Saturday, May 20, 2023

凯萨琳大帝与农奴制度

凯萨琳本人的宪法体制建立具有三个等级的、像法国一样的俄罗斯帝国。但是这个俄罗斯帝国当中其实没有像法兰西王国那样的封建贵族,在当时已经只剩下彼得大帝培养出来的官僚贵族了。即使如此,在她建立三个等级的王国的努力当中,这个官僚贵族阶级仍然是她最能拿得出手的东西。官僚贵族虽然不是封建贵族,但是毕竟还可以算是贵族。毕竟凯萨琳还可以做彼得大帝曾经做过、而她可以加倍做的事情,就像她对狄德罗所做的那样。她年轻的时候就是法国作家(包括狄德罗)的粉丝。后来她当上了女皇,听说狄德罗在经济上遇上了困难,想要变卖他的全部藏书,她顿时表示说,我也是作家,我知道藏书对作家是多么重要,把作家和他的藏书分离开来是一件极其残酷的事情。于是,她派她的大臣到法国去,用重金全部买下了狄德罗的藏书,以免使它们分散。然后买下了藏书以后,又用重金聘请狄德罗做皇家图书馆的管理员。也就是说她出了两笔钱,一笔钱买狄德罗的书,然后把狄德罗的书还给狄德罗,还要给狄德罗按月按年支付图书管理员的工资。唯一的条件就是,等狄德罗死后,不再需要这些书以后,再把这些书送到俄国来,交给买主凯萨琳。这样的交易当然是非常照顾狄德罗本人的,狄德罗本人也对女皇感恩戴德。在当时还没有宣传部门的年代里,他作为著名作家和欧洲舆论场的大V,替俄国沙皇说了无数的好话。凯萨琳虽然是一个很精明强干的马基雅维利主义者,但是她对狄德罗的做法倒真有可能主要是出于年轻时代、心灵还纯洁的那个时代的感情,而不是为了捞取宣传方面的好处,虽然宣传方面的好处她实际上是得到了。
 
从凯萨琳在俄罗斯帝国推行的改革来看的话,她对法国的执迷不完全是出于物质利益,她就是真心觉得法国的制度非常先进。她一方面企图把贵族变成法国式的贵族等级,教士变成法国式的教士等级,但是在把俄国商人变成法国式的第三等级这方面,就遇到了无法克服的困难。
 
彼得大帝建立的国有企业对增加国库收入有很大的用处,她本人又利用欧洲金融财政之类的发展,开始在俄罗斯帝国推行纸币政策和贷款政策,这两者都极大地增加了帝国的收入。是欧洲列强推行这一类政策背后有一个强大的资产阶级和市民社会,有不断蓬勃发展的经济作为基础,而俄国没有这样的资产阶级,俄国经济也要落后得多。所以,她用这种方法大大增加了政府的收入和债务以后,这些收入和债务最后都改头换面,通过食盐专卖和各种国家垄断公司的方式,转嫁到了俄罗斯内地的广大消费者身上。而转嫁到消费者身上的结果是,由于最主要的消费者往往是乡村和小城市的地主,他们的开支极大增加了以后,他们不可避免要去压榨他们的农民,想法设法从农民身上增加收入。如果实在没有收入可以增加,至少要寻找借口使他们多劳动一些。我们要注意,法兰西王国的三个等级当中也是不包括农民的。因此最后,建立三个等级所造成的绝大部分压力都压在了农民头上。
 
而帝国政府的精明强干的女皇本人意识到,她不可能真正为了保护农民的利益而去触犯作为帝国基础的贵族和地主。而且,为了进一步地推行她的伟大理想,她还需要一批受过现代欧洲新教育的贵族跟她合作。因此,在帝国财政无法开展的情况之下,她只有像以前的几位沙皇一样,牺牲农民的利益来讨好贵族地主。而且还要进一步,把这些人的非正式的、默许的、零星的做法以法律的形式固定下来。之所以如此,正是因为她是西欧的崇拜者,因此她也是一位立法狂。她要求把俄罗斯帝国混乱的法典整理起来,使之有规范。而在这些法典当中,就最终正式承认了地主有对农奴的处理权,地主在出卖土地的时候有权把农奴作为土地的一部分出卖。我们要注意,这种把农奴和土地一起出卖的事情早在凯萨琳当政以前就有了,但是只是一个模糊的习惯。朝廷关心的只是地主能不能够提供足够的兵源和税收,并不关心他们是怎样搞到这些东西的。而凯萨琳的政府要制定欧化的法典,要使土地财产权明确和清晰起来。
 
