免費論壇 繁體 | 簡體
公告:SCLUB雲端專屬主機己開放租用
分享
Board logo

標題: 凱西:中國——從戈壁到水瓶座(四) [打印本頁]

作者: lightbringer    時間: 2015-5-27 19:37     標題: 凱西:中國——從戈壁到水瓶座(四)

轉自:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6057e7740102vmm5.html


經濟因素

戈壁的經濟理論和機構符合之前引用的物質理念。

然而,該經濟條件被保留在只有那些勞動的人們的利用和活動裡,而且只有當勞動時,人們才能從中獲得利益。

以下是某實體的背景:“勞動者不會無所食。”877-11(Yet the economic conditions were kept in what would be called in the present as the usage and activities that made for such that only those who applied themselves and as they applied made for the receiving of the benefits from same. Here was the entity's coinage of that "He that labors not eateth not.”)

這種來自戈壁的經濟原則幾乎被當代中共的口號完全重複:“每個人都應該通過參加體力勞動得到改造。不勞動者不得食。”

事實是,所有有能力的人都進行工作,帶來了戈壁從未需要增加稅收的情形(877-12)。抽稅是基於“按能收取”的原則。個人承擔工作的意願。或者是,如果他表明不願意工作,卻有工作能力,他將被切斷供應。那時似乎既不是“同工同酬”,也不是引起激勵——這兩者都被用於現代結算。然而,在戈壁,“按需分配”的原則,是帶著善意和公平而應用的,很明顯,很少有現代國家,如果有的話,無論其提倡哪種社會或經濟理論,可以符合該標準。此外,那些無法工作的人們的需求,會被提供給予而無須納稅。此系統在一個技術高度發展的、文明的社會裡運行——根據凱西的解讀。這種系統可能是烏托邦小說裡設想的,但我們最近在日常生活中沒有這樣的例子。實驗性的社區嘗試類似的經濟安排,避開技術,而且規模很小或短命或兩者兼有。

這也許是現代中國想要某些像戈壁的計畫,公社體系18。在50年代後期和60年代初期,“生產隊”按天計算他們的勞動量,並且儘管避免把這些工分轉換成人民幣19。事實上,這種經濟指令下,個人賠償的利息仍然有待彌補20:“關於有利於個人消費的分配制度,黨和政府貫徹‘按勞分配’的原則,同時教育人民群眾不計個人報酬為偉大目標而奮鬥。”

戈壁解讀描述了一個非競爭性的經濟體系,合作並高度集體化。由於“共產主義”一詞的現代內涵,它可能誤導地把戈壁體系貼上“共產”的標籤,儘管它有一定“共產主義”的特點:

至於交換——由於那裡發展起各種各樣類型或品質的勞動者——伐木工、汲水工、紋身者、獵人,然後還有確保當今被稱為農業活動的人——只有一個公用的倉庫,每一種活動的日常勞動,就像是那些在其他人活動裡工作或勞動的人一樣,就像是一比多個。877-12(As to the exchanges — as there developed the various types or characters of labors — the hewers of wood, the drawers of water, the dressers of skins, the hunters, and then to be sure the agricultural activities as would be termed in the present — there was the one common storehouse, and the daily labors in each of the activities were as the labors of those that worked or labored in others' activities, and were as one against another.)

問題3:他們有政府銀行嗎?如果有的話,它如何運作以及有哪些權力?

回答3:正如每個人都工作,正如每個人都儲蓄,這是給到每一個人。不是政府——因為它是所有人的,而且只有一個交換或供應的來源,那全部都屬於全體人們。877-12(As each labored, as each saved, this was given as to each individual. It was not Government - for it was of all the people, and there was only one source of the exchange or the supply, that all belonged to all.)

