译者病中乃知
.com
Democracy, compatible with huge population 龙腾网版权所有 http://www.ltaaa.com
民主适用于大量人口吗？ 所有 http://www.ltaaa.com
龙腾网版权所有 http://www.ltaaa.com
原文链接：http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15476
Spartakus （希腊）
Some times i wonder whether democracy isactually compatible in States with huge populations, like China or India (those examples are strictlyused for their populations numbers, and not for their current politicalsystem). Can it actually be successful in countries with really big populations?
我时常怀疑民主是否可以与中国或者印度这样的人口大国真正兼容，所举的例子只严格适用于他们的人口数字，而不是现行的政治制度。民主能在真正的人口大国取得成功吗？
评论：
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1、JanusRook
No, it becomes an oligarchic dictatorshipbecause those who have established themselves in power can play differentelements of the population against each other for their (the ones in power)benefit.
不可能，（民主）会变成寡头独裁政权，因为已经确立了自身地位的当权派会为了切身利益而扶植几个不同阶层的派别互相倾轧。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2、Kapikulu （德国）
As long as it is not direct democracy whichwas applied in Athens, and which we can seeexamples in today's Switzerland,like Janus said, it totally becomes an oligarchy. Because after therepresentatives are elected, they have no responsibility towards the people andthey don't have to give an account...
只要不是直接民主——以前的雅典或者现今的瑞士，正如杰纳斯所说，（民主）已经彻底变成了寡头政治。因为在代表们被选出来之后，他们无须对人民负责，他们也不用做出解释。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3、New User （英国）
Depends on the type of democracy I wouldsay...
我想说这应该取决于民主的类型…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4、Jagiello
I also think it's not compatible with hugeamounts of people simply because most of them don't even have primary educationand vote emotionally for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiences.Such voting leads to the electing of communist and nationalist parties. Thebest form of democracy for me is when only people that graduated College orUniversity or at least High school can vote. It's simply not fare for me thatthe vote of an educated Doctor of science or even a Professor is equal to thevote of an idiot that can't even read for example but votes because he waspromised good future from a party. This might sound like oligarchy but thatkind of "citizenship" in Romefor example worked perfectly, although it wasn't democracy. Just imagine if weput this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduatedand are considered educated and only they can vote. It would not be somekind ofaristocratic title and would not be received as a heritage. If you rememberbecause of the "stupid" crowds did communism prosper in manycountries and the intellectual groups were destroyed.
我也认为民主不适用于人口庞大的（国家），因为大多数人甚至没有接受过初等教育，他们根据个人的想法和经历而情绪化地把票投给某一党派。这种选举会导致共产党或者国民党的上台。于我而言，只有当人们从大学/学院（至少高中毕业）毕业才可以投票，这才是最优的民主模型。对我来说，投票给一位受过教育的医学博士甚至是教授，等于投票给一名不识字却被选上的#请文明用语#，因为他许诺了一个美好的未来——民主可不仅仅是选票的价格。这听起来很像是寡头政治，然而这种‘公民权’在罗马被完美地行使着，尽管这并不是民主。试想一下，如果我们把‘公民权’给予毕业了以及受过良好教育的人，让他们来投票。这不会变成某种贵族权利，也不会成为可继承的遗产。正是由于‘愚昧’的人群才使得许多国家的共产主义变得繁荣，知识阶层趋于消亡。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5、gcle2003
Sounds very like Aristotle's argument justifyingslavery. The 'idiots who can't even read' have to be looked after and guided bythose who can.
（回复4号评论）听起来很像是亚里士多德为奴隶制的辩护。‘不识字的傻瓜’必须被照顾和指导。（译者注：亚里士多德认为奴隶制是合乎自然的制度，奴隶生来就比常人低劣，而且他们还有着与常人不同的性质；他们没有理性，他们不能统治自己而必须由他们的主人来统治。他们是工具，只不过是会说话的工具罢了。他们在家庭中的地位，也只是活的工具，而不是‘人’。）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6、Jagiello （波兰）
Well,my opinion is the idiots that can'teven read shouldn't be allowed to rule and determine the faith of allothers.They shouldn't be slaves and have no rights but also shouldn't bemasters and their votes to be with same value as those of the educatedpeople.And after all,slaves don't choose to be slaves.They are either born ormade slaves.Most of the uneducated people have chosen to leave school or justdidn't want to learn.I'm talking about the wealthy countryes where even thepoor can become educated.
我的观点是，不识字的傻瓜不应该被统治、被其他人的意念左右。他们不应该成为奴隶、没有权利，但也不应该成为统治者，他们的选票与受过教育的人等价。毕竟，奴隶不会选择作为奴隶。他们要么生来便是奴隶，要么不得已而为之。大多数未受教育的人选择退学或者只是不想学习。我所说的富有的国家是指那种穷人也可以受到教育的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7、pinguin （智利）
If you make a election system where onlythe smart and educated can vote, it won't be a democracy anymore, but ameritocracy. Something like the bureaucrats of ancient China.
Democracy is the believe ALL MAN ARE equal,regardless of education, social possition and even intelligence.
That's what most people in the West believein. Even the underdeveloped Latin America havevery clear that democracy is the voice of the masses, particularly the onesthat lack education.
（回复6号评论）如果你建立一个只允许聪明人和受过教育的人投票的选举制度，这就不是民主，而是精英管理。这与中国古代的官僚有些类似。
民主认为‘众生平等’，而不论受教育程度、社会地位和智力。大多数西方人民都笃信。即便是尚不发达的拉丁美洲都很清楚民主是普罗大众的声音，特别是那些缺少教育的人们。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8、Northman
Democracy is the worst form of governmentexcept all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.-- WinstonChurchill
Democracy is also the most difficult formof government of all - but who promised it would be easy? It's the only choiceif you value the rights of the individual.
"At least high school education tovote?" - that would exclude most people from voting, specially poorpeople. But who cares about poor people? - they have nothing for anyone to rob- only poverty, and who wants that?
Of course anyone should be able to vote,regardless of education, wealth, faith and so on. If there should beregulations for voting, it should be this: If your income is in the top 30%bracket, you cant vote. That would level things out and could provide moreequality for everyone.
The ideal society is where only few has toomuch, and even fewer too little. You need democracy for that.
民主是政府的最坏形式，但例外的情况是，在尝试过其他形式皆行不通的时候。——温斯顿·丘吉尔
民主同时也是所有政体中最困难的模式——指望它的人会过得舒坦吗？如果你重视个人的权利，那么（民主）是唯一的选择。
‘至少高中毕业才可以投票？’——这样一来就会把大多数人排除在外，尤其是穷人。但是谁又会在乎穷人？——他们没有值得抢劫的东西——除了贫穷，谁想要这些？
不论教育、财富、信仰等等，任何人都可以去投票。如果投票有规则的话，那就是：如果你的收入属于前30%，你可以投票。这样一来就更加平衡以及让每个人更加平等。
理想社会就是让拥有很多的人变少，让拥有很少的人变得更少。这才是民主的精髓所在。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9、Adalwolf （美国）
If there should be regulations for voting,it should be this: If your income is in the top 30% bracket, you cant vote.That would level things out and could provide more equality for everyone.
