1. Business in China
So much for capitalism
Mar 5th 2009 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition
The opening up of China’s economy goes into reverse
FOR two decades, in the 1980s and 1990s, China pushed forward a series of economic reforms that
came at a vast cost, exceeded only by their vaster rewards. Now, as the financial crisis sweeps across
the world, those reforms are going into reverse. It is a sign of how hard governments find it to shake off
the habit of ownership.
When China began to extract production from the hands of the state, big firms were broken up,
reconfigured or closed. Ever so slowly, the government began to privatise its largest industries, selling
slices of companies in public offerings on foreign exchanges, and making them adopt at least the
pretence of modern governance.
How far China has gone in transforming its economy is a matter of debate. Unarguably, it remains a
place where companies face heavy direct and indirect state control. But in places there has also been
dramatic change, and China has prospered as broader economic freedoms contributed to growth.
Outright criticism of the shift was muted, even among bureaucrats opposed to the new approach. But
over the past year this reticence has begun to wane, as the crisis in the West has led to intense criticism
of capitalism—and one domestic industry after another has, as in the West, gone back to the
government for support.
In December China Investment Corporation, one of the country’s many sovereign-wealth funds,
acknowledged buying shares of Chinese banks on the open market. Other government-backed funds are
thought to have been buying as well, which may explain why the banks’ share prices have held up even
as banks elsewhere totter. Meanwhile, the state-controlled China Development Bank is said to be
negotiating a takeover of Shenzhen Development Bank, one of the few financial institutions controlled
by foreigners.
It is a similar story in aviation. In the late 1980s the government created three gigantic carriers—Air
China, China Eastern, and China Southern—to provide competition and service where there had
previously been none. The carriers have succeeded in a limited way, dramatically expanding coverage
across China, but management has undergone frequent shifts and none of the airlines has a good
reputation. All three operate at a loss, and two of them, according to the Chinese state-run press, have
received large capital injections from the central government in recent months. A broad, government-
driven reorganisation is expected in the next 18 months.
Similarly, five big power-generation firms were split out of a single company in 2002 to foster
competition. Any sense of true operating independence was badly undermined last year, however,

2. when the government imposed price caps on electricity, even as the utilities grappled with rising coal
and oil prices. Those prices have since fallen, but so has demand. On February 20th the Chinese press
reported that the government was injecting $13 billion yuan ($1.8 billion) into the companies,
indirectly boosting its stake.
Even China’s car industry, which is alive with competitors, is coming further under the government
umbrella. More than 10 billion yuan in subsidies is being paid to carmakers, and billions of yuan more
are being granted to encourage car sales. Various deals are being mulled between Chinese firms and
distressed foreign brands, and these too would need financial support from the government. Beyond
that, Chinese newspapers report that a broad restructuring is in the offing, which would reorganise the
industry into four state-controlled giants.
In the West the prospect of nationalisation causes companies’ share prices to collapse, but the opposite
often occurs in China, and share prices rise instead. In a state-controlled system, it is good to have the
state’s explicit endorsement and protection. But it comes at a cost. The reason China initially backed
away from state control was because companies were inefficient and corrupt, and ultimately people
suffered. In today’s panic, perhaps, that is a secondary concern. But times will eventually change for
nationalised firms in China—and for those in the West, too.
《经济学人》中国，资本主义化到此为止
995 个读者 runningde... @ yeeyan.com 14 小时 8 分钟前 双语对照 原文 字体大小 小 中
大
简介
介@在西方国家，国有化预期会导致公司股价暴跌，而在中国情况正好相反，股价不降反升。
在政府主导的体制内，政府的支持和保护很是受用，但代价不菲。
。资本主义化到此为止！
化到
化 1980 年代和 1990 年代的 20 年，中国进行了一系列成本巨大的经济改革，这些改革的收益远超
到
过成本。现在随着金融风暴袭遍全球，这些改革正在倒转，这也是一个迹象表明各国政府很难
摆脱拥有权的习惯。
摆脱
摆 当中国政府不再控制大公司的生产时，他们就开始破产、重组或者关闭。政府逐渐开始私有化最大型的工业
脱
企业，在国外股市中将部分公开募集资金，这样，至少表面上看，这些大企业具有了现代公司治理机制。
企业
企 中国经济转变的程度仍是个值得讨论的话题，毫无疑问，中国的企业仍然直接或间接的接受
业
政府管制，但某些地方已有了根本转变，逐步扩大的经济自由促进了经济的繁荣增长。完全批
评改革的声音消失了，甚至那些起初反对改革的官员也不再批评。但是 2008 年批评声音又逐渐
抬头，如同西方的经济危机导致人们强烈的批评资本主义那样——一个接一个的国内行业接受
政府的支持。
政府
政 12 月，中国主 权基金之一的中国投资公司承认正在公开市场收购中国的银行的股份。据悉，其他政府背景的
府
基金也在进行同样的收购，这就可以解释为什么当其他地方银行股价暴 跌之时中国银行股价能止住下跌。同时，

3. 国家控制的中国投资银行正在谈判接管深圳发展银行，深圳发展银行是为数不多的外资控股额商业银行。
国家
国 航空业的情况也类似，1980 年代末，中国政府成立了三家航空巨头——国航，东航和南航——
家
此举旨在首次为航空业提供竞争机会和为顾客提供良好的服务。三家巨头的成功是很有限的，
航线范围极大的扩展了，管理却经常变化，三巨头无一例外，声誉都很糟糕。据中国国营新闻
社报道，三巨头均处于亏损状态，其中两家最近几月已接受中央政府的注资，政府主导的重组
将在未来 18 个月内完成。
个月
个 同样为了形成竞争机制，2002 年中国将单一的发电企业拆分为五个。去年，煤电价格上涨之
月
际，政府却强制限制电价，企业自主经营理念被严重的破坏了。此后，煤电价格下跌，需求也
下降了。2 月 20 日，中国媒体报道政府给发电企业注资 130 亿元间接地扩大了政府所占股份。
亿元
亿 甚至已经形成竞争局面的中国汽车业，也躲到了政府的保护伞之下。政府已补贴汽车制造商
元
超过 100 亿人民币，后续还将有数十亿人民币补贴投入来刺激汽车销售。中国汽车制造商和备
受打击的国外汽车制造商正在酝酿多项合作。这些合作也同样需要政府的资金支持。此外，中
国报纸有报道称汽车业即将进行大重组，现有汽车制造商将合并为四家国有汽车制造业巨头。
为四
为 在西方国家，国有化预期会导致公司股价暴跌，而在中国情况正好相反，股价不降反升。在
四
政府主导的体制内，政府的支持和保护很是受用，但代价不菲。最初中国不愿政府主导企业，
是因为这样做会带来公司的低效率和腐败，最终老百姓遭殃。而今在金融危机的恐慌中，这种
负面效应或许成了次要考虑的问题了。但对于这些中国国有化公司——还有那些西方国家国有
化公司，情势终将改变。
中国眼中的世界眼中的中国
3473 个读者 shelly762... @ yeeyan.com 2009 年 03 月 20 日 双语对照 原文 字体大小 小
中大
简介
我没写错，中国和世界的关系就是这么纠结。
P.S.有关原文的意见，到《经济学人》的网站去发评论，说在这里，外国人也看不到；有关我
的翻译，欢迎大家提意见。
中国眼中的世界眼中的中国
覆巢之下，没有完卵。然而对于中国的 许多人来说，席卷全球的经济危机的阴风也有些许振奋
人心的意味。３０年来，中国的发展令人瞩目。但是中国也缺少一件能够取悦一些极端民族主
义者的外衣：陪 着他们一起遭受经济衰退。现在资本主义国家都面临着恐慌。欧洲和日本陷入
了二战以来最严重的衰退，现在几乎都算不上是中国的对手。超级大国美国，也从顶峰 跌落。
虽然中国领导人避免公开表露出得意的态度，但是中国政府认为现在是重申中国大国崛起的时
候，他们也认为他们能够得到主导世界的权力。
中国总 理温家宝现在也不再坚持以前那套说辞，说中国在世界舞台上是个小角色，只专心于本
国经济发展。现在他说中国是个“大国”，他还对美国大手笔的支出计划表示 忧虑，因为这会

