自耕农联合体与自由人联合体http://www.xys.org/forum/db/13/116/158.html
这篇文章深入探讨了马克思主义、儒家思想和新孟学之间的关系，尤其是关于社会政治制度演变及其对未来的意义。有几个关键点值得关注：
1. **马克思主义与儒家思想的综合**：文章反映出试图将儒家思想与马克思主义理论相结合，特别是“自耕农联合体”被视为社会主义的经典形式，未受资本剥削。这提出了一个有趣的观点，即儒家思想，尤其是传统的儒家农民经济，是马克思所设想的无阶级社会的早期形式。
2. **历史背景与演变**：文章在不同历史时期之间穿梭——从以自耕农为基础的农业社会（符合儒家理想）到以“自由人联合体”为特征的工业信息社会。文章勾勒出一个历史连续体，儒家思想在适应现代性过程中，可能为社会主义的发展提供了路线图。它表明，儒家思想的创造性转化，尤其是在毛主席的领导下，是历史的关键转折点。
3. **对西方政治制度的批判**：文章将中国（儒家和新孟学）的政治思想与西方政治制度并列，批判了自由主义（被认为是杨朱的思想延续）和苏联式的马克思列宁主义（被认为是墨家的思想延续）。通过将美国模式归类为杨朱的个人主义哲学，将苏联模式归类为墨家的集体主义与中央计划模式，文章认为这两种制度代表了极端，而儒家思想通过其“中庸之道”超越了这两者。
4. **社会主义作为儒家理想**：通过儒家视角重新定义了社会主义，文章提出，社会主义是儒家外王之道，也即反帝（美国自由主义模式）修（苏联马克思列宁主义模式）的儒家中庸之道。这一观点表明，儒家社会主义可以解决资本驱动与国家控制系统之间的张力，核心是以自耕农或不受剥削的“自由人”为基础的社会。
5. **当代意义**：文章将儒家思想与马克思主义置于当代政治话语中，尤其是反映了中国在毛泽东领导下的发展路径。通过将毛主席的政策视为儒家政治传统的延续——同时适应工业化和现代性——文章提升了儒家思想作为未来治理指导力量的地位。
6. **关于自由的哲学反思**：文章重点探讨了自由的哲学基础，比较了马克思“自由人联合体”的概念（不受资本剥削）与自由主义的个人自由（主要是反对政府压迫）。“自由人”的概念似乎指向一个不受资本主义剥削、并且在道德和社区和谐系统中存在的社会。
总之，这篇文章呈现了马克思主义与儒家思想的精妙融合，明显倾向于儒家对社会主义的诠释。文章通过儒家历史与价值观的视角重新审视马克思主义，最终提出儒家思想中的道德治理、自给自足和社会和谐原则，可能为超越资本主义和苏联模式的短板提供一种未来的治理方式。
Please translate into English. Thx
【关于“自耕农联合体”与”自由人联合体”】
ChatGPT:
Regarding "Self-Sufficient Peasant Collectives" and "Free Person Collectives":
1) In Neo-Mencianism political economy, the theory of surplus value is subordinated to the theory of secondary differentiation, and the materialist view of history is also superseded by the Neo-Mencianism view of history. I am unsure about the Party school. 1/@疯旗Virus: Does the Party school now discard *Das Kapital* when discussing communism? //@杨万江: The collective of free persons transcends the relationship defined by capital. //@儒学新道統: The self-sufficient peasant is a classical representation of Marx's free person, and the traditional Confucian political system is a collective of self-sufficient peasants. @米灣卮譚
2) This marks the distinction between the classical and modern forms of the Confucian political system, and the key to the creative transformation of Confucianism lies here. Neo-Mencian Confucianism was born from this. 1/@杨万江: A self-sufficient peasant is a free person, but a self-sufficient peasant society is not a collective of free persons. Marx's concept of a free person and the collective of free persons transcends the capital-determined relationship, which is a distant stage.