如果投票有规则的话，那就是：如果你的收入属于前30%，你可以投票。这样一来就更加平衡以及让每个人更加平等。（引用）
What?! That is crazy! Just because peoplehave high paying jobs they can't vote?! That is just as bad as saying poorpeople can't vote because they are poor and uneducated!
什么？！简直不可理喻！只是因为人们有着高薪的工作，其它人不能投票吗？！这就好比说穷人们不能投票，因为你们太穷而且没有经受过教育！
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10、Omar al Hashim
I think that was the point Adalwolf.
我同意Adalwolf（9号评论）所说的。
most of them don't even have primaryeducation and vote emotionally for parties that they connect with personalideas or experiences. Such voting leads to the electing of communist andnationalist parties.
大多数人甚至没有接受过初等教育，他们根据个人的想法和经历而情绪化地把票投给某一党派。这种选举会导致共产党或者国民党的上台。（引用）
The communist government in Kerala state Indiais doing very well thank you. But then again - Kerala does have one of thehighest education levels in India.Damn communists, they even educate people!
谢谢，印度（西南部）喀拉拉邦的共产党政府干得相当不错。话说回来，喀拉拉邦可是印度教育水平最高的几个邦之一。该死的共产党，他们竟然在教育人民！
It's the only choice if you value therights of the individual.
如果你重视个人的权利，那么（民主）是唯一的选择。（引用）
Democracy doesn't protect the rights of theindividual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob. I much prefermilitary dictatorship (with a good dictator) for rights.
民主并不会完全保护个人的权利。它看重的是大多数人的利益。我更喜欢军政府（有一位出色的领袖）。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11、Jagiello （波兰）
Well, i don't know about Kerala but i knowof at least 20 states where all educated and wealthy people were massacred bythe poor and stupid when communists came. It was the idea that everybody shouldbe equal-equally stupid and poor. And a "communist" government issomething that doesn't exist in ant country in the world. There are socialistgovernments like those in Chinaand Cubabut none of them is communist. Communism is the highest form of socialism andit isn't compatible neither with education nor with wealth.
（回复10号评论）我不知道喀拉拉邦，但我知道当共产党来到的时候，至少有20个州受过教育以及富有的人被穷人和傻瓜所屠杀。这是一种‘每个人都应该是平等的傻瓜与穷人’的想法。世界上任何国家都不存在（真正意义上的）‘共产主义’政府。中国和古巴都是社会主义国家，而不是共产主义。共产主义是社会主义的最高形式，教育和财富不能与之共存。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12、Omar al Hashim
Communism isn't compatible with wealth (itsthe whole point isn't it), but education on the other hand has done very wellin Communist countries. Communist countries have excellent records in literacy,numeric, and Russiawas at the forefront of scientific discovery in its communist days.
共产主义将会消灭财富（这才是关键不是吗），但另一方面，共产主义国家有着非常好的教育。共产主义国家有着十分优秀的读写和数字记录，俄罗斯走在共产主义时代科学实验的最前线。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13、es_bih （美国）
That is true Communist countries, andgovernments have had a high emphasis on education, many Communist countries hadworld class schools. Jagiello I do not remember any anti-intellectualuprisings, however, anti-aristocrical ones are common procedure, hence the name"Communism" it is supposed to be a society of equals not of castes,or economic classes.
（回复12号评论）真正的共产主义国家和政府十分重视教育，很多共产主义国家都拥有世界级的学校。Jagiello（11号发帖人）我不记得有什么反知识分子的暴动，不过反贵族阶级的起义倒是必经的步骤，因此‘共产主义’应该是一个没有世袭的平等社会。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14、Roberts （拉脱维亚）
Imo the "democracy" is compatiblewith huge populations, if country has only two political parties.
在我看来，如果一个国家有两个政党，那么‘民主’就能同普罗大众和谐相处。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15、DukeC （加拿大）
Access to information and ability tounderstand it is more important to a democracy than population size. Which iswhy there's censorship in Chinaand why there's so much
manipulation of the media in the west.
对于民主来说，有权获取信息与理解民主的能力比人口规模更重要。这就是为什么中国会有审查制度，而西方则被媒体操控的原因。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16、pinguin （智利）
Dictatorship is incompatible with a freemarket economy. If Chinacontinues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy.Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the firsteconomical downturn. It has happened many times before. There is nothing tostop it to happens in China.
（回复15号评论）独裁与自由市场经济不能共存。如果中国继续经济上的成功，就不得不转向民主。否则就会激发社会矛盾，第一次经济衰退就是导火索。谁也不能阻止中国发生这些事情。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17、Riga Ponce de Leon （美国）
This might sound like oligarchy but thatkind of "citizenship" in Romefor example worked perfectly, although it wasn't democracy. Just imagine if weput this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduatedand are considered educated and only they can vote.
这听起来很像是寡头政治，然而这种‘公民权’在罗马被完美地行使着，尽管这并不是民主。试想一下，如果我们把公民权给予已经毕业或是受过良好教育的人，让他们来投票。（引用）
Sounds very interesting. But it still wouldnot be fair for the large majority of people who are unable to receive aneducation. Their voice should be heard as well.
听起来很有意思。不过这对大多数不能接受教育的人来说并不公平。他们的声音也应该被听到。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18、LuckyNomad （大韩民国）
Why can't Democracy work in a country withover 1 billion people? It certainly works in a country with over 300 million.I'm sure that people in Belgiumwonder how Democracy works in a country as big as Germanyand the Germans wonder how it can work in a country as big as the US. It's merelya matter of breaking it down, just like with any other government. You havemayors in charge of towns and cities, and governors in charge ofprovinces/states and 1 person on top. It's like the difference between aninfantry squad and an Army Group. It's basically run the same way, just on alarger scale.
为什么民主不能在超过1亿人口的国家里运转？即便人口超过3亿也可以正常运转。我敢说比利时人一定很好奇像德国这么大的国家民主是如何运转的，德国人也很好奇像美国这么大的国家民主是如何运转的。只是（民主）出现了问题，就像其他政府那样。你们有管理城镇和城市的镇/市长，管理省和州的长官，有一个人居于最顶端。这就好比是步兵班和集团军群的差异。管理的方式大同小异，唯一的区别就是规模更大了些。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19、jacob （美国）
What does it mean if a democracy truly"works" in the first place? Isit one in which there is a hundred per-cent, direct representation? BenjaminFranklin said that the Constitution would end up being nothing more than aband-aid, and that some kind of totalitarianism would rear its head again. Maybethe notion of a democracy that starts to not work is one in which the spectrumof debate ends up narrowing itself. If a population gets big enough, certainvoices and segments necessarily become marginalized. When necessity bindspeople together, you see democracy in its most unadulterated form. Thecolonists of the 18th century railed against something in a time of urgency. TheConstitution reflects what their (ostensibly, the entire population's)contemporary fears were about evil governments. So many factors have enteredinto the equation over the last couple of hundred years, that our collectivesense of need has completely changed. This tiny segment cares about the loss ofthe second amendment, this sizeable chunk cares about whether Paris Hilton goesto the slammer, this group cares about global warming. I do not think it ispossible for the United States to function democractically at thispoint--at least not the way the Founding Fathers might have intended. At thispoint, its just a vehicle that gets driven by the guy with the best PR. Whateverthe case, I'll take American democracy on its worst day over North Koreantotalitarianism on its best.
