齐步，走！

国庆60周年的大阅兵的分列式表演，其规模和严整程度上肯定世界空前绝后。我的意思是，即使在天安门以后还有类似的阅兵，将来世界上也不可能有在规模上超越它的。除非中国出现一位特别喜爱阅兵的领导人——理论上，以长安街的宽度，我天朝完全可以排出规模比现在大四五倍的方阵来。据说，大连海军舰艇学院就曾排练过千人以上的方阵。

世界上像中国一样重视分列式表演，且水准可能与中国一较高下的，方今仅只俄罗斯、朝鲜而已。由于我天朝分列式正步流派与俄罗斯朝鲜不同，谁的更好看，留到后面再说，但就规模来说，中国的分列式每行25人，世界第一，朝鲜人以24人宽度屈居亚军，季军俄罗斯是每行20人，因为红场的宽度尚不及长安街，它不能排出更大规模的阅兵方阵。如有必要，以长安街的宽度，我天朝完全可排出每行40人以上的队伍来。当然，有人会抬杠说，阿根廷布宜诺斯艾利斯的七?九大街比长安街更宽，但是，阿根廷这样的国家比较适合搞出世界规模最大的狂欢节游行队伍，阅兵这样的事情，还是交给社会主义国家比较合适。

查看更多...

Tags: 阅兵阅兵

就在几天前，沧州发生越狱事件，原八十万禁军教头林冲因擅闯白虎堂，被发配至沧州劳动改造。他不思悔改，目无国法，火烧草料场，还杀害了四名朝廷公差！并且连夜投奔了梁山反革命组织，在社会上造成极其恶劣的影响！
　　　　　　今天上午11时许，太尉高俅同志赶到了沧州，他不顾旅途劳累，亲往事发现场察看；直接深入群众了解情况；看望衙门捕快、广大官兵。12时许，高太尉离开现场后立即组织召开沧州府有关领导会议，听取事件处置情况汇报；召集沧州府有关负责同志、部分军队，监狱领导听取情况汇报；邀请沧州府23个乡镇100多位保长、甲长召开座谈会，了解情况，听取意见。广大保长，甲长在座谈会上踊跃发言，对火烧草料场事件感到痛心疾首，认为打、砸、烧，杀犯罪行为，严重损害了沧州乃至国家的形象，破坏了沧州府良好的经济社会发展形势，破坏了全州乃至全国安定团结的大好局面。纷纷要求朝廷严厉打击以林冲为代表的反革命分子，维护社会稳定和谐。
　　　　　　高太尉指出，火烧草料场事件是一起起因简单，但被别有用心的人员煽动利用，甚至是黑恶势力人员直接插手参与的，公然向朝廷挑衅的事件。情节恶劣，破坏严重，造成了极大的财产和经济损失，影响了国家稳定。事件发生后，宋徽宗作出重要指示；丞相蔡京两次作出重要批示；刑部尚书秦桧同志多次打电话到沧州直接指挥。
　　　　　　太尉高俅同志指出：虽然目前事态已得到基本控制，但还有大量工作要做。其中，向沧州广大群众做好深入细致的宣传教育工作，说明事实，稳定人心，是从根本上平息事态，维护大局稳定、努力推动发展的一项至关重要的工作。广大的保长甲长们要充分发挥自身人熟地熟的优势，发挥重要作用，积极配合朝廷，抓紧开展工作，分片包干，承包到户，以事实真相说服群众，以稳定大局教育群众，以一人一户、一村一乡的稳定确保全州的稳定。

查看更多...