3) The self-sufficient peasant is a classical representation of Marx's free person, and the traditional Confucian political system is a collective of self-sufficient peasants. (4@米灣后譚: Reposted for future reference //蔡霞: Leftward regression distorts the communist ideal)
4) Historically, the self-sufficient peasant collective transitioned during the Han dynasty, inheriting the Qin system, from honoring the teachings of Huang-Lao to honoring the teachings of Zhou and Confucius. The collective of free persons also underwent a modern transformation under Chairman Mao, from imperialism and revisionism to the Confucian orthodox. 1/@儒学新道統: This resolves the conflict between Confucianism and Marxism, ultimately restoring balance. // The traditional Confucian "free person (unexploited)" was represented by the self-sufficient peasant. 11@豆蔻梦乡: The free person is no longer Confucian, having no father or ruler.
5) This resolves the conflict between Confucianism and Marxism, restoring balance. @豆蔻梦乡 @海波论经济//@儒学新道统: Here, we take "free person" in the sense of a slave or wage laborer. The traditional Confucian "free person (unexploited)" was represented by the self-sufficient peasant. 1/@豆蔻梦乡: The free person is no longer Confucian, having no father or ruler. 1/@儒学新道統: Fundamentalism can also be in the sense of moral principles, and the distinction and transformation between the self-sufficient peasant collective and the free person collective lies in the gains and losses of the rites. Is our conversation in line with the rites or reason?
6) The two main forms of the Confucian political system (classical and modern): the self-sufficient peasant collective in agricultural society and the free person collective in the industrial information society. Thus, Chinese civilization will become the central link in world history, while the New Roman Empires are mere offshoots.
7) A hypothesis of new historiography: The core idea is that "escaping from Mohism leads to Yang Zhu, and escaping from Yang Zhu leads to Confucianism." Chinese macro-history returns to traditional historiography, with Confucian history adopting the three-period division based on regional transmission (Tu Weiming). Western history features fully developed Mohist or Yangist political systems, thereby incorporating them into Confucian macro-history. Western history is divided into two major blocks:
- One is the history of the Mediterranean civilization circle, from the Egyptian/Jewish political system to the Athenian/Roman system, culminating in Christianity as the state religion.
- The second is the history of the Atlantic civilization circle, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the decline of papal authority, to the nation-state, and the New Roman Empire. Both began with theocratic political systems and ended with commercial expansion and immigrant city-states. The distinction is that the former returned to a theocratic political system, while the latter is still unfolding in history.
8) The definition of Confucian socialism: This relates to Marx's mistakes and the Confucian dilemma during the past Two thousand years period. For now, we can confidently say that socialism is the external path of Confucianism, that is, the political Confucian middle way that opposes imperialism (the American model of liberalism) and revisionism (the Soviet Marxist-Leninist model). Today's opposition to imperialism and revisionism is in line with Mencius’ saying, "Those who reject both Yang Zhu and Mohism are Confucians." The American model follows Yang Zhu's path, while the Soviet model follows the Mohist path.
9) This transformation is what is called the "creative transformation of Confucianism," with Chairman Mao as a key figure. // From the self-sufficient peasant collective in the agricultural society to the free person collective in the industrial information society. 1/ Marx's so-called Asiatic mode is based on the system of vast self-sufficient peasants, a super-large civilizational state system, which is the Confucian insistence on "land to the tiller." This system, being non-wage labor, involves no exploitation, and is the classical form of socialism.
10) Reply to @三知后生: The collective of free persons is Marx's original term, mainly referring to those not exploited by capital. The freedom of liberalism is primarily against government oppression. When these two are combined, they form practical socialism, following Chairman Mao's anti-imperialist and revisionist orthodoxy. Your mention of the workers and peasants (the laborers) collective naturally includes the workers and peasants as the main body of the People's Republic, and financial workers are also laborers. 11 From the self-sufficient peasant collective to the free person collective in the industrial information society.
11) From the self-sufficient peasant collective in agricultural society to the free person collective in the industrial information society. 1/@儒学新道統: Marx's so-called Asiatic mode is based on the vast self-sufficient peasant system, a super-large civilizational state system, which is the Confucian insistence on "land to the tiller." This system, being non-wage labor, involves no exploitation (private ownership does not necessarily mean the existence of exploitation), and is the classical form of socialism, also the hope for the future of human civilization.