首先，如果民主真的在‘运转’，那么它意味着什么？是不是百分百的直接代表？本杰明·富兰克林说过，宪法只是一个创可贴，终究会变得一文不名，然后极权主义会重新抬头。或许民主的设想还没有开始运转就会因为自身讨论范围的收缩而消亡。如果人口达到一定规模，势必会有一些声音被忽视。当必须把人们约束在一起的时候，你就会看到民主最纯粹的形式。18世纪的殖民者在一段时间内群情激愤。宪法照射出了他们（表面上是人民）同时代所恐惧的就是邪恶的政府。在过去的两百多年间，很多因素被代入了这个公式，我们共同的需求已经完全改变了。极少一部分人在关心（美国宪法）第二修正案的得失，相当大一部分人都在关心帕里斯·希尔顿是否会进监狱，还有一群人关系全球变暖。我认为这个时候美国不可能进行民主化的行动，至少不会使用开国元勋（指富兰克林）的方法。这时的民主只是一辆由性能最高的家伙来驱动的交通工具。无论什么情况，我都会让最低级的美式民主来取代最高效的朝鲜极权主义。
译者注：这段话用意很深，我来简单地解读下。发帖人引用富兰克林的话是为了说明‘民主只是手段而非目的’，下文都是围绕这个论点展开的。他所指的‘民主’并不是任何时刻都可以商量着来，必要的时候可以独断专权。民主的模型很完美，但是过于理想化，实际应用就是另一回事了。所以下文说当各种意见收集上来之后，会有一个遴选的过程，总会有一部分人得利益照顾不到。然后这些人就会闹事，那么‘民主政府’该怎么办呢，只好把他们‘约束’起来，（‘约束’是指必要的时候可以进行镇压甚至是消灭）所以民主最纯粹的形式是什么呢——还是极权！
举一个简单的例子，1932年麦克阿瑟镇压美国退伍老兵。事件的过程可以套用上边的公式：民主政府收到了这些老兵的意见，然后在筛选的过程中被忽视掉了，这些老兵愤而‘向华盛顿进军’，政府不得已要把他们‘约束’起来，于是派遣麦克阿瑟进行了血腥地镇压。这些老兵为国家出生入死，耗尽了青春，结果却落得鸟尽弓藏，不知麦克阿瑟将军在镇压昔日同袍的时候有没有兔死狐悲的感觉？
两百年的时间里，这个‘公式’加入了其他的因素，人们的诉求开始分化。有人安逸于享乐，有人则有更高的目标。所以文中提到关心修正案、希尔顿和全球变暖的三类人分别代表了执政当局、普罗大众和有识之士，他们关心的分别是国家/民族利益、个人利益以及全人类的利益。任何情况下，普罗大众都是占绝大多数，但他们大都关心切身利益，不会从国家/民族甚至更高的层面来考量。个人利益并不等于集体利益，所以发帖人说‘美国不应当进行民主化的行动，而是让能保证国家/大多数人利益的党派‘独断专行’，赶着美国这架马车继续前进’。
总结一下，发帖人用辩证的观点来看待‘民主’，意见是要听取的，但决策也是要独断的，不过他认为民主主义可以在民主和极权之间灵活运用，所以对民主还是有所希冀的。同时他认为极权主义百罪莫赎，过于死板，这从最后一句话就可以看出。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20、Decebal （加拿大）
Here's my two cents: democracy, like anyother political system, is designed to keep the population under control and ingood order. In any human society there will be an elite of some sort, who arealways in control over society via economic or political orreligious/ideological means) or a combination thereof. So far, it is the bestsuch system designed, because middle class and poor people either have thefeeling in control (whereas the elite is always in that position), or simply turnout politics because they start seeing the current state of events as naturaland unchangeable. Other systems are more heavy-handed, and they result in thepopulation being discontent, leading to political subversion and general lossof productivity. So, in answer to the original question, it doesn't reallymatter how big the population is, democracy performs this function at theindividual level or middle and lower class people.
我来说几句：民主和其它的政治制度一样，都是为了使人民处于控制以及秩序之下而设计出来的。任何人类社会中都会有一些精英分子通过经济、政治、宗教、意识形态来控制社会。迄今为止，民主是最好的制度设计，因为中产阶级和穷人既感到处于管理之下（然而精英阶层始终处于他们的位置），又可以或多或少地参与政治，他们可以很自然地看到事情的当前状态，只是不能改变而已。其他制度太过严苛，结果导致人民不满，进而产生政治动荡，降低了生产力。所以回归到最开始的问题，人口的规模无关紧要，民主可以在个人层面以及中产与底层人民之间履行这种功能。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21、LuckyNomad （大韩民国）
Democracy doesn't protect the rights of theindividual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.
民主并不会完全保护个人的权利。它看重的是大多数人的利益。（引用）
I think that's the reason that most"democracies," aren't really true democracies. They're DemocraticRepublics, which channel all the fickle opinions and desires of the people intoa really slow and rarely changing system or representation. But man, I can'twait until USpolitics starts getting EXTREME. Like in Taiwan, where the representativeskick the crap out of each other in congress.
我想原因是大多数‘民主’并不是真正的民主。他们把人民浮躁的舆论和要求通过民主共和的渠道传送到缓慢且变化的体制或代表。我不能坐视美国的政治走向极端。比如在台湾，代表们在国会大打出手。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22、Aelfgifu （荷兰）
Actually the US system is not very democraticalat all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of activeopposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtuallythe same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totallyimpossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can beelected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, whichshould be neutral, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is whyyou are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
事实上美国一点都不民主。很多人都不能投票，因为反对派积极地阻止他们这样做；说是有两个政党，但是大同小异；国会由每个州派一个代表而组成，他们几乎就不能代表整个州；总统被绝对少数的投票选出；应该保持中立的司法权却旗帜鲜明地表达了政治立场。这就是为什么你们在民主排名比上述国家还要低的原因：（网址略）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23、Paul
Democracy seems to fail as soon as thenumbers rise to 2 people, unless one is considerably stronger than the other.
只要人数超过2个，民主就会失败，除非其中一个比另一个更强大。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24、hugoestr
It values the rights of the biggest mob. Imuch prefer military dictatorship (with a good dictator) for rights.
民主并不会完全保护个人的权利。它看重的是大多数人的利益。我更喜欢军政府。（引用）
I will respectfully disagree. Dictatorstend to trample rights because a lot of their energy does into making sure thatthey stay in power either because they enjoy it or because they are afraid ofbeing held responsible for their actions.