Tags: 网络网络

Politics has always manifested itself in its changeability due to unstable power relationships among people. Our understanding of ourselves as political beings heavily depend on the social and economical conditions we contingently live in. In the Twenty-First Century, we are undergoing the rapidest economical and technological changes human races have ever experienced. As one consequence, the growing concern about environmental issues and globalization in the economic world are definitely reshaping our power relationships; the possibility of global citizenship is emerging in the light of “temporal citizenship.”
       I will first show the weakness of “traditional citizenship”—its little flexibility with respect to both the temporal and structural limits. Therefore, in a rapidly changing society, the traditional notion should be modified. Instead, we should think of citizenship in a more flexible account, namely “temporal citizenship.” Thus I finally will show global citizenship becomes a possibility for us in this flexible account.
       In the traditional sense, citizenship is a closed and fixed political label. In Greek society, politics is exclusively defined inside the structure of “polis.” People figure out the desired population of a polis and label each individual uniquely as a citizen of one polis. For instance, Socrates takes pride of being an Athenian citizen and refuses to escape from Athenian juridical system even with the expense of his life. In the modern period, people extend “city-state” to “nation-state,” and citizenship becomes exclusively a term for nationalities. The function of citizenship remains the same, which is to label particular groups of people based on their mutual political interests. An agent should only group himself as a citizen of one or two states, which he intends to permanently belong to. Global citizenship is impossible since a world state is far less capable of serving all nations’ interests and grouping all people together. 
       Rather than blaming global citizenship, I would argue it is really the traditional concept that is limited and not able to accommodate more complexity. In contrast to “temporal citizenship,” I would call the traditional citizenship “permanent citizenship.” It is permanent in the sense that people are permanently labeled as citizens of some states unless they undergo some legal processes to renounce their citizenship. It is permanent also in the sense that people hold unique political identities with regard to their citizenship. Therefore, as long as a man legally holds his citizenship documents, he is always identified as a citizen of his state regardless of time and occasions. However, this kind of characterization based on legal status is purely artificial and also not always the case. For instance, a Berkeley student, who is legally characterized as an American citizen, is indeed not always an American citizen in the sense that he does not always act as an American citizen in every minute of his life. He sometimes acts as an individual contemplating philosophy, sometimes as a Berkeley citizen, and as an American citizen only in some other moments. We switch our identities constantly throughout our lives. “Permanent citizenship” only defines our political identity in a fixed non-temporal manner. It ignores the constant changeability inside the nature of politics and ruthlessly makes humans its permanent subject.
       “Traditional citizenship” presupposes a fixed structure, namely state. Although an agent is, in theory, free to choose his citizenship, the choices are only limited to a number of physically existing states. Therefore, he is only free to make choices, but the choices themselves are not free. He becomes a citizen through an institutionalized state order. Legal documentations appear to be the sufficient conditions for anybody to become a citizen of a state. For instance, in America, people become American citizens by passing the citizenship test. Once they get all the documentations, they become American citizens permanently regardless of whether they will participate in American politics. However, this way of defining American citizenship loses the historical heritage of what an American is. It makes citizens slaves of their state institutions although the original idea is people become citizens by actively taking responsibilities of politics. As Michel Foucault points out, “nowadays, the struggle against the forms of subjection—against the submission of subjectivity—is becoming more and more important” (331-332); by labeling ourselves non-temporally as state citizens, we turn ourselves into subjects without resistance. “Traditional citizenship” was unquestioned in the history because people were more concerned about specific social and economical struggles. Now, as we start to resist against the submission of subjectivity, “traditional citizenship” appears to deviate from our original purpose of politics. Therefore, in the new age, we should abandon non-temporal “state citizenship”, and rethink the notion of citizenship in its original purpose, that is to take certain right and responsibility.
       Accordingly, citizenship should be understood in a temporal manner. When we are taking responsibilities of the community, we are community citizens; when we are taking responsibilities of the state, we are state citizens; and similarly, when we are taking responsibilities of the world, we become global citizens even though there might not be a world state. Our citizenships depend on whom we act as rather than which institutional label we belong to. Having legal documents only remains as a necessary condition for being a citizen; rather we fully become citizens by devoting our time into political activities. In addition, due to our complex social and political interactions, it is also common that our political identity shift as time and situation change. By understanding citizenship in its temporal manner, we also hold our resistance to subjects of any citizenship in the sense that when we do not feel comfortable of any form of citizenship, we always have the option to quit.
       Environmentalism and globalization serve as the historical condition under which more complexity of politics is revealed. Our previous generations are not quite concerned with global citizenship because they face less global issues than we do. “Traditional citizenship” applies to them because they are primarily concerned about domestic struggles.  It is still true that state citizenship is the primary form of citizenship in today’s world because we are still primarily doing politics on the state level. However, people have already started thinking of problems and taking responsibilities globally; the ground of global citizenship has already been built up. Now, globalization is primary on the level of international trades, and environmental concerns are still not immediate threats in our life. As globalization goes on, global politics may further change. Suppose after years of transportation development, a typical trip from Tokyo to Berkeley would only take ten minutes. Then, boundaries between states would become less apparent. A student may attend school in Berkeley but reside in Tokyo. In that case, the role of state citizenship would definitely be undermined. People’s responsibility as global citizens would become dominant. Although what exactly will happen is uncertain, there is one thing certain about globalization—as it goes on, people will definitely be more dependent on and therefore responsible for each other.
       In the age of globalization, we will be more concerned about global issues but still want to keep our local identities. Therefore, “temporal citizenship” becomes the illuminating way in which we should think of ourselves as political beings. In the past, people lived among relatively homogeneous power relations; therefore temporality is ignored in “traditional citizenship” due to lack of needs. In contrast, the undergoing globalization is bringing us more complex political situations we have to deal with. It forces us to stop thinking of ourselves in fixed ways but rather hold multi-citizenships in “parallel polis.” As J. Peter Euben concludes, “the parallel polis is a necessary condition because it provides moments and places to recuperate the life of active citizenship, freedom, and sense of agency against the prevailing mood of powerlessness and cynicism” (283).
       Globalization proposes a challenge to our traditional concept of citizenship. Globalization itself is definitely not the problem, but we should just rethink our notion of citizenship to explain the emerging situations that were veiled in the past. Politics is always a matter of change.  Living in the age of uncertainty, it should be no surprise that we need to adopt more flexible, temporal, and global understandings of ourselves as political beings. 