儘管出現了個別化,但佔有的個人主義不是戈壁生活的一部分。風頭主義並沒有實施,甚至在領導人之間——或者特別不在領導人之間——正如給穆祖恩的描述那樣:

關於實體、家庭和執政力量的描述,來了……

服裝:皮革、亞麻、棉花、絲綢——用於不同季節,不同的各種活動裡。不像許多其他各族那樣考慮到飾品,而且這逐漸把人們從個人修飾轉到他們的家、城市、休閒娛樂的地方、防守的準備、進攻的準備。877-10(A description of the entity, and of the household and of the ruling forces, comes . . .

In dress: leather, linen, cotton, silk — in their varied seasons, their varied activities. Not given to ornaments as much as many, and this gradually turned the peoples from personal adornment to their home, their cities, their recreation places, their preparations for defense, their preparation for offense.)

這暗示了:個人有時的確也把奢侈品置於個人使用,但會迅速而欣然地把這些物品運用到互助和集體目的的方向上。例子足以支持這觀點。防患未然的金科玉律起作用了。

今天來自中國的照片和實見報導了儉樸而簡單的個人生活方式。像中國共產黨繼承的這個貧窮的國家裡,簡約的時樣成為一種必要的美德。當富裕到來時,這將是考驗。

戈壁裡,黃金之城裡傳授裝飾屍體:

……此實體是一個教師;那時正是那些實驗的開始,即試圖裝飾屍體,並製作對感官有相同吸引力的部分,正如異性的眼睛。
該實體通過此實驗謀生,由於有一定的援助和幫助——在有利於作為一體的國家,而不是為了自我的活動中。1957-1(. . . the entity was a teacher; and there was the beginning of those experi­ences where there were the attempts to adorn the body and to make portions of same appealing to the senses as well as to the eye of the opposite sex.
The entity gained through the experience, because of the aid and help given - in the activities for the beneficial effect upon the nation as a whole, and not for self alone.)

之後,中國人民有了標準——或其他任何允許或鼓勵個人裝飾品的標準:提供了什麼樣的援助和幫助,產生了什麼樣有益影響,都是為了整體,而不是為了自己一個人。


注腳:
1、Ch'u Chai and Winberg Chai, The Changing Society of China (New York: Mentor,1962), p. 25.
2、C.P. Fitzgerald, The Birth of Communist China (Baltimore: Pelican, 1964), p. 33.
3、Jan Myrdal, Report from a Chinese Village (New York: Pantheon, 1965), reporting conversation with Mau Ke-yeh on housing in "good village life."
4、Joseph  Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Vol. IV, Part 2 (Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 602.
5、Fitzgerald, p. 264.
6、Audrey Topping, "Return to Changing China," National Geographic, December 1971.
7、New York Times, December 16, 1966.
8、Fitzgerald, pp. 30,42, 273.
9、New York Times, December 1, 1968, April 6, 1969, October 5, 1969.
10、New York Times, July 3, 1971.
11、New York Times, September 12, 1971.
12、New York Times, September 23, 1971.
13、New York Times, April 30, 1967.
14、Topping, pp. 814, 822, 833.
15、Mao Tse-tung, "On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol.Ill, p. 288. Quoted in "the little red book," compiled by Lin Piao, 1966. Lin Piao, one-time heir-apparent to Mao politically, was removed from his leadership positions in 1971 through the efforts of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai to smoke out and get rid of Lin Piao and others close to him who, in their extreme Maoism, were fostering the concept — opposed by Mao and Chou  —  that "geniuses, persons of superior intelligence, spiritual force, and innate
knowledge make history  and  lead the masses." New  York  Times,   November 6,  1971. The Chinese language version of "the little red book" was taken off the market in early November 1971. New York Times, November 9, 1971, Millions of copies, distributed since 1966, remain in circulation, however.
16、Myrdal;   Helen    (Foster)   Snow,   Women   in   Modern   China   (The   Hague,   Paris: Mouton, 1967).
17、New York Times, July 29, 1971.
18、Arthur W. Galston, "Down on the Commune," Natural History, October 1972, pp. 50-59.
19、Myrdal.
20、Quoted in Edgar Snow, The Other Side of the River: Red China Today (New York:Random House, 1961), p. 347.




歡迎光臨 Bringers of Light (http://lightbringer.gain.tw/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2