我尊重你的意见，但不同意独裁者容易践踏权利，因为他们要花很多精力来确保自己掌握权力，他们热衷于权力，但又害怕为他们的行动负责。
Dictatorship is incompatible with a freemarket economy. If Chinacontinues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy.Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the firsteconomical downturn.
独裁与自由市场经济不能共存。如果中国继续经济上的成功，就不得不转向民主。否则就会激发社会矛盾，第一次经济衰退就是导火索。（引用）
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, afree-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrivedunder dictatorships.
我不敢打包票。没错，政治自由的国家把自由市场市场经营的有声有色，但在独裁的统治下同样繁荣。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25、Maharbbal （法国）
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, afree-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrivedunder dictatorships.
我不敢打包票。没错，政治自由的国家把自由市场市场经营的有声有色，但在独裁的统治下同样繁荣。（引用）
Examples?
Most of dictatorships even the most successfulones are based on a controlled economy (Meiji Japan,1960s Korea, even China to alarge extend). I can't think of one successful econonomy based on freedom oftrade and no political freedom.
South American dictatorship were not verysuccessful and did not have a free market (the presence of importantmultinationals does not mean freedom of trade).
In my opinion it is for one simple reason:a market to function properly needs a referee, which in the modern world is ina huge majority of case the state or any form of public administration. Bydefinition a dictator as very limited and very biased check and control, hencehe (never she) has enormous incentive to direct the economy. He can be very successfulat it (see Deng or Korea).
Democracy allows a limited yet efficient(most of the time) control of the market. An economy can thrive under adictator but cannot be qualified as free.
Nowadays the BRICK (Brazil, Russia,India, China, Kazakhstan) have very imperfectlyfree economies. Even Brazilhas little control over many haciendas while the state controles some 50% ofthe GDP
PS: I don't know about Iran, but Iguess the state controls the oil exploitation.
譬如？
大多数独裁国家，即便是最成功的那个（指中国）也是以计划经济为基础（明治时期的日本、60年代的韩国、中国在很大程度上也是）。我很难想象一个成功的经济体会建立在贸易自由、但政治不自由的基础上。
南美的独裁政权不是很成功，也没有自由市场（跨国公司影响虽然很大，但并不意味着自由贸易）。
在我看来，原因很简单：市场要运作就需要一个合适的中间人，现代社会的中间人出现在绝大多数国家和任何形式的行政管理之中。按照定义，独裁者是限制极大和倾斜度很高的阻碍和控制，因此他有着很大的动机去干预经济。他可以依此而获得巨大的成功。（参见邓小平和韩国）
民主允许对市场进行有限但高效的控制。独裁控制下的经济可以繁荣，但和自由国家却不能同日而语。
当今，金砖五国（巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国、哈萨克斯坦）的自由经济都是有严重缺陷的。巴西很少对大庄园进行干预，但国家仍控制着50%的GDP。
PS：我对伊朗不太了解，我想石油开采是由国家控制的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26、hugoestr
I believe that we are tripping over theterm "free-market," which I have used as a substitute for"capitalism." This is how it is used in the U.S.; look at how American economic journaliststalk about China, and theykeep talking about how Chinais participating more and more in the "free-market".
Are markets under dictatorships"free"? Of course not, by definition. But they are "free"enough, or more properly said, capitalistic enough to attract foreign investorsand multinationals.
War-centric dictatorships tend to have acentralized economy because it is very efficient for war production. But morepeacefully oriented dictatorships can have a good amount of economic freedomthat doesn't translate into a political one. My big example is Mexico,whose one-party system survived for 70 year. That one is followed by Chile,which lasted about 17 years. Franco in Spain was another dictator that hada moderately free economy, in the later years, without political freedom.
（回复25号评论）我想我们都被‘自由市场’绊倒了，我曾一度以为它取代了‘资本主义’。美国是这样加以运用的：看看美国的财经记者是如何谈论中国的，他们一直在谈论中国越来越融入到‘自由市场’之中。
独裁统治下的市场是‘自由’的吗？按照定义，当然不是。但是他们却足够‘自由’，更确切地说（他们的）资本性足以吸引国外的投资和跨国公司。
以战争为中心的独裁政权容易出现集权经济，因为这样一来生产战争物资的效率很高。但是趋于和平的独裁政权则拥有相当大的经济自由，但不能被翻译成政治自由。最大的例子就是墨西哥，一党制度存在了70年。然后就是智利，持续了17年。西班牙的佛朗哥是另一个独裁者，他们有着适度的自由经济，（在弗朗哥）晚年没有政治自由。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27、Bulldog （英国）
Are all dictatorships wrong? its the"benevolent dictator" argument again
The best example of a successful democracytoday is obviously the U.S as its a super-power, economically the wealthiesnation and the most advanced. However, in my opinion, its a "benevolent dictatorship"of the more intellectually advanced kind. Only those who have the rightcontacts, education and belong to the right societies will be considered forelection. Two guys meet the requirements, it doesn't really matter who getschosen, they're a figurehead for the benevolent dictatorship mechanism workingbehind the scenes ensuring America'sinterests.
What's smart about the system is thatcitizens feel they have a choice, as there are two candidates, they get caughtup in the media hype and there are all these rallies and so on but at the endof the day the results will be known before-hand. The media will determine whowill and won't get chosen, they can make and ruin people.
The benevolent dictatorship mechanismdelegates some decision making further down the chain which keeps people happy.
A real democracy is similar to anarchism,it gives power and trusts the people with not having to be ordered around,instead being able to work together as an equal society.
Do we need to be ruled? do we really have achoice in electing rulers?
所有的独裁政权都是错误的吗？看来新一轮‘仁慈的独裁者’的辩论又要开始了。
现如今最成功的民主范例毫无疑问就是美国，超级大国，经济巨无霸，也最先进。可是在我看来，它只是在智力上比较先进的‘仁慈的独裁政权’。只有那些有权接触、培养以及属于权力阶层的人才有被选举的资格。有两个家伙满足条件，谁当选都无关紧要，他们都是名义上的领袖，仁慈的独裁政权机制则在幕后确保美国的利益。
这种体制的巧妙之处就在于人民觉得自己可以选择，因为这里有两个候选人，他们陷入了媒体炒作和各种各样的集会之中，但是在最后一天，结果将会被预先揭晓。媒体将会决定鹿死谁手，他们对人民翻手为云覆手为雨。
仁慈的独裁机制委托（总统）做出一些决定，使人民感到幸福的枷锁进一步加重。
真正的民主类似于无政府主义，把权力交给人民，并且信任他们，不是对其发号施令，而是能够共同工作的平等社会。
我们需要被统治吗？我们真的需要选择统治者吗？
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28、Maharbbal （法国）
You're right, well partly. Indeed it seemsthat the USpolitical system is monopolized by two groups who skillfully manage to give theidea to anybody else that they have the choice. It is the case with any form ofrepresentative democracy, your piking the dictator you like. Kind of. Thesuccession of Bush I and Bush II and maybe latter of Cliton I and Clinton II ishere to reenforce the feeling that democracy exists but that some are more demothan others.