 

 

 

 

                                                  

                         Works Cited

Euben, J. Peter. “13: Polis, Globalization & the Politics of Place.” Democracy and Vision. Ed. A. Botwinick and W. E. Connolly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. 256-289

Foucault, Michel. “Subject & Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Robinow. New York: Georges Borchardt Inc., 1984. 326-348.

Tags: 政治，全球化，环境政治，全球化，环境

        除了被奴役者不得自由，那奴役他人者同样不得自由。
                                                                                           ——《告人类书》

        作为一个人，我为自己完整、正直而干净的生存权利而斗争那是永远无可非议的。作为基督徒，我的生命属于我的上帝——我的信仰，为着坚持我的道路，或者说我 的路线，上帝仆人的路线，基督政治的路线。这是为你们索取的，却又是为你们付出的。先生们，人性，这就是人心啊！为什么我要怀抱着，以至于对你们怀抱着一 份人性，这么一份人心呢？归根到底，又不过是本着天父所赋予的恻隐、悲悯与良知。在接触你们最最阴暗、最最可怕、最最血腥的权力中枢、罪恶核心的过程中，我仍然察见到，还不完全忽略你们身上偶然有机会显露出的人性闪光，从而察见到你们的心灵深处，还多少保有未尽泯灭的人性。在那个时候，我更加悲痛地哭了。
                                                                                                                               ——狱中血书

Tags: 林昭，人性，自由林昭，人性，自由

四十年前的今日，一位绝代女子香消玉殒——妳年轻、无辜、美丽、高贵甚至有些不谙世事。妳啼的血染红了杜鹃花，妳的玉体长眠于桂树下。

四十年前的今日，一颗流星划过那黑无边际的夜空——妳燃烧，妳苦难，妳愤慨，妳悲昂。刽子手们把妳的病体拖起，唯有广陵散为妳绝响。

四十年前的今日，一束灵魂升上了天堂——妳圣洁，妳无暇，妳慈济，妳光芒。妳为正义而生，妳总是为他人着想。妳献祭了生命，妳荣耀了爱的理想。

四十年后的今天，我们这些“多余”的人还在苟且地偷活，当初残害妳的那帮流氓、恶棍、刽子手仍然在洋洋得意，而我们只能在地面上爬虫一般地挣扎。每当经历完血腥的一天，到了深夜，我会蜷缩在一个角落里抽泣，偎依在妳远方烛光的余亮中取暖，在想象妳那纤柔而充带坚定的吴语中忘记自己的罪恶。然而，我还是不敢正视仰望天空，怕看到妳那慈蔼的目光，只会让我更加地憎恶自己。

但是我知道，一万年后的今天，恶棍、爬虫也好、颐享天年的也罢，都会化成灰烬。只有妳，用短暂的生命，穿越时空，成为了永恒的存在。人们会拜倒在妳的目光下，吸吮妳坟前悠悠青草上的露水，朗诵妳圣洁鲜血封印下的诗句篇章。