在地广人稀的俄罗斯,土地本身不一定很值钱。如果没有劳动力的话,土地很可能卖不出去。没有劳动力的土地很容易重新退化成为杂草和森林的地带,有劳动力的土地才能卖得出去。劳动力数字的高低,能够很大程度上影响土地的价格本身。因此,出卖土地的地主们要向买主提供的最重要信息就是,我这块土地为什么能够卖出八百卢布或者八千卢布。主要因素就是,你看,我这上面有多少个精壮的男劳动力。如果我只卖地,而劳动力却跑到别的地方去了,那么我差不多就是在骗你了,把以前值钱、但是以后不可能值钱的土地塞给了你。因此,土地和劳动力同时转移,是符合当时的经济和社会状态的。但是在受过西欧启蒙思想的新派人士看来,农奴像牛一样被卖了出去,这难道不是奴役的最好证明吗?凯萨琳的政府把这样的条款正式地纳入了俄罗斯帝国的条款,所以凯萨琳一朝才是俄国农奴制真正确立的朝代。彼得和他以后的朝代,由于朝廷开支的增长,制造了农奴制固定化和正规化的必要条件。精明而现实的凯萨琳把已经造成的既成事实以法典的形式固定下来了。到了她的孙子亚历山大一世所在的时代,就变成她亲手创造出来的俄国自由派贵族痛心疾首、必须要除掉的一个毒瘤了。
 
——本文节录自「第五章:沙堆上的高塔和没有宪法的国家」
刘仲敬,逆转的文明史:罗斯大地──成为欧洲而不能,
逃离亚洲而不得的俄罗斯演化史》,2022
 
 

凯萨琳大帝的扩展版图

凯萨琳留给俄罗斯的主要的自由主义遗产是地方制度。彼得大帝很可能也有改革俄国地方制度的用心,但是他一生仓促,率领他的相当孤立、人数并不很多的洋务派改革集团在帝国东西南北跑上跑下,今天做这个,明天做那个,做的工作都很不系统。在地方制度方面,他基本上是把过去的军区制和督军直截了当地改成了省区制和省长,留下的成绩是非常粗糙的。凯萨琳决心按照法国方式来改革省制,按照经济、地域、人口和文化各方面合理的指标重新改组省界,把原来的十几个军区改成五十个省区,最后消除了彼得大帝时代把军役贵族转化为官僚贵族、把军区转化为省区的最后一点残余。
 
凯萨琳以后的省区大体上可以视为行政单位而非军事单位了。同时,她按照法国的管理体制来管理地方,把彼得大帝以后基本上被打散的地方自治机构恢复起来。最重要的一项是在司法方面,因为司法是政治不太重要的方面,并不直接威胁到女皇本人的政权。她把地方法院交给贵族选举产生,使它不再受沙皇的完全控制。同时,让各等级贵族选举出监督省政的委员会,在中央政府任命的省长之外设置至少是享有一定咨询权力的贵族委员会。贵族委员会的议员可以选举自己的贵族长,贵族长可以主持简单的仲裁法庭。可以说,后来在亚历山大二世时期的改革,例如英国式的陪审制和地方自治局(Zemstvo),在凯萨琳二世的地方制度改革当中已经初见端倪。或者不如说,后者根本就是前者在制度上的进一步延伸。但是由于农奴制的缘故,俄国自由主义者和亲欧派一般都不肯原谅凯萨琳,所以很少愿意提到她在这方面的功绩。我们要注意,理论上的制度和现实上的制度是不一样的。理想主义者在纸上设计而在现实中没有实行过的制度是很难实施的。如果没有现实中已经有的类似制度作为可以依托的基础的话,亚历山大二世的改革可能是不会成功的。
 
凯萨琳在欧洲引起的印象,一方面是,法国启蒙思想家在法国本身和西欧都不能完全实现的改革,在俄罗斯似乎有一部分是被女皇完全实现了,因此得到了很大的名誉;一方面是,她在欧洲政坛上对土耳其和波兰的军事行动扩大了俄罗斯帝国的版图。她从波罗的海派出的舰队一路绕过直布罗陀海峡,绕过意大利半岛,来到希腊,援助希腊东正教徒的起义,歼灭了土耳其舰队,一度威震欧洲。但是从俄罗斯帝国内部,她本人和她的海军司令奥尔洛夫都承认,这支俄国舰队也就是能打土耳其舰队,如果跟欧洲列强的舰队相遇的话,势必全军覆没。但是在舆论方面,由于她只打土耳其和波兰的缘故,她在外交上获得了极大胜利。俄罗斯帝国在她统治的时期显得空前强大,但是这个强大有一定的纸老虎性质,需要有一个像凯萨琳本人这样精明强干的人来控制它的外交。如果落到蠢人保罗或者理想主义者亚历山大一世手里面,那么纸老虎是很可能会露出原形的。后来这两件事情在她死后就都发生了。
 