Yet two fact are to be taken intoconsideration:
1) Anybody using the cursus honorum imposedby these parties or its own wit can pretend to become the new dictator. See R.Regan, he wasn't born a rich man in a politically influencial familly.
2) The powers of the dictator in the US more thananywhere else are hugely limited by federal and local institutions. (and by thefact that there are 200 million guns in the country :p)
（回复27号评论）你说的对，有些观点很赞。美国的政治制度的确是被两个党派所垄断，十分巧妙地让每个人都有一种‘我们可以选择’的想法。任何形式的代议制民主都是如此，你可以选择你所喜欢的独裁者。小布什接了老子的班，或许以后小克林顿也会效仿，这样一来民主的存在感又增强了，不过有些（民主）比其他的更为规范。
还有两个事实也应该考虑到：
1、 任何人只有凭借被政党伪造的任职履历或者自己的聪明才智，才能假装成为一个新的独裁者。看看里根，他并没有出生在一个有着政治影响力的富人家庭里。 2、 美国独裁者的权力被联邦以及自身体系所掣肘。（这个国家还有两亿条枪杆子，哈哈）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29、Jagiello （波兰）
That is true Communist countries, andgovernments have had a high emphasis on education, many Communist countries hadworld class schools. Jagiello I do not remember any anti-intellectualuprisings, however, anti-aristocrical ones are common procedure, hence the name"Communism" it is supposed to be a society of equals not of castes,or economic classes.
真正的共产主义国家和政府十分重视教育，很多共产主义国家都拥有世界级的学校。Jagiello（11号发帖人）我不记得有什么反知识分子的暴动，不过反贵族阶级的起义倒是必经的步骤，因此‘共产主义’应该是一个没有世袭的平等社会。（引用）
When communists take power they usuallymurder the whealthiest people,who are usually the mosteducated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics.... At the end only the dummestclass remains.In China for example students murder their own teachers.InCambodia,one of the worst cases, there were no doctors, teachers or any kind ofeducated men remaining after the communist revolution. And about the educationduring the communism-physics,maths and all kind of stuff that doesn't haveanything to do with politics is truely on a high level.When it comes to othersubjects the situations becomes horrible. The USSRfor example was making the history of the world like a hollywood movie-anunstoppable battle between good and evil(of course Russia is the good guy and theimperialsts are the bad). There have been no law,phylosophy,religion or ethicsclasses in school.So,as a whole communism is bad for education in the begginigand after that deosn't become relly better exept in mathematical subjects.
当共产党执政的时候，他们一般都会杀害最富有的人，他们通常都是受过最好教育的医生、教师、科学家、政客……（记得我曾经讲过四、五十年前的事情）最后只剩下最愚蠢的阶级。比如说中国的学生杀害他们的老师，哥伦比亚则是最糟的一个，在共产主义革命之后，那里没有医生、教师以及其他受过教育的人。关于共产主义的教育，物理、数学以及与政治没有关联的其他学科则取得了非常高的水平。另外一些学科的局面则变得非常可怕。比如说苏联把世界历史写成了好莱坞的电影——正邪之间永无休止的战争（当然俄罗斯是正义的一方，帝国主义是邪恶的）。学校没有法律、哲学、宗教或者道德等学科。总而言之，一开始共产主义对教育是不利的，除了数学，其他学科都不会变得更好。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30、gcle2003 （卢森堡）
When communists take power they usuallymurder the whealthiest people,who are usually the mosteducated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics.... (remember i'm talking about40-50 years ago).
当共产党执政的时候，他们一般都会杀害最富有的人，他们通常都是受过最好教育的医生、教师、科学家、政客……（记得我曾经讲过四、五十年前的事情）（引用）
That doesn't square with my experience ofwhat happened in Eastern Europe when theSoviets took over. The ruling elite in the sixties (i.e. the bureaucracy),certainly the ones I met, were mostly sons and daughters (mostly sons - I don'tknow why I added 'daughters') of the pre-Communist elites.
In 1956 I was in Austriacovering the revolution in Hungary,most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainlywas that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class. A doctoralstudent from Bulgariain the late 'sixties (influential enough to be allowed to study abroad) was theson of a banker in the pre-Communist regime, and confirmed to me there hadn'tbeen much change in who was actually running the country.
Of course, the chief political figuresliked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that theSoviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming topower.
据我所知，当苏联控制东欧的时候，并没有发生这些事情。六十年代的统治精英们（也就是官僚）几乎都是前共产主义精英的子女们（大部分都是儿子，我不知道自己为什么要加上‘女儿’）。
1956年我在奥地利，避开了匈牙利的革命，难民像潮水般地涌入，老的中产阶级仍然是新的中产阶级。六十年代末（有足够的影响力被允许国外留学），有一名来自保加利亚的博士生，他老爸是前共产党政权的银行家，他向我保证，实际掌管整个国家的那个人并没有太大改变。
当然，重要的政治人物都喜欢吹嘘他们的工人阶级背景。另外，苏联控制下的东欧并不是你所说的共产党执政的例子。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31、LuckyNomad （大韩民国）
It works because the US is not apure democracy, which would basically mean, "the majority gets its way andthe minority gets nothing." It's a compromise that works. It gives smallerstates a say, while giving bigger states the power they ought to have, withoutthe ability to completely blot out the voice of the smaller states.
But if you think that this system is wrong,then I ask you this, if the UN ever became a world government with sovereigntyover every country, should China have 1/5 of the voting power in the UN GeneralAssembly, and India have another 1/5? Those two countries would controleverything. How would you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, feel about thisarrangement? I think that the vast majority of the countries would not be happywith such a system.
But if Chinaand India could have theirproportional represenation in one part of the UN Assembly, while the Netherlandscould have equal power and an equal voice in the other part, I think perhapsthat this arrangement would be acceptable for your country. Correct?
I consider the slowness of the US Congressto be a good thing because it means that the government can't mass produce lawsevery day. I prefer small governments that don't get too involved in people'slives. The Federal Government should protect the country, provide police andpublic works, and do a few other things. The government shouldn't be taxingpeople's income, or subsidizing farms, or appropriating money for ridiculousprojects.
The parties are similar because themajority of Americans are middle of the road in political ideology. Thus, itmakes sure that the country stays relatively in the middle and only slowlymoves leftward or rightward. Kind of like, two steps forward, one step back. Isee this as good because if I am a Democrat and a Republican President getselected, I know that my life isn't going to suddenly implode. If I'm aRepublican and a Democrat becomes President, I might be angry, but my lifeisn't going to be radically altered overnight.
I like this sort of government becauseDemocracy isn't a good governing system. There is no such thing as a goodgoverning system. Democracy just happens to be the best worst option.