四十年前的今日，妳为我付出了四十年的时光。四十年后的今天，贫乏的我无所回报，只有在这里嘶哑无力地为妳歌唱。

Tags: 林昭林昭

      2008奥运在即，华夏大地也正在准备迎接千年未有的天下大同之“盛世”。早在七年前申奥成功的那一刻，一个国际化的中国就已经成为了21世纪的憧憬。然而七年后的今天，我们所期待的“和谐社会”却还并不如愿，随拉萨暴动而引起的国际国内间的纷争，给奥运盛宴埋下了阴影。西方主流社会在拉萨事件后，一致性地选择站在了中国的“敌对面”，扬言杯葛奥运， 广大“爱国”网民、海外留学生由此与西方媒体、主流社会进行了激烈的斗争。西方社会一定程度上意识到其方式方法的不妥，中央政府也决定与达赖喇嘛重开谈判之门，由西藏事件引起的关于奥运的这场风波可以说暂告一个段落。然而，纵观整个事件始末，中西之间对立者居多，沟通者惟少，长期以来改革开放所秉持的中道路线显得不堪一击。越是在高楼云立、酒池肉林的经济、娱乐高度国际化的大城市，我们却越才发现，原来我们与西方的共同语言竟然是这么的少！“同一个世界，同一个梦想”，又是怎样的“梦想”？
      中山先生有云：“世界潮流，浩浩荡荡，顺之则昌，逆之则亡。”同时，很多人也很喜欢但丁的名言“走自己的路，让别人说去吧！”显然，我们国家社会改革的路，是要在以上两者中精推细敲寻找出一种平衡。然而，两者还是有一个共通点，就是我们首先要知道别人在说什么，否则也无所谓“世界潮流”或者“自己的路”了，了解自己不就是从对他人了解的比较中实现的吗？ 这次的中西冲突就刚好体现了我们与西方之间的互不了解，英、法、德、美在“冷战”结束后二十年来鲜有地这么团结了一次，用“亡我之心不死”的“冷战”思维来理解这次事件显然是片面的，对于“314暴动”事件立场上的不同或许更深层次上体现了中西社会价值上的差异。其中，关于“主权”和“人权”之争这个老话题，怕是最重要的一环了，我们就不妨再看看目前在西方世界流行的主权观究竟是怎样的。
      通常上，对于国家“主权”的理解，是在于领土归属上面的，“主权”在这个层面上很象小学时候男女同桌之间在课桌上信誓旦旦用小手画下的“分界线”，河西是你的领土，河东是我的领土，大家互不相犯，违者就应当收到惩罚，这也是国际的外交惯例。比如说台湾在外交世界，普遍上被接受为中华人民共和国领土，这就是因为大多数国家在划分“界线”的时候与中华人民共和国达成了一致，从而形成了现在的政治版图格局。可是，领土所有权只可以被理解为“主权”的施用范围，它并不能本质上告诉我们“主权”究竟是什么。我们更多情况下讨论的是我们对哪些地区行使主权，但是却很少论及“主权”其本身的涵义，这也一定程度上是各说各话的来源。
      对于“主权”的研究在人类历史上并不是自古即有之，西方对其的研究始于文艺复兴时期的博丹，而在我国多半是从近代外交中才过来的。可是”主权“的存在却有着和国家的存在同样的历史，因为”主权”就是国家之所存在。它是一个国家诞生的理由；是国家权力的来源；它凌驾于宪法及所有国家制度之上，因为宪法由它制订；它决定了一个国家是怎样的国家（自然也包括国家的领土）。在欧洲中世纪，欧洲国家的主权概念普遍可以理解为“君权神授”。国王声称代理上帝管理世俗世界，所以欧洲国王的加冕普遍要由罗马教廷执行，也由此形成了欧洲中世纪的封建等级制度。在中世纪，个人价值的概念非常薄弱，宗教生活基本就是一个人的全部，所以“君权神授”自然合理地成为了当时的主权概念。现代西方文明则始于文艺复兴，人文思想抬头，宗教的地位不断被削弱，“以人为本”逐渐成为了西方社会的基本价值。所以，到了启蒙运动的时候，“天赋人权”的思想得以普及，人民主权也由此成为了直至今日西方社会的主权观。
      所谓“天赋人权”是西方社会在其历史背景下所发展出的独有的认知观，它与西方近代哲学、科学、宗教的发展密不可分（这也解释了其他社会理解它时的困难之所在），也成为了西方所谓的“普世价值”。正是在这样的“普世价值”下，人民主权自然而然成为了新的主权法则。国家的存在不再是神权社会中的天经地义，而是成为了“社会契约论”中的一子。 在神权社会，人的一切世俗生活都是为了上帝，故而政治结构也是自上而下；在“人权”社会，“人”作为最重要的基本单位出现，但是人们为了追求稳定的生活及共同利益，而选择出一个政府（可以是选举产生，也可以是委任于君主），与之签署契约授其代为民求福祉，人民与政府（无论是选举出的，或是君主的）之间形成了甲方与乙方的关系。国家主权的概念也由此重新定义：一个国家的主权是所有人权的集合；人权为基础，主权由人权而来；人权是永恒的（或者说“天赋”），主权则因时因地因社会契约而定。美国《独立宣言》成为了该理念的先锋范本，

查看更多...