4. 威胁到中国的价值一万亿美元的美国国债。美国新财长警告中国不要操控汇率的言词也被中国
讥之为“荒唐的；原本该来道歉的希拉里·克林顿在北 京受到了欢迎，但是山姆师兄变成了山
姆同学。这个月中国在南中国海与美国间谍船进行了明显地小规模冲突。但是，至少美国还在
中国关注的范围内。而欧洲却像 一个小点一样被忽略了：中国取消了中欧峰会；由于萨科奇胆
敢会见达赖喇嘛，法国还在中国的黑名单上。
现在世界面临着双极化的地缘政治局势，所谓双极就是中国和 美国。这是一个在中国和其他国
家都广泛流传的观点。所以，下个月的在伦敦举行的Ｇ２０峰会就成了奥巴马和胡锦涛之间
的“Ｇ２”峰会。欧洲刚刚告别乔治·布 什的单边政治，还不想面临来自太平洋两岸的双面夹
击；日本一直以来都认为亚洲国家对它充满敌意。美国国会由于担心美国最大的敌人也要冒险
采取保护主义行 动。这些都说明了“双极世界”这种状况不仅使欧洲和日本担心，也使美国忧
虑。
帷幕之下的中国
在恐慌蔓延之前，中国那些既逞强又示弱的宣言根本不值一提。中国仍然是一个穷国，面临
着，用温总理的话说，“新世纪以来最困难的一年”。最近，坊间流传中国有 2000 万就业岗位
流失，这个数字说明了问题的严重性。世行把预期的中国经济增长率调低到了 6.5%。与别国相
比，这个数字很可观，但是对于习惯了两位数增长率的中国人来说，这个数字意味着衰退。虽
然每年都有数以万计的抗议者：失地的农民；下岗工人；环境污染的受害者。即使神奇的中国
完成了８％的官方数字，人们的抱怨也会与日俱增。
中国现 在正进行着一场激烈的讨论，讨论的内容是中国的经济体制和中国要成为何种大国，对
于这种讨论，中国是没有什么底气的，所以政府也不喜欢这样的讨论。今年， 中国政府甚至缩
短了每年的例行内阁会议，也就是全国人民代表大会，他们想把讨论限制在幕后，也屏蔽了一
些网络论坛。自由主义者们要求更广泛的开放，政府的 回应还是跟以前一样。但是中国领导人
们也面临着来自极左派国家主义者的不满，他们认为中国现在的经济下滑是阻止中国继续进行
市场化改革的机会，也是使中国 更加引人注目的机会。中国的愤怒会导致中国排外，但是也不
是所有的左派国家主义者都是危险的；有人要求的不过是更好的公共服务和社会保障，这些都
是中国十 分需要的。
所以中国的问题比西方人想像的要复杂。世界不是双极的，也许永远都不会变成双极。虽然欧
盟麻烦重重，但是全球最大的经济体。印度的人口会超过中国。但是。但是这并不会遮蔽这样
一个事实：中国的相对实力的增长——中国和西方都要学着适应这一点。
对于奥巴马来说，这意味着要做一些艰难的平衡。从长远角度看，如果在他卸任之前他不能够
把中国引 向自由的多边体系，他就是失败的。短期看来，他应该敦促中国遵守诺言，批评中国
的错误：希拉里在中国的时候应该提出西藏问题和人权问题。布什政府的理念是 欢迎中国在国
际体系内做一个“负责任的成员”。与Ｇ７和Ｇ８相比，Ｇ２０给予了中国更多在国际事务上
的决策权。但是对于中国来说，这也要求中国负责地行驶 自己的影响力。
中国，曾经的问题，现在的账单
中国在世界舞台上的形象不怎么好。在对待伊朗和苏丹的问题上，中国使用了中国主要的地缘
政治资产——安理会常任理事国的地位——以不想干涉别过事物的理由阻碍计划的进行。这种
令人遗憾的局面需要时间来解决。但是在目前的经济情况十分危机的情况下，还有行动的空
间。
在过去的２５年里，没有哪个国家像中国那 样在全球化进程中获取了如此大的利益。全球化把
几亿中国人从勉强糊口的生活中拉出来，将他们打造成了中产阶级。在这过程中中国是个暴躁
的攫取者。所以最近 一轮的世贸谈判脱离轨道。Ｇ２０会议给了中国一次展示其改变的决心的
机会。尤其是现在人们要求中国为ＩＭＦ提供资金支持，以拯救那些深受经济危机打击的国

5. 家，如东欧的一些国家。中国政府中的一些人反对对ＩＭＦ提供支持，因为那些资金会帮到那
些曾经有“反华心理”的前社会主义国家。忽略这样的牢骚换来的就是 中国的一点进步。但是
这样的想法就说明了中国曾经就是这样理解大国的内涵。
The new world order
How China sees the world
Mar 19th 2009
From The Economist print edition
And how the world should see China
IT IS an ill wind that blows no one any good. For many in China even the buffeting by the gale that has
hit the global economy has a bracing message. The rise of China over the past three decades has been
astonishing. But it has lacked the one feature it needed fully to satisfy the ultranationalist fringe: an
accompanying decline of the West. Now capitalism is in a funk in its heartlands. Europe and Japan,
embroiled in the deepest post-war recession, are barely worth consideration as rivals. America, the
superpower, has passed its peak. Although in public China’s leaders eschew triumphalism, there is a
sense in Beijing that the reassertion of the Middle Kingdom’s global ascendancy is at hand (see article).
China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, no longer sticks to the script that China is a humble player in
world affairs that wants to focus on its own economic development. He talks of China as a “great
power” and worries about America’s profligate spending endangering his $1 trillion nest egg there.
Incautious remarks by the new American treasury secretary about China manipulating its currency
were dismissed as ridiculous; a duly penitent Hillary Clinton was welcomed in Beijing, but as an equal.
This month saw an apparent attempt to engineer a low-level naval confrontation with an American spy
ship in the South China Sea. Yet at least the Americans get noticed. Europe, that speck on the horizon,
is ignored: an EU summit was cancelled and France is still blacklisted because Nicolas Sarkozy dared
to meet the Dalai Lama.

6. Already a big idea has spread far beyond China: that geopolitics is now a bipolar affair, with America
and China the only two that matter. Thus in London next month the real business will not be the G20
meeting but the “G2” summit between Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. This not only worries
the Europeans, who, having got rid of George Bush’s unipolar politics, have no wish to see it replaced
by a Pacific duopoly, and the Japanese, who have long been paranoid about their rivals in Asia. It also
seems to be having an effect in Washington, where Congress’s fascination with America’s nearest rival
risks acquiring a protectionist edge.
Reds under the bed
Before panic spreads, it is worth noting that China’s new assertiveness reflects weakness as well as
strength. This remains a poor country facing, in Mr Wen’s words, its most difficult year of the new
century. The latest wild guess at how many jobs have already been lost—20m—hints at the scale of the
problem. The World Bank has cut its forecast for China’s growth this year to 6.5%. That is robust
compared with almost anywhere else, but to many Chinese, used to double-digit rates, it will feel like a
recession. Already there are tens of thousands of protests each year: from those robbed of their land for
development; from laid-off workers; from those suffering the side-effects of environmental
despoliation. Even if China magically achieves its official 8% target, the grievances will worsen.
Far from oozing self-confidence, China is witnessing a fierce debate both about its economic system
and the sort of great power it wants to be—and it is a debate the government does not like. This year
the regime curtailed even the perfunctory annual meeting of its parliament, the National People’s
Congress (NPC), preferring to confine discussion to back-rooms and obscure internet forums. Liberals
calling for greater openness are being dealt with in the time-honoured repressive fashion. But China’s
leaders also face rumblings of discontent from leftist nationalists, who see the downturn as a chance to
halt market-oriented reforms at home, and for China to assert itself more stridently abroad. An angry
China can veer into xenophobia, but not all the nationalist left’s causes are so dangerous: one is for the
better public services and social-safety net the country sorely needs.
So China is in a more precarious situation than many Westerners think. The world is not bipolar and
may never become so. The EU, for all its faults, is the world’s biggest economy. India’s population will
overtake China’s. But that does not obscure the fact that China’s relative power is plainly growing—
and both the West and China itself need to adjust to this.
For Mr Obama, this means pulling off a difficult balancing act. In the longer term, if he has not
managed to seduce China (and for that matter India and Brazil) more firmly into the liberal multilateral
system by the time he leaves office, then historians may judge him a failure. In the short term he needs
to hold China to its promises and to scold it for its lapses: Mrs Clinton should have taken it to task over
Tibet and human rights when she was there. The Bush administration made much of the idea of
welcoming China as a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. The G20 is a chance to
give China a bigger stake in global decision-making than was available in the small clubs of the G7 and
G8. But it is also a chance for China to show it can exercise its new influence responsibly.