美国所实行的并不是直接民主（译者注：pure democracy是由人民直接行使权力而不是由代表行使权力的民主，后者是代议民主），这意味着‘大多数人参与其中，少数人在打酱油’。这是一种折中的办法，把发言权交给小州的同时让大州来执政，而不是完全无视小州的呼声。
如果你是这样认为的话，那就错了。我问你，如果联合国变成了世界政府，对每个国家都拥有主权，中国应该在联合国大会上拥有1/5的表决权，印度应该拥有另外1/5吗？这两个国家将控制一切。试想一下，作为一名荷兰公民，这种设定是什么样的感受？我想大多数国家对于这种体系都不会感到高兴。
但如果中国和印度在联合国大会某一方面拥有相称的表决权，而荷兰人在另一方面拥有同等的权力和声音，我想你们国家或许可以接受这种设定，对吧？
我认为美国国会的迟钝是一件好事，这意味着政府不可能每天都量产法律。我更青睐不会过多干涉人民生活的小政府。联邦政府应该保护国家，提供治安以及市政工程以及其他事宜。政府不应该从人民的收入中征税、资助农场或者拨款给荒唐的工程。
政党都大同小异，因为大多数美国民众都是政治中间派。此外，（民主）确保美国处于相对中间的位置，只是稍微有些左倾或者右倾而已。有一点向前走两步再退一步的味道。这样很好，如果我是一名民主党人，而共和党人当选总统，那么我的生活就不会突然崩溃。如果我是一名共和党人，而民主党人成为总统，我可能会发怒，但我的生活不会在一夜之间从根本上改变。
我喜欢这种政府，因为民主不是很好的调节系统。事实上也没有很好的调节系统。民主只是在矬子里拔将军而已。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32、Night Crawler （英国）
Democracy is wasted on the idiots-For ademocratic society to work laziness must be purged from the system--Otherwisethe lazy will band together to rape the ones who toil.
It reminds me of something I saw the otherday on the net. A little Girl looks at her Mum and says "Mommy why do Ihave to good in school? The Mum replies so you can grow up and be a tax slavefor the kids who do crappy in school."
民主被浪费在了#请文明用语#身上。民主社会要想运转，就必须把懒惰从体系中净化掉。否则懒惰就会沆瀣一气，共同劫掠辛勤工作的人。
这使我想起了不久前在互联网发生的事情。一个小女孩看着她的妈妈说：“妈妈，为什么我必须在学校表现很好？”妈妈回答道：“这样你才能成长，变成一个税务奴隶，为了在学校表现糟糕的孩子。”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33、azmo
In my country some dumbasses don't even tryto study in school, because they get money anyway being unemployed. Crawler, ifyou meant this, I totally support.
（回复32号评论）在我的国家，一些#请文明用语#甚至不用在学校里学习，因为他们可以拿失业救济金。Crawler，如果你指的是这些，那么我完全赞同。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34、Night Crawler （英国）
I think it is progressive that my kidsdon't grow up to be "tax slaves of the lazy" (that is really a novelidea in the west right now, with our massive welfare states)I am not saying getrid of the lazy; but if you are not a productive member of society then youshouldn't be allowed to vote (of course I am not talking about the disabled orpeople who can't produce, I am not talking about the pensioners who havealready produces and contributed, the veterans who have sacrificed they deservethe full support of society) I am talking about the ones that won't produce,who haven't and who simply never will. Further the indulgence of our society isproducing more and more leeches
Once a majority of a country becomesleeches they can simply vote to leech off the workers. Then what happens youdestroy the income base-the country falls.
I say no votes for leeches!!!!!!!!!!! Youhave to have a stake in society in order to really give a fig about it-Americaisn't heading that they got the Obamanator I am surprised the LIB DEMs didn'twin in the UK - Maybe the UK is getting some common sense.
We will see--All the austerity schemes in Europe right now are designed to save the Euro zoneseconomies-I think they are a good start- However you will see a mass leechrebellion and they will sweep in left wing governments with promises to end theausterity and bring back the free ride. Then Europewill crumble-Why because the Idiot leeches will vote to get something fornothing.
No Votes for Leeches !!!!!!!!
If that is Fascism then shine up my jackboots.
我觉得事情会有所好转，我的孩子不会变成‘懒人的纳税奴隶’（目前在西方的大量福利国家中，这的确是一个新奇的想法），我不是说抛弃懒人；可如果你不是能生产的社会成员，那么就不应该享有投票的权利，（当然我指的并不是那些残废或者失去了生产能力的人，也不是那些已经做出过贡献领着退休金的人，已经牺牲的老兵应该得到社会的全力支持）我说的是那些没有生产，永远也不愿意劳动的人。在我们的社会影响下，产生了越来越多的水蛭（寄生虫）。
一旦社会中的大多数人变成寄生虫，他们就只想通过投票来继续吸榨工人。然后摧毁收入的基石，吞噬整个国家。
不要让水蛭们投票！！！这与你们休戚相关，不要再做这种没有意义的事了——美国不再前进了，他们有奥巴马这样的辩论机器。我很奇怪自由民主党竟然没有赢得英国的大选——看来英国也在向表弟看齐。
我们将会看到——欧洲目前设计的所有紧缩方案都在试图挽救欧元区的经济。我想这是一个好的开端。不过你会看到大量的‘水蛭’叛乱，他们将会支持左翼政府，以期结束紧缩，重新搭上‘顺风车’。然后欧洲就会支离破碎——因为这些愚蠢的寄生虫只是为了不劳而获而投票。
不要让水蛭们投票！！！
如果这是法西斯主义，那么请擦亮我的长筒靴吧。（译者注：长筒靴jack boot代指法西斯，既指其发源地意大利像一只靴子，同时也是纳粹德军的标志性着装）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35、Carol （美国）
Oh my goodness, someone who said Reaganmade a mess of things. That man lied to us when he said we did not need toconserve. I don't know if he intended to lie, or if he was just being an honestactor, who really didn't know enough to lead our nation.
Our airline industry is a mess, thanks tohis deregulations. The whole point of government is to regulate things, so theycontinue to function smoothly, and the people are protected. The history of laissezfaire economics in Englandis a horror story of child abuse. Human beings must be educated and must beregulated, because they do very bad things if they are not.
Most important, I want to say democracy isaway of life. I have heard Chinais doing everything with group decisions, far more so than US. The USSR wasdemocratic, and our media made a mess of things by making us believe communismis not democracy. While the USused England'sautocratic model for industry, and is very autocratic.
Democracy is a culture, and our schoolsstopped transmitting that culture in 1958. I am very concern about the futureof the US,because it is no longer known that, democracy is away of life, and governmentis just one part of that way of live. When everyone argues property rights, andnone defend democratic principles, how long can there be a functioningdemocracy?