Tags: 社会社会 意识形态意识形态 西方西方 文明文明

      中国文学是人世的，西洋文学是社会的。人世是社会的升华，社会惟是“有”，要知“无”知“有”才是人世。知“无”知“有”的才是文明。大自然是“有”“无”相生，西洋的社会惟是物质的“有”，不能对应它，中国文明的人世则可对应它。 文明是能对应大自然而创造。

                                                  ——胡兰成

查看更多...

Tags: 文明文明 中西文化对比中西文化对比 胡兰成胡兰成

      我这一代（可能就是社会所谓的80后）与我的前代们相比，最大的悲剧莫过于我们从来就没有悲剧。命运早在我们出生的那一刻已经注定，从可能性上就杜绝了任何悲剧的发生，而该命运其本身却是最大的悲剧。如果说，我们的上辈们是曾轰轰烈烈地争取过，而最终还是喝下狼奶接受“命运”的话，我们则算是纯纯粹粹喝狼奶长大的了。故而，我就冒昧地称我这一代“天阉的一代”了，从不曾放弃过成为“男人”的憧憬，可却发现“命运”时时相随，也曾经无数次地自信已经把狼奶吐干净了，可是到头来辗转反侧，还是猛然醒悟：狼奶早已融入我血液之中，我身上流的就是狼血啊！电影《黑客帝国》中，所有从母体中被唤醒的人脖子后面都会留下一个碗大的伤疤，一个民族一代人的“狼图腾”又岂是说摒弃就能摒弃的呢？
      我也可以选择默然忽视以甚至于忘记，但这不是办法----地球在转，狼血在流。剩下能做的，唯有正视。正如电影中所描绘的，那个“命运”的母体无处不在，她强大、精准地主宰着我们以至于我们似乎只能选择逃避，然而，破解母体程式中的矩阵的秘密在于我心，一场灵魂上的旅途还在继续。
      有些人或许不以狼为意，做狼又有什么不好的呢，狼就是大草原上的王者，弱肉强食，就是自然生存的法则啊！然而，自从我们人类从树上下来的那一天开始，我们就永远与那个动物王国说再见了。我们成为了世界上独一无二的“人”，而人与狼的最大区别就是，我们拥有了选择的权利，我们拥有了我们独一无二的珍宝——自由。所谓自由，就是我们在杀戮与和平之间，选择了和平，在茫然和信仰之间，选择了信仰，在野蛮和文明中，选了文明。这不就是我们人类的历史吗——一部文明的历史。狼是没有选择的，在大草原上，征服就是真理。对于狼来说，只有自然的法则可以遵循，一切行为也只能是为了自己和族群带来最大利益，为了这个目的，狼可以极其残暴的手段。然而，自由让我们“人”有了选择的权利，而正是选择让我们有了存在的意义。大概意义就存在于“有”与“没有”之间吧。当我们被利益牵着鼻子度过随波逐流的一生、在对无休止欲望的追求中渐渐沦为奴隶的时候，我们真正“有”了什么呢？回顾先贤的历史，大概就是介子推抱柳、季札挂剑、豫让士为知己者死的片刻，一种“存在”才油然而生了吧。精神是我们的“存在”，信仰是我们的“存在”，爱是我们的“存在”，而“存在”就正是我作为“人”所独有而要誓死捍卫的，如果成为了狼，又何来“存在’ 呢？错用一下莎翁的名句，“To be or not to be, that’s a question.”
      在这个多事之秋，本人的第一个真正意义上的博客匆匆开张。很多事情从不曾想公开说过，可是现在也到了不得不说的地步。“天下兴亡，匹夫有责”的时代已经不再，“为中华之崛起而读书”也需要另一番解读。愈加丰富多彩的个人生活已足以让人们失去对公共事务的兴趣，诚如德国政治理论家汉娜•阿伦特所预测，“政治正处于濒临灭种的危机之中。”然而，“存在”不就是在“人”之间才得以实现的吗，在这个“人”味越来越淡的社会，“人”的价值或许可以在新的空间得以复活。

查看更多...