从小猫的自由谈开去…

因为小猫差点走失而引出了dotann和meow的一些观点. 主要是围绕政府的仁慈,民族的自由,暴力,和弱肉强食的法则。。。

我觉得很有意思,索性把留言里长篇大论单列出来,说道说道。

我说:”那么民主党的所谓要救济贫困是不是也是假仁慈?”

meow说:”不管仁慈是真是假, 救济贫困还是有实际作用的,和可可西里的情况不可同一而论 — 人要是穷极了是会偷会抢的,说不好还会造反呢. 还是救济一下更有经济效益.”

dot:”其实“自治区问题”多民族共存的国家历史上多少都有些,而且暴力结局似乎是普通老百姓唯一可以投入的手段,爱尔兰有IRA,巴勒斯坦有PLA,中国就不用说啦,美国的局势只是幸运在大部分印第安人及时病死了,由此可见“民族”的聚合力比“国家”的聚合力更加强烈。

dot:“是不是可以或者应该给想自由的人民自由,对于大部分政府来说是个复杂的战略问题。我内心深处的cynic说,也怪不得他们惹起众怒,一族人民的福利和骄傲的确是建立在另一族人民的牺牲上的,这个道理有点儿像我们平时吃的晚餐,还不过是建立在非我族类的血肉上面。:)”

先说自治区问题和暴力手段。
我对“爱国主义”持百分之百地质疑态度。因为它太像是一种有权阶级运用自如的武器。“领导阶层”想要“广大群众”支持,最容易的就是煽动一下爱国情操(这个国可以是dotann说的“民族”)。没有什么比这个更能让人热血沸腾慷慨解囊了。其结果就是一群宛如吃了荷尔蒙然后被扔到斗兽场里的打手。什么理智都没了。其实现实中,老百姓说归底不过是要一份太平,能好好过日子,有点奔小康的目标,斗点小拳脚。谁真的想要去为真命天子打天下的?

无论是中国的自治区还是当今东欧诸小国,都有一个选谁做后台的问题。自己无法在武力上与人抗衡,就必须要选个能和人家抗衡的老板做后台。所以独立了,有了个“国”的名字,其实只是换了个主子而已。分析到小国里普通老百姓的生活,真的有什么不同么?

倒是听史实小说常会听到“众诸侯国,纷争割据”的句子来,就是说分成小国了,战争就多了。老百姓就更惨了。当然分久必合,合就必分也是经典句子。历史的螺旋已经绕过这么多圈了,我们也不用太担心啦。就好像前苏联的纷纷碎裂,和欧洲共同体的产生,就好像在说冥冥中有一种平衡在运作呢。

以暴抗暴是最直接地最常见反映,但是历史上也确实有过甘地的和平反抗啊!

虽然暴力运动(也就是我们小时候历史课上积极的反复地赞扬过的农民运动)常常是一个国家的开始,好在老百姓都会意思到暴力的极限,或早或晚都会从迷魂阵里恍然大悟,明白还是专心赚钱比较好玩。。。

另外,我同意dotann以前提到过的一个观点:政府是从利益角度考虑问题,并不是为民谋福利。所以说当一个民族要独立时,应该是民族里的“有权阶级”想利用有限的资源(族人,地域,自然资源比如石油)去获得最大的利益。他们选择后台的出发点不过如此。如果他们觉得独立后利益更大,自然就会要独立。反之亦然。

Samuel P. Huntington应该是推崇民族界线高于国家界线的元老吧?我想当历史走到了“合久必分”这一步时,民族界线会变得比较煽情有力。当历史走到“分久必合”的时候,国家的论调可能就会看上去更好用些。不过是政客手里的两根鞭子罢了。

从小猫的自由谈开去…》上有2条评论

  1. Indeed what is more important than life itself? It’s hard enough for common people like you and me to die for our loved ones, let along the so called “our people”, or “our country”, most of the time people will excute violent act out of a belief for something grander, if a government utilize that belief effectively, it becames a anthem-singing nationalistic movement. If a group is really effective in cashing in the “grander ideal”, they can make it into a cult-like craziness that kills and destroys.

    Honestly I believe that every people who suffers in an unjust society should have the right to try and claim independence. The world broken up into smaller organization will have more chance to survive. But in the bigger picture, open-mindedness down to the individual is the only thing that will hold a multi-race society together.

    In the end the people who are concerned with living life, instead of getting heated up by political questions (like me), will bond together natually. :)

    Jean的回复:
    Agreed. :)
    While I was writing this entry, i felt somewhat self-conscious. Very much resembles Aaron Jastrow in the beginning of Herman Wouk’s book “The Winds of War”. Living an idyllic life in the lovely Italian country side, researching historic figures, and making outrageously non-negative comments about Hitler, in the pre-WWII days, more as an academic geek than as a Jew. Until the war began and he found himself on the run from the man he had sung praise of.
    It is much easier to make comments about events happened to other people. I wonder how I would behave when I had to deal with things at a personaly level. In reality, nothing is as neat and coherent as theories in a textbook… Where will I be then? What would I do? What would I believe?

  2. 民族也好,国家也好,在我看来都是没有什么意义的东西。
    从某个角度来讲,还是反人性的东西。
    但令自己生气的是,我有时也发现自己会因为这2个我ps的东西弄激动起来。

    Jean的回复:
    “We are communal histories, communal books, .. All I desired was to walk upon such an earth that had no maps.”
    -English Patient

评论已关闭。