我的天啊，有人说里根把事情搞的一团糟。这家伙对我们撒谎说我们不需要节省。我不知道如果他打算撒谎，或者他只是一个诚实的演员，。
我们的航线乱成一麻，这得感谢他解除管制。整个政府的重点就是控制事情，所以他们继续平稳地运行，他的人民也受到了保护。英格兰自由主义经济的历史是一个摧残儿童的恐怖故事。人类应该受到教育，也应该予以控制，如果不这么做的话，他们就是做坏事。
最重要的是，我想说民主是一种生活方式。我听说中国的一切事宜都是团体决策，远远超过了美国。苏联是民主的，我们的媒体让我们相信共产主义是不民主的，以此来混淆视听。然而美国为了工业而使用英国的独裁模式，非常的专制。
民主是一种文化，1958年我们的学校停止传授这种文化。我对美国的未来忧心忡忡，因为民主远离了生活，不再被人众所周知，同时政府成为了生活方式的一部分。当每个人都在争论财产权的时候，没有人来保护民主，民主政府还会运转多久呢？
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36、Van_Möck （德国）
I’m actually really tired at the moment,but I just can't understand how anyone could honestly support this claim. Doyou actually mean the United States of America are more autocratic than the Soviet Union has been? Or were you just carried away byyour enthusiasm for criticizing the USA?
To me it seems very difficult to prove yourclaim..Maybe you simply have more information than me, but from what I knowpraising the Soviet Union for its approach todemocracy is not even a way of rhetoric provocation, it only discreditsyourself.
The growing frustration for the status quoseems to support some romantic imaginations and illusions of communism. I seethis in Germany, where even in school the scale of the atrocities and innercontradictions of communism are only taught superficially ( of course in greatcontrast to the teaching of the situation of national socialist Germany). And Ican imagine that it is appealing to Americans of today to provocate the "conservative"side with supposed fancy for the communist ideals.
For anyone who really thinks he would enjoyliving with dear misunderstood uncle Stalin: Better have a look at some"capitalist racist reactionary western propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union
Hey! Maybe it was just a misunderstandingand Stalin didn't mean killing all these people after all? Yes, yes, its onlythe evil capitalists who want to make us believe he did!
（回复35号评论）此刻我真的不胜其烦，但我不明白人们要怎样才能支持这种观点。你的意思是说美国比苏联更加独裁吗？或者说你只是热衷于非议美国而失去了控制？
想要让我认同你的观点很难。可能你只是有着比我更多的信息量，但据我所知，把苏联等同于民主而加以赞美，这甚至都不是修辞上的挑衅，只是自取其辱罢了。
现状不是很乐观，所以才由此产生了一些浪漫的幻想和共产主义的错觉。在德国我也看到过这种情况，学校甚至在教授暴行的规模和共产主义的内在矛盾时一笔带过（教授德国的纳粹主义的情形则完全不同）。我可以想象的到，这种情况可能会促使美国激怒对共产主义抱有幻想的保守派。
给所有喜欢和亲爱的斯大林大叔生活在一起的人们：最好看一看‘西方资本主义种族主义的反动宣传’之类的资料。（网址略）
嘿！或许这只是误会，毕竟斯大林并不想杀掉所有的人？没错，没错，这只是邪恶的资本家想让我们相信他是这样做的！
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37、opuslola （美国）
Van, I am with you on this! Does not Carolnot know that the USAis not a Democracy? Democracy was something to be avoided centuries in thepast! Do you, Carol, not know that the USA is a Representative Democracy?Pure democracy is irresponsible, and stupid!
Come on! IN the USSR,China,etc., lets just get the people together and we will vote on the number of hourswe will work in a day, week, month, etc.?
Then we will vote on how much we will bepaid, and then we will vote on how much vacation we will need, and then we willvote on the price of homes or rent, and then the price of automobiles, or bustickets, or bicyles, etc.? Oh! Did I mention Medical care costs, or child carecosts, or food costs, etc.?
Most Americans, and a lot of Europeans andAsians have moved with their feet to places more agreeable than the"fantasy society" you conceive! If you find it, go, and don't tell uswhere!
（回复36号评论）Van，我支持你！难道Carol（指35楼）不知道美国没有民主吗？过去几个世纪以来，民主都被束之高阁。Carol，你不知道美国是代议民主吗？直接民主是不切实际的，也是愚蠢的！
我们要表决支付多少钱，我们要表决需要多少假期，我们要表决房屋和出租的价格，还有汽车或者公共汽车票或者自行车等等的价格？哦！我有没有提到医疗费用或者照顾儿童的开销或者食品价格等等？
绝大多数美国人、很多欧洲人与亚洲人迁移到更惬意的地方，而不是你所设想的‘空想社会’！如果你找到了，请不要告诉我们地方！
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38、Carol（美国）
It is my understanding socialism, fascismand communism are all democracies. The opposite of democracy is autocracy, notcommunism. All the governments are a mix of autocratic and democratic control. Whatseparates them is different economic ideology. The different government formsare varying degrees of government control of industry.
Only two things are required for fascism,experience with democracy and experience with industry. Fascism began in Italy as a labor movement, right? Thismade industry very active in government and the result of industry getting veryactive government, was laws favoring industry, not the laborers. When Bismarktook control of Germany,its political unit was the social democrats, right? Hitler picked up Fascism fromItaly,right? He was so successful at turning the German economic around, everyonethought fascism was the cure to economic collapse and poverty.
At the time of the Great Depression, Demingattempt to get industry in the USto switch from the autocratic model to the democratic model, right? As we knowour industry remained autocratic, so when the USwas Americanizing Japan, Deming took the democratic model to Japan, and they accepted it andproduced to kick our asses in competition for world markets. In the US we love to believe our great life is theresult of democracy, but we deny Japan's great success was theresult of democracy.
Rather than becoming more democratic, webecame more autocratic. That is believing Fascism is the answer to economicproblems, the federal government increased its control of industry. We haveprivate property controlled by the federal government. That is autocracycontrolled by a bigger autocratic. That is fascism. It doesn't go as far ascommunism, but neither is it democracy where the power rest in the hands in thehands of the people. It is democracy where powers have shifted from the peopleto the government. This is government with very strong industrialparticipation. I question how well the average citizen is benefiting from this.Seems to me, too many of laws benefit industry at the expense of thepeople.
（回复36号评论）我认为社会主义、法西斯主义和共产主义都是民主。民主的对立面是独裁，而不是共产主义。所有政府的统治都杂糅了民主和独裁。区分它们的是不同的经济形态。不同的政府对工业的控制程度不尽相同。
对于法西斯主义而言，民主经验以及工业经验是必不可少的两要素。法西斯主义始于意大利的劳工运动，对吗？工业开始变得活跃起来，当它控制了异常主动的政府，结果就是让法律支持工业，而不是劳工。俾斯麦管理德国的时候，他的政治团体就是社会民主党，对吧？希特勒从意大利引入了法西斯主义，对吧？他成功地扭转了德国经济的局势，每个人都认为法西斯主义挽救了经济崩溃和贫困。
大萧条时期，戴明（世界著名的质量管理专家，他因对世界质量管理发展做出的卓越贡献而享誉全球）试图把美国的工业从独裁模式转换到民主模式，没错吧？众所周知，我们的工业保留了独裁的特点，所以当美国改造日本的时候，戴明把民主带到了日本，他们接受了它并进行生产，与我们在世界市场上竞争。在美国，我们坚信美妙的生活是民主的结果，但是我们否认日本的巨大成功也是民主的结果。
我们没有变的更加民主，反而更加专制了。相信法西斯主义就是经济问题的答案，联邦政府增强了对工业的控制。我们的私有财产被联邦政府所约束。独裁政府用更加独裁的方式进行控制，这便是法西斯主义。它不会变成共产主义，但也不会变成民主，（民主的）权力还握在手中，由人民所掌握。这种政府的工业参与性非常强。我怀疑普通人会从中得到多少好处。于我而言，有太多对工业有利的法律都是以人民为代价的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39、TheGreatSimba
Actually, the Bolsheviks had the support ofthe majority of the Russian people when they took power. Hitler also came topower democratically and had the support of the majority of the Germany people.