7. The bill for the great Chinese takeaway
China’s record as a citizen of the world is strikingly threadbare. On a host of issues from Iran to Sudan,
it has used its main geopolitical asset, its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, to
obstruct progress, hiding behind the excuse that it does not want to intervene in other countries’ affairs.
That, sadly, will take time to change. But on the more immediate issue at hand, the world economy,
there is room for action.
Over the past quarter-century no country has gained more from globalisation than China. Hundreds of
millions of its people have been dragged out of subsistence into the middle class. China has been a
grumpy taker in this process. It helped derail the latest round of world trade talks. The G20 meeting
offers it a chance to show a change of heart. In particular, it is being asked to bolster the IMF’s
resources so that the fund can rescue crisis-hit countries in places like eastern Europe. Some in Beijing
would prefer to ignore the IMF, since it might help ex-communist countries that have developed “an
anti-China mentality”. Rising above such cavilling and paying up would be a small step in itself. But it
would be a sign that the Middle Kingdom has understood what it is to be a great power.
当代中国的官方马克思主义
1263 个读者 智威 @ yeeyan.com 2 天前 17:40 双语对照 原文 字体大小 小 中 大
简介
当代政府的一幕话剧。本文以外国人观察物权法出台的角度描述了马克思主义其实是“话语人
质”的现实。政治就是强者的意志，学术不过是为其服务的女佣。
2006 年 11 月，我在北京参加了“国际产权和物权的理论与实践”的研讨会。这并不仅仅是学
术会议，而是与当时物权法草案的激烈争论有关（1）。尽管没有发言直接点明这部新法律，但
是每个人心里都明白讨论的是什么。
与会人员的姿态是一个涉及中国社会变化的意识形态斗争的有趣案例。他们使用马克思主义
的语言和观点，夹杂着西方主流的新古典主义经济理论，支持中国转向私有权和市场经济。下
面我将回顾在这次会议上听到和看到的建议主张。不过我先说说会议背景，帮助你们了解这些
建议主张的前因后果。
物权法草案的支持者认为企业和各种资产的私有权必须有效保护才能进一步推动经济发展。
为达到这个目标，需要新法律详细说明，更重要的是，有效保证私有财产人的权利。
批评者不同意新法律草案，指责这将走上放弃社会主义的 道路。他们认为保证私有权，并且
提高到公有财产相同的地位，将会削弱国有企业在社会主义社会的重要作用。更糟糕的是，新
法律甚至保护了过去通过腐败的内部 交易将国有企业私有化所产生的私有权（2）。这将会鼓
励更多欺诈性质的国有企业私有化。而且，这将使私营企业里的剥削劳动者的行为合法化。
这样的政治争论平常是难以看到的。这种争论出现在中国社会不同的地点，包括学术机构，
各种共产党和国家机构。这些会议使一个外来者能够直接看到甚至参与到这次争论之中。

8. 会议的主要发起者是中国共产党一个不太出名的中央委员会的某个机构，名为中央编译局。
会议由德国罗莎卢森堡基金会协同组织。这个基金会附属于民主社会党。后者来自于前德国民
主共和国共产党。
有些外国人参加了会议，大部分来自中国。中国的参与者包括各个大学的教授，社会科学院
的研究人员和一些党政官员。其中一位来自向国务院总理进言的国务院发展研究中心，另一位
来自中央党校。外国参与者在知识背景和政治背景上不尽相同，大多数是罗莎卢森堡基金会选
派的。我在中国有些名气主要因为反对新自由主义，特别是反对私有化。我被邀请进行美国产
权和物权的马克思主义分析，这可能与中国的物权和私有化讨论有关系。
中国的政治争 论，不是被幕后操纵就是用一种伊索寓言式的语言叙述，这对于主流媒体已经
成为陈词滥调。在会议中，马克思主义是讨论的官方语言，至少对那些中国与会者而 言。1978
年市场改革开放之后，中国经济和社会体制发生了巨大的变化，但是“官方马克思主义”仍然存
在于国家的意识形态中，并且是讨论经济问题时使用的 语言。因此，在会议中，绝大多数的中
国发言者，无论他们代表辩论的哪一方，都将他们的看法放在马克思主义的语言里并且常常用
马克思主义观点支持他们的主 张。然而，西方新古典经济学思想已经支配了中国大学的经济
系。很多情况下，发言者的思路是新古典主义的，无论用什么语言去表达。
最后的相关背景信息涉及到今日中国的阶级结构和及其与中国共产党之间的关系。最初中国
共产党的党员身份是向工人、农民和知识分子开放的。在 90 年代早期起 步的私营经济经过快
速发展，创造了一群本土的资本家。尽管他们富有并且愈加具有影响力，但是至少在官方层面
被禁止加入执政的中国共产党。几年之前，经过激 烈的政治斗争，中国共产党的章程改变了，
允许企业家加入。产权问题之外的政治斗争的回响也能在某些会议发言中听到。
读者现在可以鉴别会议中不同的参与者所提出的值得注意的陈述和意见了。在几个例子中，
我将直接引用发言，但是大部分中国发言者的陈述我只是意译主要的观 点。下面的每个陈述至
少是一个中国发言者提出的，还有一些被几个发言者稍加改变的重复过。某些情况我在括号里
加入了评论以解释和澄清。我将以赞同中国当前 社会发展方向的发言者的意见开始——这也代
表了绝大多数发言者——最后以少数某些人的声明作为结束。这些人反对中国走向资本主义，
或者至少不同意扭曲马克思主义来迎合这种走向。
会议中的陈述和主题
•当国有企业变成许多持股人的股份公司，这代表了马克思和恩格斯所形容的所有权社会化，因
为所有权由单独所有变成一大群持有者。（必须指出，这是由一位中央党校的发言人提出
的。）
•如果国有企业变成股份公司，雇员分配到一些股票，这就达到了“‘马克思’的财产私人所有的目
标”。
•处理国有企业必须遵从“国际规则”，建立“现代产权制度”。[在八十年代苏联和东欧国家，所采
用是资本主义规则和资本主义财产权的委婉说法]
•企业只有是私有的才能在社会主义市场经济条件下更有效率。[这话由几个人提出，直接来源
于西方新古典主义经济学。]
•国有企业剥削工人，属于国家资本主义制度。国有企业剥削程度很严重。[这点来解释国有企
业私有化不会引入剥削或者资本主义，因为这两者已经在国有企业里出现了。]

9. •企业所有权的本质和国家是资本主义制度或者社会主义制 度没有关系。企业应该私有化，经
营目标是盈利。社会主义国家是指政府对剩余价值征税，通过养老金和其他社会项目将财政收
入利益大众。[这个维护私有制的说 法暗示了中国经济制度已经与美国和西欧非常相似。同时
中国并没有抛弃社会主义制度。然而按照这种定义，所有的工业化资本主义国家实际上都是社
会主义制 度。]
•美国的数百万股东的公司，比中国目前的情况更具有社会主义所有权形式。
• “[二战之后]资本主义不再和劳工对抗，甚至开始联合···现代资本主义···正在逐步创造类
似社会主义的新型资本主义制度。”
•中国共产党在新民主主义时期执行了古典马克思主义的正确路线。[这是指 1949 年解放之后，
当时共产党实现资产阶级民主革命，但是没有试图建立社会主义制度。]其后的政策[当时共产
党转向了建设社会主义制度]改变是错误的，应该继续推行新民主主义政策。[这点和 1989-91 年
发生在莫斯科的广泛讨论很相似。苏维埃共产党应该保持 1921-27 年的新经济制度，提倡私营
企业发挥重要作用和市场调节的混合经济。]
•除去现在的劳动和过去劳动[后者是马克思主义术语，指生产生产方式的劳动]还有第三种劳
动，名为“风险性劳动”。马克思主义理论应该包括这种劳动者。他们大多数发扬了企业家精神
担负了风险。[很明显“企业家”比如资本家也是一种劳动者，因此他们加入共产党是完全正确
的。]
当我听到这些论题——和我在提问讨论阶段提出问题时——我有种强烈的似曾相识的感觉。
这些论题的大部分和 1991 年我在莫斯科，当时是苏联的最后一年，从苏联学者，党政干部那里
听到的完全一样。
现在谈谈那些中国与会者反对私有财产和私有化风潮的一些意见：
•对马克思和 恩格斯的德文原著的深入研究证明他们显然认为共产主义包括了废除私有财产。
某些人认为这是马克思和恩格斯著作的误译的想法是错误的。我们不应该歪曲马克思 主义来证
明现在的政策有道理。[一些中国的马克思主义者一直认为马克思和恩格斯没有真正说过共产主
义包括了废除私有财产。]
•私有制并不是解决国有企业的真正办法。使用资本的权利属于劳动者，要符合他们的利益。
• “不正常的私有化”[这是指国有企业领导者非法的将其变为私有财产]制造了资本主义企业，这
应该被禁止。
•虽然有些国有企业的利润率较低，但是盈利并不是衡量企业社会贡献和经济福利的最佳方法。
•许多支持罗纳德•科斯[因为反对国家管制私营经济而闻名的右翼英国产权理论家]理论的中国经
济学家是错误的。科斯的中国追随者声称科斯提供了中国所需要的产权理论，而这是马克思所
没有的。相反，产权是生产关系的合法形式，是马克思详细分析的一种关系。与科斯的观点相
反，私营经济并非效率所必需的。公共产权应该是最重要的。[这个年 纪大的左派学院经济学
家详细引用了著名的美国左倾经济学家约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨批判科斯的言论。这个左派中国经济
学家依靠积极的资本主义甚至有点异端倾向的 美国经济学家斯蒂格利茨去反对科斯，这一点令
我想起 1991 年在莫斯科，当时少数几个左派苏联经济学家引用如约翰•肯尼斯•加尔布雷斯去反
对自由市场理 论。]