——本文节录自「第五章:沙堆上的高塔和没有宪法的国家」
刘仲敬逆转的文明史:罗斯大地──成为欧洲而不能,
逃离亚洲而不得的俄罗斯演化史》,2022

Friday, May 5, 2023

欧洲的三大软肋

从历史上看,欧洲的发展轨迹差不多就是一条前半截上升、后半截下降的抛物线:工业革命使欧洲的实力开始迅速攀升,殖民地一度几乎涵盖全球,英国更是获得了“日不落帝国”的头衔。而再往后,欧洲就开始头也不回地走了下坡路,特别是两次世界大战以后,欧洲国家逐渐从世界的第一阵营跌入第二阵营,而世界的政治、经济中心,也由欧洲转到了美国,如今又开始转向东亚地区。
 
从地缘角度来说,这其实并不难解释。当初欧洲诸国能够称霸全球,靠的是先发优势——它们进入工业时代的时候,别人还处于农业时代。但欧洲其实存在很多难以克服的“软肋”,一旦其他地区也完成了工业化,那么欧洲的先发优势自然也就不存在了,剩下的就只有地缘上的劣势。
 
简单归结一下,一个政治、经济体对全球格局的影响力其实并不完全取决于财富多寡,而是要从以下三方面来看:对全球物流(交通运输线)的影响力、对全球资源分配的影响力,以及自身的行动力。而这三个方面偏偏都是欧洲地缘上的劣势,也就是欧洲的三大软肋。我们来具体解读一下欧洲这三大软肋。
 

软肋一:地域偏僻狭小

从海权来看,美国拥有两洋之利,向东向西可以同时影响到太平洋和大西洋两大海运通道;中国面向太平洋,未来同样有潜力在印度洋发挥影响力,而印度洋又是连接太平洋和大西洋的关键通道。而欧洲诸国在失去海外殖民地之后,所能影响到的区域只有地中海和大西洋。
 
从陆权来看,俄罗斯和中国的国土都延伸到了亚、欧、非大陆的中心地带,这意味着这两个国家都有条件通过铁路将三大洲连接起来——这也是中国的高铁外交成为联结世界、增强国家影响力的重要手段的原因。再反观欧洲诸国,它们在整个大陆上所处的位置同样过于偏僻了。
 
既然地理位置不好,那欧洲国家可不可以像几百年前那样再出去抢呢?时代不同了,殖民的美梦早已远去,况且抢一些小岛国也没有什么价值。那么大国呢?从军事安全角度说,俄罗斯有1700万平方千米的国土可作为战略纵深用于缓冲,中国更是有占国土面积超过七成的山地、高原可以作为战略依托。而欧洲地域狭小又多是一马平川的平原地形,易攻难守。
 

软肋二:资源受制于人

如果把俄罗斯从欧洲拿出去,我们会发现在自然资源方面欧洲基本就不剩什么了。俄罗斯学者奥·切尔科维奇在题为《世界经济背景下的俄罗斯》的论文中曾给出过一组几个经济体自然资源的估值,大致算下来,俄、美、中、欧的比例是3︰1︰0.5︰0.25。欧洲在资源上的劣势由此可见一斑。譬如欧洲经济最主要的“发动机”——德国,其半数以上的矿产资源需要靠进口来解决,其中36%的天然气和39%的石油都来自如今和它关系不怎么愉快的俄罗斯。
 
在欧洲的鼎盛时期,资源问题是靠海外殖民地来解决的。某种程度上说,“二战”对欧洲经济最大的打击并非是炸掉了多少工业设施,而是后来各个殖民地风起云涌的民族解放运动。原来的欧洲各国殖民地纷纷成为独立的主权国家,与昔日的宗主国平起平坐了。时至今日,欧洲有两大资源来源地,一个中东地区,一个南部非洲。而在这两个区域,欧洲的影响力都在急剧消退,这就意味着未来在资源问题上,欧洲必须越来越多地看其他大国的脸色。
 