事实上，当布尔什维克掌权的时候，他们得到了绝大多数俄罗斯人民的支持。希特勒的执政也比较民主，得到了绝大多数德国人民的支持。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40、Mosquito （东欧某国）
Hitler's party NSDAP had 36,8 % of votes in1932 elections, so not majority. Hitler also lost presidential elections withPaul von Hindenburg.
As for the Bolsheviks they didnt havemajority in all the Russia,they just had the support of soldiers and navy in St. Petersburg what gave them power in theway of armed rebellion.
希特勒的纳粹党在1932年的选举中获得了36.8%的选票，而不是大多数。希特勒在总统大选中也输给了冯·兴登堡。
至于布尔什维克，他们没有获得大多数俄罗斯人的支持，他们只是得到了圣彼得堡的士兵和海军的支持，作为回报，他们得到了武装叛乱的权利。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41、TheGreatSimba
That was in 1933. By 1939, The Germanypeople, for the most part, supported Hitler.
Again, this is wishful thinking. TheBolsheviks had the support of the majority of the Russian people, whichincluded the military and navy. In fact, the Bolsheviks had so much legitimacyamongst the people that a coalition of Western powers aiding the White Armycould not defeat them.
（回复40号评论）那是1933年（的支持率）。1939年，绝大多数德国人民都支持希特勒。
你太异想天开了，再说一遍，布尔什维克得到了大多数俄罗斯人民的支持，包括士兵和海军。事实上，布尔什维克在人民中的地位十分稳固，西方势力联合起来支持白军也没能打败他们。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42、Maximus Germanicus （美国）
Democracy is only compatible with aneducated population. Also there has to be safeguards against Tyranny of themasses. A large uneducated population will lead to Mob Rule, and the fewleaders that play to the populism of their constituency mass of rabble.
民主只适用于受过教育的人群。同时也有防止多数人暴政的保护措施。庞大的未受教育的人口将会导致暴民统治，少数领导人可以对其选区的乌合之众们玩弄‘民粹主义’。
翻译心得：
这个世界有很多问题都很难讲清楚，比如说‘我是谁？’‘我从哪里来？’‘我要到哪里去？’。民主也是一样，自从十九世纪末‘民主’的概念被引入到中国，一百多年来仍无定论。不过前三个问题属于哲学范畴，宇宙创生之始就已经存在，每个人的观点也是见仁见智；而‘民主’则是人为制造的概念。自古以来，统治阶级都会抛出各种各样似是而非的‘概念’把民众牢牢地束缚住，比如国家、民族、阶级、民主、各种意识形态等等。当我们为了这些虚妄的存在而争得大打出手、血流成河的时候，统治阶级只是在一旁冷眼旁观。抑或说他们也有几分无奈和茫然，因为人类从蒙昧走向文明势必要经过一个漫长而又曲折的过程，甚至可能会遭遇万劫不复的灾难而使人类消失，所以就必须约束人们，让社会变得有序。一旦人类社会发展到星球文明，天下大同的时候，所有这些概念都会烟消云散，回头再看漫漫进化路，只有体验过才会冷暖自知。
感慨了半天，来说说民主吧。如果直接问‘什么是民主’，估计连西方的忠实拥趸们也说不清楚，无非就是盲人摸象，各抱一条大腿，辩论也是无休止的，所以我打算通过几个简单的问题来分析一下：
1、追求民主是为了个人利益还是集体利益，或者是二者兼有之？如果是二者兼有，那么当个人利益与集体利益发生不可调和的冲突时，你选择哪一个？这是一个很尖锐的问题，也是最本质的问题，每个人都都要直面这个问题。人，首先是动物，动物的天性就是趋利避害，所以世界上的大多数人首先都是求自保，然后再考虑要不要帮助他人。毫不利己专门利人的人是凤毛麟角，但浑水摸鱼妄图从中得利的人却大有人在，当然还有一些很中肯做事凭良心的人，你属于哪一种？
2、民主是手段还是目的？有了选票就是民主吗？或者说多党执政就是民主吗？文中有人提到，这种选择是有限制的选择，而不是真正意义上的选择。原因很简单，因为这种狭义的选择分为两种，一种是在差劲和更差劲中选择，一种是在较好和更好中选择，二者虽然都是比较级，但实质却不一样。如果你所提倡的民主连这两种情况都无法区分，那就是伪民主这是预设立场的选择，而不是真正的‘选择’。那些看似高举民主大旗言必称民主的人，实则就是在糟践民主，民主只是此辈利用的工具，他们自己也是心知肚明。皇帝的新衣，人人都对这个游戏乐此不疲。
3、个人利益等同于集体利益吗？西方思想启蒙最著名的口号就是‘天赋人权，众生平等’，遗憾地是迄今为止这套理论只适用于西方人自己，其他民族和国家则蒙受了巨大的苦难。那么把西方的利益当成个人利益，他们的利益等同于全人类的利益吗？明显不是。文中有人提到，占绝大多数的普罗大众关注的一般都是身边的琐事，很少从国家/民族的层面来考量，他们为了切身的利益固然没错，但就集体而言，个人利益不一定总是和集体利益保持一致，有时甚至会违背或者危害集体利益。西方人抛出了‘人权’这个概念，演变到极端就是‘人权大于主权’，被国内一干JY奉为圭臬，他们认为独裁和人权是水火不容的。那么‘民主’一定能保护个人利益吗，或者说非‘民主’就一定不能保护个人利益？从宏观的角度而言，‘民主’的确把普罗大众放到了同一起跑线上，但只要人类没有从‘阶级社会’发展到星球文明，一旦人与人、阶级与阶级发生矛盾，恐怕‘民主’也难以解决。
说到底，民主强调的是每个人的权利，但在强调个人利益的时候如何确保集体利益。而专制则是在强调集体利益的前提下如何确保个人利益，所以民主和专制看似是水火不容的两个极端，其实就是事物的一体两面罢了。这就是辨证的关系，也是亘古不变的宇宙法则。任何人拿着其中一个来反对另外一个，就是‘自相矛盾’，终究只是演了出滑稽剧。天下熙熙，皆为利来；天下攘攘，皆为利往。古人已经把世间诸事看的通透，问题是这场闹剧何时才会收场，我只希望在剧终之前人类不会自我毁灭。
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-12-12 17:14
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