10. 注释
1 全国人民代表大会在 2007 年 3 月 16 日通过了新的《中华人民共和国物权法》。
2 在腐败的内部私有化交易后，新私有化的企业经常被卖给一个第三方。这个第三方至少没有
官方的参与最初私有化的过程。反对者指出，如果最终的产权持有人声称以“善意意图”获得了
产权，草案的一个条款（106 条）就可以帮助他们逃脱责任，并且使个人的财产所有权得到保
护。
The State of Official Marxism in China Today
The State of Official Marxism in China Today
David Kotz
During November 13–14, 2006, I participated in an “International Conference on Ownership &
Property Rights: Theory & Practice,” in Beijing. This was not just an academic conference, it was
related to a sharp debate taking place in China at that time over a proposed new law on property
rights.1 Although none of the presentations at the conference made any direct reference to the proposed
new law, everyone knew that it was the subtext of the conference debate.
The positions put forth by the participants in this conference provide an interesting window into the
ideological struggle over the direction of social change in China. They illustrate the ways in which
Marxist language and Marxist propositions, intermixed with ideas drawn from mainstream Western
neoclassical economic theory, are used today in China to support the completion of China’s shift to
private property and a market economy. Below I will reproduce some of the statements and positions
voiced (and written) at this conference. But first some background information will help to place the
statements in their historical context.
The supporters of the proposed property rights law were arguing that further economic progress in
China required that private ownership of business enterprises and other assets must be made more
secure. To achieve this end, a new law was needed specifying, and more importantly guaranteeing, the
rights of owners of private property.
Critics resisted the proposed new law, charging that it represented a step toward abandoning the
socialist system. They argued that guaranteeing private property rights, and elevating them to the same
level as public property rights, would undermine the key role of state owned enterprises (SOEs) in a
socialist system. To make matters worse, critics charged, the new law could potentially even safeguard
the ownership claims of those who ended up in control of former SOEs that had been privatized
through a corrupt insider deal.2 This would encourage further fraudulent privatizations of SOEs.
Further, they argued, it would legitimize the exploitation of labor which occurs in private enterprises.
Such political debates are normally difficult to observe in China. This debate had been taking place in
various locations in Chinese society, including academic institutions and various Communist Party and
state institutions. The above conference provided a way for an outsider directly to observe, and even
participate in, this debate.
The main sponsor of the conference was a little-known bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) called the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau. The conference was
cosponsored by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation of Germany, which is attached to the Party of

11. Democratic Socialism. The latter is descended from the Communist Party of the former German
Democratic Republic.
While there were a few foreign participants, most were from China. The Chinese participants included
professors from various Chinese universities, researchers from the Academy of Social Sciences, and
some party and state officials. Among the latter there was one from the Development Research Center
of the State Council, which provides policy advice to the prime minister, and one from the Central
Party School. The foreign participants were quite diverse intellectually and politically, with most of
them selected by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. I am known in China as a critic of neoliberalism in
general, and privatization in particular, and I was invited to present a Marxist analysis of ownership and
property rights in the United States that might be relevant to the property rights and privatization debate
in China.
It has long been commonplace to read in the mainstream media that political debates in China are
typically conducted, not just behind the scenes, but in a kind of Aesopian language. In this conference
Marxism was the official language of discussion, at least for the Chinese participants. Despite the
enormous transformation of China’s economic and social system since the beginning of what is called
the “market reform and opening” in 1978, a kind of “official Marxism” remains the formal state
ideology and the language for discussion of economic issues. Thus, most of the Chinese speakers at this
conference, whichever side of the debate they were on, couched their views in Marxist language and
often used traditional Marxist propositions to buttress their claims. However, Western neoclassical
economic thought has become dominant in the leading economics departments at universities in China,
and in many cases it was neoclassical ideas that underlay the comments of the speakers, whatever the
language used to express them.
A final relevant piece of background information concerns the class structure of China today and its
relation to the CCP. Originally membership in the CCP was open to workers, peasants, and
intellectuals. The rapid development of private business starting in the early 1990s created a class of
indigenous capitalists who, while wealthy and increasingly influential, were at least officially barred
from membership in the ruling CCP. Then a few years ago, after a sharp political struggle, the CCP
membership rules were changed to open membership to “entrepreneurs.” Reverberations of that
political battle, as well as the one over property rights, could be heard in some of the conference
presentations.
Readers can now appreciate the remarkable statements and positions put forward by various
participants in this conference. In a few cases I provide a direct quotation, but most of the statements
below paraphrase the main theses or points made by various Chinese speakers at the conference. Each
statement below was made by at least one Chinese speaker, and some were repeated, with variations,
by several speakers. In some cases I have added interpretive or clarifying comments in brackets. I begin
with statements by participants who favor the current direction of social change in China—which
represented the vast majority of speakers—and end with pronouncements by the few who either oppose
China’s march to capitalism or are at least resisting the distortion of Marxism to justify that march.
Statements and Themes from the Conference
• When an SOE is turned into a joint stock corporation with many shareholders, it represents
socialization of ownership as Marx and Engels described it, since ownership goes from a single
owner to a large number of owners [among others, this was stated by someone from the Central
Party School].

12. • If SOEs are turned into joint stock corporations and the employees are given some shares of the
stock, then this would achieve “Marx’s objective of private ownership of property.”
• In dealing with the SOEs, we must follow “international norms” and establish a “modern
property rights system.” [As in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, the
terms in quotes were euphemisms for capitalist norms and capitalist property rights.]
• Enterprises can be efficient in our socialist market economy only if they are privately owned.
[This statement, voiced by several people, comes directly from Western “neoclassical”
economic theory.]
• SOEs exploit their workers and are state capitalist institutions, and SOEs often have a very high
rate of exploitation. [The point was that privatizing SOEs will not introduce exploitation or
capitalist relations since both are already present in SOEs.]
• The nature of ownership of the enterprises has no bearing on whether a country is capitalist or
socialist. Enterprises should always be privately owned and operated for profit. What makes a
country socialist is that the government taxes the surplus value and uses the proceeds to benefit
the people through pensions and other social programs. [Along with justifying privatization, this
implies that, as China’s economy becomes much like those of the United States and Western
Europe, China is not abandoning socialism since, by this definition, all of the industrialized
capitalist countries are actually socialist.]
• The United States has companies with millions of shareholders, which is a far more socialized
form of ownership than anything that exists in China.
• “[After the Second World War] Capitalism not only gave up its fierce antagonism to labor, but
even began combining with labor....Modern capitalism...is gradually creating a new type of
capitalism that is more like socialism.”
• The CCP followed the correct approach, in line with classical Marxism, during the period of
New Democracy [i.e., the period directly following the 1949 liberation, when the party said it
was completing the bourgeois democratic revolution but not yet trying to build socialism]. The
change in policy after that period [when the party shifted its aim to building socialism] was an
error, and instead the New Democracy policy should have been continued. [This was spookily
simiqilar to the widespread argument in Moscow in 1989–91 that the Soviet Communist Party
should have stayed with the New Economic Policy of 1921–27, which called for a mixed
economy with a significant role for private business and with market forces playing the main
coordinating role.]
• Besides current labor and past labor [the latter the Marxist term for the labor required to
produce the means of production], there is a third type of labor, namely “risk labor.” Marxist
theory should take account of this third type of labor, which is expended by those who take
risks through entrepreneurship. [The obvious point was that “entrepreneurs,” i.e., capitalists, are
a type of worker, and hence it is correct that they are allowed to join the Communist Party.]
As I listened to these themes—and as I raised questions about them in the question/discussion periods
—I had a strong feeling of déjà vu. Many of them were the same themes I had heard (and had argued
against) in Moscow in 1991, the last year of the Soviet Union, coming from Soviet academics and party
and state officials.
Now for some comments by Chinese conference participants that swam against the private property
and privatization tide:
• A thorough study of the original German versions of Marx and Engels’s writings on
communism shows that they clearly viewed communism as involving the abolition of private

