪,柳锋庆,王澄。)
    
    附录:英文维基
    English Revolution
    From Wikipedia
    
    "English Revolution" has been used to describe two different events in English history. The first to be so called—by Whig historians—was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby James II was replaced by William III and Mary II as monarch and a constitutional monarchy was established.[1]
    
    In the twentieth-century, however, Marxist historians introduced the use of the term "English Revolution" to describe the period of the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth period (1640–1660), in which Parliament challenged King Charles I's authority, engaged in civil conflict against his forces, and executed him in 1649. This was followed by a ten-year period of bourgeois republican government, the "Commonwealth", before monarchy was restored in the shape of Charles' son, Charles II in 1660.
    
    Contents [hide]
    1 Whig theory
    2 Marxist theory
    2.1 Criticism
    3 See also
    4 References
    
    Whig theory
     The Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby James II was replaced by William III and Mary II as monarch and a constitutional monarchy established, was described by Whig historians as the English Revolution.[1] This interpretation suggests that the "English Revolution" was the final act in the long process of reform and consolidation by Parliament to achieve a balanced constitutional monarchy in Britain, and laws were made that pointed towards freedom.
    
    Marxist theoryThe Marxist view of the English Revolution suggests that the events of 1640 to 1660 in Britain was a bourgeois revolution in which the final section of English feudalism (the state) was destroyed by a bourgeois class (and its supporters) and replaced with a state (and society) which reflected the wider establishment of agrarian (and later industrial) capitalism. Such an analysis sees the English Revolution as pivotal in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and from a feudal state to a capitalist state in Britain.
    
    According to Marxist historian Christopher Hill:
    
    The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords, and on the other side stood the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside . . . the yeomen and progressive gentry, and . . . wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about.[2]
    
    Later developments of the Marxist view moved on from the theory of bourgeois revolution to suggest that the English Revolution anticipated the French and later revolutions in the field of popular administrative and economic gains. Along with the expansion of Parliamentary power the Revolution broke down many of the old power relations in both rural and urban English society. The guild democracy movement of the period won its greatest successes among London's transport workers, most notably the Thames Watermen, who democratized their company in 1641-43. And with the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642, rural communities began to seize timber and other resources on the estates of royalists, Catholics, the royal family and the church hierarchy. Some communities improved their conditions of tenure on such estates.
    
    The old status quo began a retrenchment after the end of the main civil war in 1646, and more especially after the restoration of monarchy in 1660. But some gains were long-term. The democratic element introduced in the watermen's company in 1642, for example, survived, with vicissitudes, until 1827.[3][4]
    
    The Marxist view also developed a concept of a “Revolution within the Revolution” (pursued by Hill, Brian Manning and others) which placed a greater deal of emphasis on the radical movements of the period (such as the Agitator "Levellers", Mutineers in the New Model Army and the Communistic "Diggers") who attempted to go further than Parliament in the aftermath of the Civil War.
    
    There were, we may oversimplify, two revolutions in mid-seventeenth century England. The one which succeeded established the sacred rights of property (abolition of feudal tenures, no arbitrary taxation), gave political power to the propertied (sovereignty of Parliament and common law, abolition of prerogative courts), and removed all impediments to the triumph of the ideology of the men of property - the protestant ethic. There was, however, another revolution which never happened, though from time to time it threatened. This might have established communal property, a far wider democracy in political and legal institutions, might have disestablished the state church and rejected the Protestant ethic.[5]
    
    
    Brian Manning has claimed that:
    
    The old ruling class came back with new ideas and new outlooks which were attuned to economic growth and expansion and facilitated in the long run the development of a fully capitalist economy. It would all have been very different if Charles I had not been obliged to summon that Parliament to meet at Westminster on November 3rd, 1640.[6]
    
    Criticism
    The notion that the events of 1640 to 1660 constitute an "English Revolution" has been criticised by historians such as Austin Woolrych, who has pointed out that painstaking research in county after county, in local record offices and family archives, has revealed that the changes in the ownership of real estate, and hence in the composition of the governing class, were nothing like as great as used to be thought.[7]
    
    Woolrych argues that the notion that the period constitutes an "English Revolution" not only ignores the lack of significant social change contained within the period, but also ignores the long-term trends of the early modern period which extend beyond this narrow time-frame. [博讯来稿] (博讯 boxun.com)
(本文只代表作者或者发稿团体的观点、立场)
1812249
分享:
blog comments powered by Disqus
   
相关报道(更多请利用搜索功能):
·王澄:2012年中国革命进程
·王澄:学习耶鲁大学公开课《欧洲文明》(二)
·王澄:在美国研讨马克思社会学经济学思想
·王澄:学习耶鲁大学公开课《欧洲文明》(一)
·唯物主义者是野蛮人/王澄
·王澄:莫言诺奖颁奖词中文译法商榷
·王澄:托克维尔谈美国民主的三大特点/视频
·王澄:莫言诺奖授奖词中译本刻意隐瞒的地方
·王澄:西藏独立运动是大革命的首战/视频
·王澄:两个“活该”的社会才算是民主社会
·王澄:1970年以前出生的中国人思想是垃圾/视频
·王澄:马克思思想与中国20世纪的农业社会无关/视频
·王澄:80/90后的思想特点
·王澄:80/90后和50/60后的区别
·王澄:中国农业落后/视频
·王澄:新思想促进民变-马丁路德教革/视频
·认识马克思的思想(一)—王澄博士讲党课
·王澄:人性和伦理/视频
·王澄:是人民革命,不是精英革命
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。