软肋三:内部缺乏统一

西欧地区一马平川的地形固然适宜居住,却决定了这里很难形成统一的国家。由于没有地理上的屏障,古代欧洲的诸侯国除了玩命修筑城堡、扩张军队外,再没什么依托可以用来保障安全了。这样一来,欧洲的历史就如同我们现在看到的那样,国家之间不断地你打我、我打你,谁也难得有喘口气的时间来发展壮大自己。强盛时,你可以四下出击去打别人,可一旦碰上天灾或是政权变动,国势稍一逆转,便立马被动挨打,此前的战果统统归零……
 
这样的局面从古代延续到现代,一直到我们知道的两次世界大战。上千年打下来,国家间虽分分合合,边界也时有变动,但欧洲依然是邦国林立。随着时间的推移,各国之间已经形成了比较明显的差异性和距离感。这种距离感虽然比不上中、日、韩之间那么大,但也绝对可以“搅黄”任何需要欧洲整体协调、一致行动的事情。
 
——王伟,《一本书看懂地缘世界:全球政治势力全解析》,2017.
 

Sunday, April 30, 2023

The New “Post-Truth” Normal

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic exposed the severity of the epistemological crisis we face in the digital age. As the new virus spread globally, public health experts and government leaders naturally struggled to understand the nature of the contagion and how best to contain it. But the speed with which information—good, bad, and ugly—spreads in today’s world meant that imperfect data, errant projections, hastily written analysis, and contradictory recommendations were spread confidently and quickly, resulting in a disaster of information every bit as dangerous as the disease itself. Whatever you wanted to believe about the pandemic and the “stay at home” restrictions issued by governments, there were articles, studies, and experts you could find online to defend your view. The result was a deepening cynicism and uncertainty about pretty much everything.
 
COVID-19 didn’t create these frightening information dynamics, but it was a crisis made worse because of them. It was really 2016 when the extent of our epistemological crisis became apparent. That was the year Donald Trump’s election to president in the US and “Brexit” in the UK stunned experts and accelerated feelings that the world was entering a new, unpredictable phase driven more by rage than reality, more by fear than facts.
 
As a result, Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” the international word of the year in 2016, defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”1 The new “post-truth” normal was underscored in early 2017 when Time posed the question, “Is Truth Dead?” on its cover, designed in such a way to mirror a Time cover from 50 years earlier which posed a more foundational question: “Is God Dead?”2 These two covers, a half century apart, tell an important story. Without God as an ultimate standard of truth, all we have are “truths” as interpreted by individuals. To each their own. You do you. It’s no wonder we are now as confused as we are. Do away with God, and you do away with truth.
 
- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid: 
Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021
 

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

The Depressing Dead End of “Your Truth”

In her lifetime achievement award acceptance speech at the 2018 Golden Globes, Oprah Winfrey said, “What I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”
 
“Your truth” Those two words are so entrenched in our lexicon today that we hardly recognize them for the incoherent nightmare that they are. Among other things, the philosophy of “your truth” destroys families when a dad suddenly decides “his truth” is calling him to a new lover, a new family, or maybe even a new gender. It’s a philosophy that can destroy entire societies, because invariably one person’s truth will go to battle with another person’s truth, and devoid of reason, only power decides the victor.
 
“Your truth” also puts an incredible, self-justifying burden on the individual. If we are all self-made projects whose destinies are wholly ours to discover and implement, life becomes a rat race of performative individuality. “Live your truth” autonomy is thus as exhausting as it is incoherent. As French sociologist Alain Ehrenberg points out in The Weariness of the Self, the self-creating person turns out to be fragile and “weary of her sovereignty.” Depression is the inevitable result and “the inexorable counterpart of the human being who is her/his own sovereign.”
 
“Your truth” autonomy invariably leads to loneliness. It erroneously suggests we can live unencumbered and uninfluenced by the various structures that surround us (families, churches, cultures, biology, etc.) But it becomes impossible to form community when everyone is their own island, with no necessary reliance upon larger truths or embeddedness within a bigger story.
 
- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:
Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

Thursday, April 20, 2023

Perceptual Presentism

Compounding the problem is what I call “perceptual presentism,” where reality is filtered to us in fleeting fragments of what’s happening now, rather than through the filter of time and generational wisdom.
 
But this approach to time is not only narcissistic; it’s dangerous. It disconnects us from the wisdom of history and places undue mental emphasis on (and blind trust in) that which is least likely to produce wisdom: the untested now.
 