13. property. Those who have argued that this idea arose from a mistranslation of Marx and
Engels’s works are mistaken. We should not distort Marxism to justify current policies. [Some
“Marxists” in China have been arguing that Marx and Engels never actually wrote that
communism would involve abolition of private property.]
• Privatization is not the right solution to the problems of the SOEs. The right to use capital
should belong to the workers and serve their interests.
• “Informal privatization” [in which an SOE’s director illegally turns it into his private company]
creates capitalist enterprises and should not be permitted.
• While some SOEs may have low profit rates, profitability is not a good measure of an
enterprise’s contribution to social and economic welfare.
• The many Chinese economists who support the theories of Ronald Coase [a rightwing British
property-rights theorist who is known for opposing any significant state regulation of private
business] are mistaken. The Chinese followers of Coase claim that Marx had no theory of
property rights and that Coase supplies the property rights theory that China needs. On the
contrary, property rights are the legal manifestation of production relations, a relationship which
Marx analyzes at some length. Contrary to Coase’s view, private property is not necessary for
efficiency. Public ownership should be primary. [This older leftist academic economist cited at
some length statements by the well-known U.S. left-of-center economist Joseph Stiglitz
condemning the work of Coase. The reliance by a leftist Chinese economist on the pro-capitalist
—yet somewhat heretical—U.S. economist Stiglitz to make a criticism of Coase reminded me
of 1991 in Moscow, when the few leftist Soviet economists struggled to criticize free market
theory by citing people such as John Kenneth Galbraith.]
Notes
1. The new “Property Rights Law of the People’s Republic of China” was passed by the National
People’s Congress on March 16, 2007.
2. After such corrupt insider privatizations, the newly privatized enterprise is often then sold to a third
party, who at least officially was not involved in the original privatization process. Opponents charged
that one of the provisions of the proposed new law (article 106) would hold the final owner blameless
and secure that person’s right of ownership, as long as the final owner could claim that she or he
obtained the property with “benign intent.”
聪明人把知道说出来，而智者则不声张
5270 个读者 boxi @ yeeyan.com 5 天前 15:36 双语对照 原文 字体大小 小 中 大
简介
何为聪明人？何为智者？哪种人既没智慧，也不聪明？
一个人聪明与否要看他的回答。一个人是否有智慧则要看他的提问。
- 纳吉布.马福兹，作家 (1911- )
聪明人总会告诉你答案。甚至是你没留意过的事情。其目的是给你留下印象。更确切地说，正
如纳西塞斯*一样，是为了要从你脸上的反应看到所映衬出的自己。
这也许是由于自负、骄傲以及不安全感导致他要寻求你的反应。你是聪明人需求的实现。你是

14. 满足了他需求的听众。
智者不会试图说服你任何事情。智者试图构建自我，而非你。他提出问题，因为他想了解更多
东西。他需要了解更多，因为他意识到,有那么多的东西他几乎一无所知。他意识到自己不懂的
要多于他懂的。
智者不会对你改宗劝诱。如果你有此意愿并充满渴求，他也许会引导你找出自己的答案。他不
会强迫你，因为他有自己的追求。
然后还有一种人，他们既不聪明，也缺乏智慧，总想向我们传达他们知道有多少。他们不会问
问题。他们希望给人们留下这样的印象，那就是只要需要，他们都能知道。
他们从商业伦常中已经学会，自己应当“永远也别让人看出焦虑”。绝对不要给人留下这样的印
象，好像你不懂。不懂也要装懂。装吧，反正大多数时候别人是看不出你不懂的。
尽管这是很显然的商业伦理，但却不是真的。不懂又不问的人永远也不会在竞争中获胜，因为
实际上他人了解真相。而懂得的人能抵达理想王国。
不问问题的人不想学习。他们依旧无知。既然他们连自己都给说服了，好像自己想知道多少就
能知道多少，这种无知也就心安理得了。
但他们依旧贫乏。他们精神上是贫乏的，因为总是先考虑自己。他们的知识是贫乏的，因为他
们关上了机会之门。 他们品格上是贫乏的，因为他们连自己都欺骗，自然骗起他人来也是毫不
含糊。
智者会分享其所知。但你得问他。否则的话他会很忙的。
他有自己的追求，并假设你也有。
*纳西塞斯(Narcissus)是希腊神话里的美少年，水仙花的英文是 Narcissus，自恋狂的英文是
Narcissism，而将两者连贯起来，是这样的一个希腊 神话。 纳西塞斯(Narcissus)是希腊神话里的
美少年。他的父亲是河神，母亲是仙女。 纳西塞斯出生后，母亲得到神谕:纳斯索斯长大后，会
是天下第一美男子;然而，他会因为迷恋自己的容貌，郁郁而终。为了逃避神谕的应验， 纳西塞
斯的母亲刻意安排儿子在山林间长大，远离溪流、湖泊、大海，为的是让纳西塞斯永远无法看
见自己的容貌。 纳西塞斯如母亲所愿，在山林间平安长大，而他亦如神谕所料，容貌俊美非
凡，成为天下第一美男子。见过他的少女，无不深深地爱上他。然而， 纳西塞斯性格高傲，没
有一位女子能得到他的爱。他只喜欢整天与友伴在山林间打猎，对于倾情于他的少女不屑一
顾。
山林女神厄科（Echo）对纳西塞斯一见钟情，但是苦于不能表达自己的感情，只能简单地重复
别人的话音。 纳西塞斯对她的痴情不理不睬。 纳西塞斯的铁石心肠使她伤透了心。她请求维纳
斯惩罚他，让他承受痛苦的熬煎。忧郁、期盼、一无所获，使她离开了她往昔的伙伴，漫无目
的地走进了森林。在这 里，她的忧伤有增无减，容颜憔悴，她从山林消失了，但是，她那柔美

15. 的声音始终萦绕幽谷而不去。如果你漫步在寂静的山林，她会回应你的声音。这就是山林女神
厄科 - Echo（回音）。
纳西塞斯的冷面石心，伤透了少女的心，报应女神娜米西斯(Nemesis)看不过眼，决定教训他。
一天， 纳西塞斯在野外狩猎，天气异常酷热，不一会儿，他已经汗流浃背。就在这时，微风吹
来，渗着阵阵清凉，他循着风向前走。逛着逛着，迎面而来的，是一个水清如 镜的湖。湖，对
拿斯索斯来说，是陌生的。 纳西塞斯走过去，坐在湖边，正想伸手去摸一摸湖水，试试那是一
种怎样的感觉，谁知当他定睛在平滑如镜的湖面时，看见一张完美的面孔，不禁惊为天人， 纳
西塞斯心想:这美人是谁呢?真漂亮呀。凝望了一会儿，他发觉，当他向水中的美人挥手，水中
的美人也向他挥手;当他向水中的美人微笑，水中的美人也向他微 笑;但当他伸手去触摸那美
人，那美人便立刻消失了;当他把手缩回来，不一会儿，那美人又再出现，并情深款款地看着
他， 纳西塞斯当然不知道浮现湖面的其实就是自己的倒影。他竟然深深地爱上了自己的倒影。
为了不愿失去湖中的人儿，他日夜守护在湖边，日子一天一天地过去， 纳西塞斯还是不寝不
食，不眠不休地呆在湖边，甘心做他心中美人的守护神，他时而伏在湖边休息，时而绕着湖岸
漫行，但目光始终离不开水中的倒影，永远是目不 转睛地凝望湖面，最后，神谕还是应验了。
纳西塞斯因为迷恋自己的倒影，枯坐死在湖边。
仙 女们知道这件事后，伤心欲绝，赶去湖边，想把纳西塞斯的尸体好好安葬。但纳西塞斯惯坐
的湖边，除了长着一丛奇异的小花外，空空如也。原来爱神怜惜纳西塞 斯，把他化成水仙花，
盛开在有水的地方，让他永远看着自己的倒影。那丛奇异的小花，，清幽脱俗而高傲孤清，甚
为美丽。为了纪念纳西塞斯，仙女们就把这种花 命名为 Narcissus，也就是水仙花了。而这亦是
水仙花为何总是长在水边的原故。也因为这个故事，人们用 Narcissism 形容那些异常喜爱自己
容 貌、有自恋倾向的人。
The clever man tells, the wise man knows quietly
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his
questions.
- Naguib Mahfouz, writer (1911- )
A clever man will always tell you answers. He will tell you things you may not even care about. His
purpose is to impress. To be more accurate, his purpose is, like that of Narcissus, to see himself
reflected in the reaction on your face.
It may be arrogance, hubris or insecurity that causes him to seek a reaction from you. You are the
fulfillment of the need of a clever man. You are the audience that satisfies his need.
A wise man will not try to convince you of anything. A wise man is trying to build himself, not to build
you. He asks questions because he wants to learn more. He needs to learn more because he is aware of
how little he knows about so many things. He is aware less of what he knows than of what he does not
yet know.
A wise man will not proselytize you. If you are willing and eager, he may guide you to find your own
answers. He will not push you because he is on his own quest.