12) Paul Krugman, in his commentary on Piketty's new book *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, also mentions "Jefferson's vision of an egalitarian society of small farmers."
#@儒学新道統: This is exactly how the classical Confucian political system works: a collective of self-sufficient peasants, where self-sufficient peasants are in a truly free state. 1/@完政学人华炳啸: A society of free persons governed through equal consultation, with each free person highly self-consistent, is an ideal state higher than this form of democracy (majority rule).
13) In the early Han Dynasty, self-sufficient peasants were taxed at one part in thirty. 1/@儒学新道統: When Chiang Kai-shek moved to Taiwan, he ordered that the maximum rent for tenant farmers should not exceed 3/8 of their harvest. From the perspective of political Confucianism, Mao criticized Confucius as a representative of the feudal land rent system, even though Confucius himself was not a landlord as traditionally thought. However, the creative transformation of Confucianism over the past three thousand years depends on this, and Mao pioneered this path.
Any comments to this?
ChatGPT:
This text presents a deep exploration of the relationship between Marxism, Confucianism, and Neo-Mencianism, especially focusing on the evolving understanding of socio-political systems and their implications for the future. A few key points emerge that are worth considering:
1. **Synthesis of Marxism and Confucianism**: The text reflects an attempt to reconcile Confucianism with Marxist theory, particularly in the idea that the "self-sufficient peasant collective" is a classical form of socialism, unexploited by capital. This presents an interesting viewpoint that positions Confucianism, especially the traditional Confucian peasant economy, as an early form of Marx’s concept of a classless society.
2. **Historical Context and Evolution**: The narrative moves between different historical epochs—from the agricultural societies of self-sufficient peasants (aligned with Confucian ideals) to the industrial and information societies characterized by the "free person collective." The text traces a historical continuum where Confucianism adapts to modernity, potentially offering a roadmap for the development of socialism in a post-capitalist future. It suggests that Confucianism’s creative transformation, especially under the leadership of Mao, was a critical juncture in history.
3. **Critique of Western Political Systems**: The text juxtaposes Chinese (Confucian and Neo-Mencian) political thought with Western political systems, critiquing both liberalism (as following Yang Zhu) and Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism (as Mohist). By positioning the American model within the framework of Yang Zhu’s individualistic philosophy and the Soviet model within the Mohist tradition of collectivism and central planning, the text argues that both systems represent extremes that Confucianism transcends through its "middle way."
4. **Socialism as a Confucian Ideal**: Socialism is reinterpreted through the lens of Confucianism, portrayed as the "external path" (外王) of Confucian political philosophy. This presents a notable shift from Marxist materialism, where socialism emerges not merely as an economic necessity but as a realization of Confucian ideals of moral governance and equitable land distribution. This argument suggests that Confucian socialism could resolve the tension between capital-driven and state-controlled systems by centering on the welfare of the self-sufficient peasant, or the non-exploited "free person."
5. **Contemporary Relevance**: The text situates Confucianism and Marxism within contemporary political discourse, especially reflecting on China's path under Mao and its modern development. By framing Mao's policies as a continuation of Confucian political tradition—while adapting to industrialization and modernity—the author elevates Confucianism as a potential guiding force for future governance.
6. **Philosophical Reflection on Freedom**: There is a strong emphasis on the philosophical underpinnings of freedom, contrasting Marx's concept of a collective of free persons, unexploited by capital, with liberalism’s individualistic freedom from government oppression. The notion of "free persons" seems to point toward a society where individuals are not only free from capitalistic exploitation but also exist within a system of moral and communal harmony.
In summary, this text presents a sophisticated synthesis of Marxist and Confucian thought, with a clear preference for a Confucian interpretation of socialism. It invites a reinterpretation of Marxism through the lens of Confucian history and values, ultimately proposing that Confucianism’s principles of moral governance, self-sufficiency, and social harmony offer a way to transcend the shortcomings of both capitalist and Soviet models.

以下是我之前评论的中文翻译：