In a sobering 2019 Atlantic article, Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell note the problematic way that ideas and conflicts of the present moment “dominate and displace older ideas and the lessons of the past.” One paradox of the information age, they observe, is that even as younger generations grow up with unprecedented access to everything that has ever been written and digitized, the new generations nevertheless “find themselves less familiar with the accumulated wisdom of humanity than any recent generation, and therefore [are] more prone to embrace ideas that bring social prestige within their immediate network [and] yet are ultimately misguided.”
 
Today’s technological landscape hasn’t invented this sort of problematic presentism, but it has amplified it. Our existing human inclinations toward the latest and the trendiest are accelerated by the breakneck speed with which things come and go. This presentist orientation is particularly toxic (and all too common) in evangelical faith communities, where obsessions with “relevance,” an uncritical embrace of technology, and a disconnection from history leave many churches vulnerable to being molded more by the ephemeral spirit of the age than by the solid, time-tested wisdom of ages past.
 
Presentism is toxic not only because it rejects the resources of the past, but also because it has little discipline to stay on course for the future. Orientation around the new is by definition unstable, because the “new” quickly becomes “old” and passé. The presentist world burns through fads and ideas at an alarming pace. Among other things, this undermines the sorts of qualities—grit, perseverance, long-haul commitment—that are essential to actually solving complex problems. Presentism leads us to be “all in” for some cause for a few months, only to lose interest when another cause grabs our attention. It turns us into fickle consumer “slacktivists” whose short bursts of passion—for a new weight loss scheme, a buzzy Netflix show, a hashtag campaign against some injustice—move the needle on nothing except the profit margin for the platforms that benefit from our now-ness.

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid: 
Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Alternative Facts

“Alternative facts” famously entered the cultural lexicon in early 2017 when Kellyanne Conway told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press (in reference to the disputed crowd size at Trump’s inauguration), “You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and [we are] giving alternative facts to that.” To which Todd went on to reply: “Alternative facts are not facts—they’re falsehoods.”
 
In today’s post-truth world, “facts” are seen as fluid, bias-laden things to dispute or ignore when they threaten us. Political debates are largely unproductive in part because both sides marshal their own sets of “facts” and simply dismiss the other side’s arguments as invalid. Feelings now overrule facts. We assert as facts what we feel to be true, and when someone challenges us, we turn it back on them, because how dare they question the validity of our feelings? 

To have one’s felt truth invalidated is to have one’s very identity dismissed. It is to be offended, triggered, and “disrespected”—which is seen as more egregious than simply being proven wrong. However logical an argument might be, however indisputable the facts, it can all be dismissed as the “blindness” of privilege, the manipulation of the hegemony, or the weapon of the oppressor. Facts and rationality simply become inflictors of “trauma” (an increasingly weaponized word); not objective evidence in any agreed upon sense. “In a post-truth age,” writes Abdu Murray, “if the evidence fits our preferences and opinions, then all is well and good. If it doesn’t, then the evidence is deemed inadmissible or offensive, with offense being a kind of solvent against otherwise sound arguments.”
 
The same cavalier attitude toward facts also goes for our personal belief systems. In part because of the chaotic, incoherent flow of information that constantly fills our minds and also because our capacity for self-awareness and critical thinking is decreasing, we increasingly curate hodgepodge worldviews full of inherent contradictions. A person might adopt some aspects of Christianity but also some of Buddhism or Wicca, ignoring the fact that Christ claimed religious exclusivity (see John 14:6). Some might passionately support the protection of iguana eggs while advocating the legal killing of unborn human babies. Others might enthusiastically argue for the importance of organic crops and against the dangers of genetically modified tomatoes, even as they cheer the sex change operations and hormone modification of transgender persons. We increasingly fail to consider our own logical inconsistencies.
 
But because it’s easy to just turn the channel or unfollow someone when our incoherent positions are challenged, we find it easy to keep holding contradictory views without feeling cognitive dissonance. “When confronted with a deficiency in our ethical code, it takes no real effort to ignore it,” Alan Noble observes. In a world of constant mental stimulation, “our default response to cognitive dissonance is to simply do something else.”
 
All of this might sound crazy, and indeed it is. But it’s how we live now. “Reality” isn’t a force to reckon with as it once was. Established knowledge, provable facts, even the reality of one’s own body—all of it can now be dismissed if it subverts the authority that matters most: the “self.”
 
- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:
Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021