16. Then we have those who are neither clever, wanting to convey to us how much they know, nor wise.
They do not ask questions. They wish to give the impression that they know as much as they need to
know.
They have learned from the ethics of business that they should "never let them see you sweat." Never
give the impression that you don't know. When you don't know, fake it. Pretend. Most times the others
won't know that you don't know.
While that is the apparent ethic of business, it's not a real one. The person who doesn't ask questions
and who doesn't know will never rise against the competition because deep down the others know the
truth. The ones who know will reach where they want to go.
The ones who do not ask questions don't try to learn. They remain ignorant. Comfortably ignorant, as
they persuade even themselves that they know as much as they need to know.
Yet they are always poor. Poor of spirit because they think of themselves first. Poor of intellect because
they close doors of opportunity to learn. Poor of character because they deceive even themselves, thus
have no hesitation about deceiving others.
A wise man will share what he knows. But you will have to ask. Otherwise he will be busy.
He has his own quest. He will assume that you have your own.
简介
一些在我们看来司空见惯、见怪不怪的事情，在外人看来有时候会很惊讶。外部文化或文明，
有时候是一面很好的镜子……
在中国，我还没见过一个单身妈妈，一个都没有。有没有单身妈妈呢？肯定有，但是在一个
14 亿人口的国家里，单身妈妈毕竟太少了。即使偶然碰到个别单身妈 妈，往往不是因为离婚就
是因为丈夫早逝。（总之，）在中国，女人因非婚姻关系而自己养孩子的事情几乎是闻所未闻
的。
前不久我去中国西部旅游，有个熟人告诉我说：“去年冬天，我的朋友做了一次流产，我帮
忙照顾了几个星期。她在大学里有个男朋友，把她搞怀孕了。除了做流产，她实在没有（别
的）办法。”
“难道没人劝她把孩子留下来？那样至少还能把孩子送给别人收养啊”我问道。
“当然不行啦”，这是我听到的回答，“如果没有丈夫，却有了孩子，等于毁灭了她从大学毕
业和找个好工作的机会。”我从朋友处了解到，（这个女孩的）那个男朋友也没打算娶她，因为
他们之间的关系并不认真。
在美国，如果有女人考虑做流产手术，那里的有关组织，比如计划生育联盟，就会提供其他
办法供她们选择，在中国是得不到此类咨询的。中国的单身女子如果怀孕了，做流产手术就是
唯一的出路。

17. 在中国，想养育一个非婚生子女也没那么容易。现在中国的大多数大学生在经济上完全依赖
父母，如果再生个孩子，就会给父母增加额外负担。就像我的朋友为我所做的解释那样：对很
多年轻女子而言，如果选择把孩子生下来，就完完全全意味着她们的高等教育生涯走到尽头
了。
然而，更为重要的原因还是，中国女子如果没有结婚就生了孩子，她们所要承受的风言风语
就会非常严重，（因为）文化传统根本就容不下（这种行为）。
我的朋友解释说：“那样会使她的家人蒙受耻辱”。在中国，有个十分古老的传统，即在新婚
之夜的次日“查床单”，以验证新娘是不是处女。尽管这个古旧的传统 很快就会消失，但是中国
的大多数家长还是害怕家人在朋友圈子里丢尽脸面。如果家里有个女儿未婚生子，流言蜚语就
会源源不断。婚前性行为倒是可以另当别论， 可未婚生子绝对会给女孩的整个家庭带来耻辱，
而且对于这个女孩来说，还有将来能嫁给谁的问题。在中国，只有十分特别的男人才可能愿意
娶一个单身妈妈为妻， 而且在中国文化里十分重要的婚礼上，（作为一个单身妈妈），自然会
让女方的亲人们脸上挂不住。
因此，“妇女有不做流产的优先决定权”（Pro-choice）在中国是不存在的，出路只有一条，那
就是以牺牲掉孩子的代价来换取女孩的未来。在中国，流产手术再普通不过了，简直就像切除
扁桃体。
我那个熟人告诉我：“她怀孕才一个月，就决定做流产了。她不会把胎儿看成是一个人的，
那只不过是一次医疗手术而已。”
但是，朋友告诉我说，她所照料的那个女孩，这样的经历给她带来的痛苦不但有身体上的，
还有感情上的。
我的朋友承认说：“经受这样的事情，实在太可怕了。她很伤心。”
那个女孩没有别的选择，而那个孩子没有生存的权利。这就是我听了这个故事以后的感想。
Why Single Mothers in China Are So Rare
I have never met a single mother in China. Not one. Do they exist? Sure, but even in a country of
1.4 billion people, they are few and far between. And if you do happen to run into a single mother, it is
more than likely that she lost her husband through a divorce or early death. Women choosing to keep
their babies out-of-wedlock in China is almost unheard of.
“I spent a few weeks last winter taking care of a friend who had an abortion,” an acquaintance of
mine related to me during my recent trip to western China. “She had a boyfriend in University who got
her pregnant and she really had no choice but to get rid of it.”
“Did anyone suggest to her that she keep the baby and at least give it up for adoption?” I asked.
“Of course not,” came the reply. “Having a baby without a husband could have ruined her chance to
graduate from university and have a successful career.” According to my friend, the boyfriend had no
intention of marrying the girl as the relationship was not that serious.

18. Unlike in America, where organizations like Planned Parenthood are supposed to present other
options to mothers who are contemplating an abortion, there is no such counsel given in China. If a
woman is single and pregnant in China, there is only one option; the baby must go.
Not that keeping a baby out-of-wedlock in China would be easy. Most university students in China
are completely dependent on their parents for financial support and choosing to have a baby would
place an extra burden on them. Just as my friend suggested, for many young women, choosing to have
a baby could very well mean the end of their higher education.
But even more importantly, there is still a strong social stigma that is placed on women in China
who have children before they are married. It is simply not culturally acceptable.
“It would bring shame on her family,” explained my friend. While the age old tradition in China of
‘checking the sheets’ after the wedding night to make sure the bride was a virgin may be fast fading
away, most Chinese parents are afraid of ‘losing face’ in front of their family members in friends. An
unmarried daughter with a child would be a constant source for rumors and gossip. Having sex before
marriage is one thing, but having a baby before marriage would most definitely bring shame upon the
girl’s entire family. And then there would be the question about who the girl could marry someday. It
would take a special man to marry a single mother in China and the wedding process, which is so
important in Chinese culture, would be naturally tainted in the eyes of the girl’s relatives.
Thus, there is no such thing as pro-choice in China. There is only one choice; the baby is sacrificed
to secure the future of the girl. In China, an abortion procedure is as common as having one’s tonsils
removed.
“She was only one month pregnant when she had the abortion,” my aquaintance told me. “She
didn’t see it as a person. It was just a medical procedure.”
Yet, according to my friend, the girl that she took care of suffered both physically and emotionally
from the experience.
“It was a horrible thing for her to go through,” my friend admitted. “She was very sad.”
As was I when I heard this story. The girl never had a choice and the baby never had a chance.
独眼巨人（Cyclope，又翻译成“车轮眼”，因为 cyclope 在希腊文中原本是“ring-eyed”之意）是一种巨大的生物。他
们的额头正中只长着一只圆形的眼睛。据古希腊诗人赫西奥德（Hesiod，归于他写的主要史诗有关于古代农耕生活
的《工作与时日》Works and Days，和关于众神及世界的起源的描述《神谱》Theogony.其作品是研究希腊神
话、古希腊农业技术、天文学和记时的重要文献。）的记载，他们强悍难斗而且“喜怒无常”。他们的所有举动,最
后都会以暴力结尾。他们的名字意为“圆眼睛的”。
希腊神话中其实有两代独眼巨人。 第一代是三兄弟，是大地女神盖娅（Gaia，Mother Earth)和天空之神乌拉
诺斯（Uranus，Sky)的孩子，分别叫作 Brontes (“雷鸣”), Steropes (“闪电”), Arges (“电光”).第二代独眼巨人是波塞冬
的儿子，其中最有名的就是荷马的《奥德赛》里记载的波吕斐摩斯（Polyphemus）。
据某些版本的奥林匹亚神系的早期历史，大地女神盖娅试图制造一种阳寿有限的生灵遍布这颗星球，独眼巨人
和 百手巨人（Hecatonchires，赫卡通刻伊瑞斯，希腊神话里面的百手三巨人，指的是由 Uranus 和 Gaia 所生的三个
儿子布里亚柔斯 Briareus, 科托斯 Cottus 和古阿斯 Gyges,每个人各有 50 个头,100 只手，曾经和众神在与泰坦巨人的
战争间发挥威力，一战成名）都是失败的作品。

19. Brontes, Steropes 和 Arges 都是手艺高超的铁匠。他们为奥林匹亚诸神服务，宙斯的霹雳
电、波塞冬的三叉戟、哈迪斯的暗盔（Helmet of Darkness，又叫作 Cap of Invisibility，所以也
译为“隐身帽” ），就是后来帕尔修斯（Perseus）在斩掉美杜沙的头时配戴的那顶，都是由他
们打造。
独眼巨人早 年大部分时间都被囚禁着。他们的父亲乌拉诺斯厌恶自己所有的子嗣（包括泰坦神、独眼巨人、百
手巨人），把他们深囚在大地女神盖娅的体内。乌拉诺斯被他的儿 子克罗诺斯（Cronus，泰坦神之一）打败取代
之后，独眼巨人得以释放，自由了一段时间。但是克罗诺斯多疑而偏执，他害怕独眼巨人的能力，将他们投到塔
尔塔罗斯（Tartarus，冥府底下暗无天日之深渊,惩罚之所）关押起来。直到泰坦之战（Titanomachy，宙斯反对其父
克罗诺斯而发动的奥林匹 斯诸神与泰坦诸神之间的战争，历时十年)，宙斯将他们释放，寻求他们的协助。
在独眼巨人的 协助之下，宙斯凭借霹雳电推翻了克罗诺斯和泰坦诸神，取而代之成为宇宙（cosmos，强调其秩
序与协调）的主宰。宙斯感激独眼巨人的帮助，允许他们居住 在奥林匹斯山，作锻冶之神赫斐斯托斯
（Hephaestus）的助手，为自己锻造军械修理盔甲。希腊人把伯罗奔尼撒半岛上梯林斯和迈锡尼城的坚固要塞也归
功于他们。
传说阿波罗的儿子阿斯克勒庇俄斯（Asclepius，医药之神，原为凡人，后被宙斯提到天上，成为蛇夫座
Ophiuchus）因为医术高超有一次起死回生，触怒宙斯，被他用霹雳电击死。阿波罗为报复宙斯，射杀了为他锻造
霹雳电的独眼巨人。独眼巨人的鬼魂后来居于埃特纳火山的洞窟里——这个传说解释了为什么总是有烟从那座山
中升腾而出。
第二代的独眼巨人是 一群西西里岛上的牧羊人，他们原始而野蛮，已忘却了冶金的技术。波吕斐摩斯，波塞冬
与海洋中的宁芙女神托奥萨（Thoosa）的儿子，是他们中间唯一值得 一提的。关于他，荷马的《奥德赛》中有详
细的描述。来到西西里岛这个独眼巨人的领地后，奥德修斯和最勇敢的十二个伙伴进入波吕斐摩斯关羊群的山洞
里。波吕 斐摩斯用一块巨石挡住了出口，把他们关在了里面，并且生吞了其中几个。第二天晚上，奥德修斯骗波
吕斐摩斯自己名叫“没有人”，而且诱骗他喝得烂醉如泥。待 波吕斐摩斯醉倒之后，奥德修斯用一截烧红的橄榄木
将他的眼睛戳瞎。波吕斐摩斯惨叫而起，向洞外面闻声而来的独眼巨人呼喊，说“没有人”在试图杀害他。其他 巨
人以为是神降病患，便没进洞来救他。后来，独眼巨人不得不移开巨石放他的羊出去吃草。奥德修斯和幸存的伙
伴抱在羊的肚子下面逃离了山洞。
奥德修斯逃出后乘船驶离西西里岛时，他对着波吕斐摩斯大叫，告诉他戳瞎他眼睛的是伊萨卡的奥德修斯。盛
怒的巨人用巨石循着声音砸向他们的船，而且向他的父亲波塞冬呼号，要他为自己向奥德修斯复仇。
今天的学者从历史的角度推测有关独眼巨人这 个神话形象的起源。一种解释是在远古的时代，冶金匠人们都
佩戴独眼眼罩，这样至少能保证一只眼睛不被飞溅的火星弄坏。而且，这些冶金匠人为了表示对给他们 的锻炉带
来火焰的太阳的崇敬和感谢，有时会在自己身上纹上一些同心圆组成的纹身。而那些制作金属器物如碗罐、盔
甲、戏剧面具等的工匠，他们的纹身中也常常 有这种同心圆的图案。神话中第一代独眼巨人就是与冶金锻造联系
在一起，而第二代却不是。很显然第二代原始而野蛮的独眼巨人与第一代的独眼巨人没有直接联 系，是后来加到
整个神话系统里去的。遭遇波吕斐摩斯这一段插曲也许早就存在，有它自己独立的体系和寓意，到后来才被荷马
用到史诗《奥德赛》里面去。

20. Keeping an Eye Out for the CYCLOPES
The Cyclopes were giant beings with a single, round eye in the middle of their foreheads.
According to the ancient Greek writer Hesiod, they were strong, stubborn, and “abrupt of
emotion.” Their every action ebbed with violence and power and their name means "ring-
eyed".
There are actually two generations of Cyclopes in Greek myth. The first generation consisted
of three brothers, Brontes (“thunderer”), Steropes (“lightning”), and Arges (“brightness”), who
came from the union of Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Sky). The second generation
descended from Poseidon, and the most famous of these was Polyphemus from Homer’s
Odyssey.
According to some versions of early Olympian history, the Cyclopes and the Hecatonchires
(Hundred-handed-ones) were failed attempts by Mother Earth to create a race of mortals to
populate the planet.
Brontes, Steropes, and Arges (the three descended from Gaia and Uranus) were the
inventive blacksmiths of the Olympian gods. They were skilled metal workers and created
Zeus’ thunderbolts, Poseidon’s trident, and Hades’ Helmet of Darkness that was later used by
Perseus while on his quest to decapitate Medusa.
However, they spent the majority of their early existence imprisoned. Their father Uranus
(sky) hated all of his offspring (the Titans, Cyclopes and Hecatonchires or hundred-handed-
ones) and kept them confined deep within Gaia (earth). The defeat of Uranus by his son
Cronus (a Titan) freed the Cyclopes for a time, but Cronus was a paranoid ruler. He feared
the Cyclopes’ power and cast them into Tartarus (the place of punishment in the underworld)
where they remained imprisoned until Zeus (an Olympian and son of Cronus) released them,
requiring their aid in the Titanomachy (battle of the Titans).
With the assistance of the Cyclopes and their thunderbolts, Zeus overthrew Cronus and the
Titans and became ruler of the cosmos. He was grateful for the Cyclopes’ help and allowed
them to stay in Olympus as his armorers and helpers to Hephaestus, god of smiths. The
Greeks also credited them with building the massive fortifications at Tiryns and Mycenae in
the Peloponnese.
It is said that the god Apollo killed the Cyclopes to avenge the death of his son Asclepius,
whom the Cyclopes had killed for bringing mortals back to life. The ghosts of the Cyclopes
then went to live in the caverns of volcanic Mount Aetna - this legend served to explain the
smoke that frequently rose from that mountain.
Brontes, Steropes, and Arges are mainly mentioned in passing in most of the myths to convey
strength in heroes and the fine quality of weapons but are major characters in one other event
– their deaths at the hands of Apollo. Zeus struck Asclepius, Apollo’s son, down with a
thunderbolt for having risen a person from the dead. Apollo was outraged and killed the
Cyclopes who had forged the deadly thunderbolt. It appears that Apollo’s rage was
misplaced, yet by killing the Cyclopes, he was indirectly punishing Zeus. The ghosts of
Brontes, Steropes, and Arges are said to dwell in Mt. Aetna, an active volcano that smokes as
a result of their burning forges.

21. The second generation of Cyclopes was a band of lawless shepherds living in Sicily who had
lost the skill of metallurgy. Polyphemus, son of Poseidon and the sea nymph Thoosa, is the
only notable individual of the lot and figures prominently in Homer’s Odyssey. Odysseus and
his crew landed on Sicily, realm of the Cyclopes. He and a few of his best men became
trapped in Polyphemus’ cave when Polyphemus rolled a large boulder in front of the entrance
to corral his sheep while Odysseus was still inside. Polyphemus was fond of human flesh and
devoured many of the men for dinner. On the second night, Odysseus told Polyphemus that
his name was “Nobody,” and tricked him into drinking enough wine to pass out. While he was
incapacitated, Odysseus/Nobody blinded him with a red hot poker. Polyphemus shouted in
pain to the other Cyclopes on the island that “Nobody” was trying to kill him, so no one came
to his rescue. Eventually, he had to roll away the stone to allow his sheep to graze. Odysseus
and the remaining crew clung to the bellies of the exiting sheep where Polyphemus could not
feel them as they passed him on their way to pasture and escaped.
As Odysseus sailed away from the island, he shouted to Polyphemus that it was Odysseus
who had blinded him. Enraged, the Cyclops threw huge boulders at the ship and shouted to
his father, Poseidon, to avenge him.
Recent scholars have hypothesized about the origin of the Cyclopes’ single eye. One
possibility is that in ancient times, smiths could have worn an eye patch over one eye to
prevent being blinded in both eyes from flying sparks. Also, smiths sometimes tattooed
themselves with concentric circles which could have been in honor of the sun which provided
the fire for their furnaces. Concentric rings were also part of the pattern for making bowls,
helmets, masks, and other metal objects. Notice that the first generation Cyclopes were
associated with metal-working while the second generation was not. Apparently, the lawless
band of Cyclopes is a later addition to the myths. The incidence with Polyphemus seems to
have had an independent existence from the Odyssey before Homer added it to his epic
adventure. It was probably told as a separate myth at certain functions.
It is uncertain why the Cyclopes were demoted from the smiths of the gods to a lawless group
of monsters with no reverence for the gods. When the universe came into being, there were
many monsters and vague forms that were gradually replaced with beings with more human
forms. Order was replacing chaos. The monsters were phased out, and this could have lead
to the transformation of the “good” Cyclopes to the “evil” Cyclopes that were destined to be
fought and defeated by the divine human form.
They next arrived at the country of the Cyclopses. The Cyclopses were giants, who inhabited
an island of which they were the only possessors. The name means "round eye," and these
giants were so called because they had but one eye, and that placed in the middle of the
forehead. They dwelt in caves and fed on the wild productions of the island and on what their
flocks yielded, for they were shepherds.
Ulysses left the main body of his ships at anchor, and with one vessel went to the Cyclopses'
island to explore for supplies. He landed with his companions, carrying with them a jar of wine
for a present, and coming to a large cave they entered it, and finding no one within examined

22. its contents. They found it stored with the richest of the flock, quantities of cheese, pails and
bowls of milk, lambs and kids in their pens, all in nice order. Presently arrived the master of
the cave, Polyphemus, bearing an immense bundle of firewood, which he threw down before
the cavern's mouth. He then drove into the cave the sheep and goats to be milked, and,
entering, rolled to the cave's mouth an enormous rock, that twenty oxen could not draw. Next
he sat down and milked his ewes, preparing a part for cheese, and setting the rest aside for
his customary drink. Then, turning round his great eye, he discerned the strangers, and
growled out to them, demanding who they were, and where from. Ulysses replied most
humbly, stating that they were Greeks, from the great expedition that had lately won so much
glory in the conquest of Troy; that they were now on their way home, and finished by
imploring his hospitality in the name of the gods.
Polyphemus deigned no answer, but reaching out his hand seized two of the Greeks, whom
he hurled against the side of the cave, and dashed out their brains. He proceeded to devour
them with great relish, and having made a hearty meal, stretched himself out on the floor to
sleep. Ulysses was tempted to seize the opportunity and plunge his sword into him as be
slept, but recollected that it would only expose them all to certain destruction, as the rock with
which the giant had closed up the door was far beyond their power to remove, and they would
therefore be in hopeless imprisonment.
Next morning the giant seized two more of the Greeks, and dispatched them in the same
manner as their companions, feasting on their flesh till no fragment was left. He then moved
away the rock from the door, drove out his flocks, and went out, carefully replacing the barrier
after him. When he was gone Ulysses planned how he might take vengeance for his
murdered friends, and effect his escape with his surviving companions. He made his men
prepare a massive bar of wood cut by the Cyclops for a staff, which they found in the cave.
They sharpened the end of it, and seasoned it in the fire, and hid it under the straw on the
cavern floor. Then four of the boldest were selected, with whom Ulysses joined himself as a
fifth.
The Cyclops came home at evening, rolled away the stone and drove in his flock as usual.
After milking them and making his arrangements as before, he seized two more of Ulysses'
companions and dashed their brains out, and made his evening meal upon them as he had
on the others. After he had supped, Ulysses approaching him handed him a bowl of wine,
saying, "Cyclops, this is wine; taste and drink after thy meal of men's flesh." He took and
drank it, and was hugely delighted with it, and called for more. Ulysses supplied him once
again, which pleased the giant so much that he promised him as a favor that he should be the
last of the party devoured. He asked his name, to which Ulysses replied, "My name is
Noman."
After his supper the giant lay down to repose, and was soon found asleep. Then Ulysses with
his four select friends thrust the end of the stake into the fire till it was all one burning coal,
then poising it exactly above the giant's only eye, they buried it deeply into the socket, twirling
it round as a carpenter does his auger.

23. The howling monster with his outcry filled the cavern, and Ulysses with his aides nimbly got
out of his way and concealed themselves in the cave. He, bellowing, called aloud on all the
Cyclopes dwelling in the caves around him, far and near. They on his cry flocked round the
den, and inquired what grievous hurt had caused him to sound such an alarm and break their
slumbers. He replied, "O friends, I die, and Noman gives the blow." They answered, "If no
man hurts thee it is the stroke of Jove (Zeus), and thou must bear it." So saying, they left him
groaning.
Next morning the Cyclops rolled away the stone to let his flock out to pasture, but planted
himself in the door of the cave to feel of all as they went out, that Ulysses and his men should
not escape with them. But Ulysses had made his men harness the rams of the flock three
abreast, with osiers which they found on the floor of the cave. To the middle ram of the three
one of the Greeks suspended himself, so protected by the exterior rams on either side. As
they passed, the giant felt of the animals' backs and sides, but never thought of their bellies;
so the men all passed safe, Ulysses himself being on the last one that passed.
When they had got a few paces from the cavern, Ulysses and his friends released themselves
from their rams, and drove a good part of the flock down to the shore to their boat. They put
them aboard with all haste, then pushed off from the shore, and when at a safe distance
Ulysses shouted out, "Cyclops, the gods have well requited thee for thy atrocious deeds.
Know it is Ulysses to whom thou owest thy shameful loss of sight."
The Cyclops, hearing this, seized a rock that projected from the side of the mountain, and
rending it from its bed he lifted it high in the air, then exerting all his force, hurled it in the
direction of the voice. Down came the mass, just clearing the vessel's stern. The ocean, at the
plunge of the huge rock, heaved the ship towards the land, so that it barely escaped being
swamped by the waves. When they had with the utmost difficulty pulled off shore, Ulysses
was about to hail the giant again, but his friends besought him not to do so. He could not
forbear, however, letting the giant know that they had escaped his missile, but waited till they
had reached a safer distance than before. The giant answered them with curses, but Ulysses
and his friends plied their oars vigorously, and soon regained their companions.
简介
综合比对学校教育和自学的优缺点。不过作者似乎更加提倡自学，而且拉出了盖茨，戴尔，等
等
从梦想的工作干起：不需上学，只需一张借阅卡
如果你可以做你喜欢的事谋生并且收入颇丰怎么样？最重要的是，如果你不必上学，不必在课
堂上花费几百个小时，不必在获得学位时债务成山怎么样？听起来不错，不是吗？
的确，大学毕业生的平均年薪超过一些没有学士学位的人。但是，一大堆全球顶尖的创新者和
富翁在高中或大学辍学。 （例如：沃尔特.迪士尼，史蒂夫.乔布斯，约翰尼.德普，比尔.盖茨和

24. 昆滕.塔伦蒂诺。 ）
他们怎么做呢？
真的有可能使人们的自学，向昂贵的学位教育一样取得好效果吗？每种方法都有其独特的优点
和缺点，我不试图说服你选一种或另一种。我只是指出，过去十年中环境有了很大的变化，开
辟一条具有自己特色的路比以往任何时候可能性都大。最大的问题是确定什么工作最适合你。
很多人不知道，我中学没有毕业。二年级开始时，我对上课不再有任何兴趣。课程对我来说太
简单，我感觉我是在被强迫学习我不感兴趣的东西。我觉得我没有参加属于我的教育。所以，
我不再上课了。
几年后我参加了一所社区学院。我也没有从那里毕业，但与中学相比，我比较喜欢这里。我没
有选择主修课，只是上我感兴趣的。我没有得到学位的愿望，只是为了了解我感兴趣的事。
老实说，我觉得在学校上感兴趣的课时，应当更加集中精力，因为太多的注意力放在派对和完
成课程要求上。大学是学习你所感兴趣的事物的机会，谁在乎他们是不是适合于主修课？我没
有。
在你不知道（大学）之外还有什么选项的情况下，这里有一些不需要大学学位的职业机会：
网络写手
作者
生活教练
演员
音乐家
软件工程师
销售
企业家
厨师
社会媒体顾问
播音员
DJ
职业摄影师
可能性仅被你的想象羁绊。这些所需的大部分技能可以通过自学和一张简单的阅读卡学到。你
显然也可以在正式场合学到大多数这些职业技能，但是不一定有这个必要。
在我看来，未来十年，我们将看到更多的人会选择自学这条路。大量的免费信息和自学资源正
在爆炸。像维基百科（Wikipedia，自学资源网）和个人 MBA（Personal MBA， 自学资源网）
等正使我们的环境发生改变。不仅如此，把自己变成专家并且组建自己的网络，比以往任何时
候都变得容易。像博客和在线交流平台，可让你证明您的 专业知识，省去在工作岗位十几年的
攀爬。 Twitter（网站）和 LinkedIn（网站）的社会网络可以让您省去中间联系和中间人，直接
和您想认识的人进行互利合作。
尽管这一切听上去美妙，但这条道路并不总是令人称心如意。你需要有一些素质，以便使自己

25. 成为一个（传统教育的）叛离者：
主动作为。这意味着你必须要激励自己学习并且沉浸在所学的领域。
你必须有激情。您的源动力将来自你的激情。如果你不热爱你正在做的，继续下去是很困难
的。
自力更生。由于没有前车可鉴，你必须自己开路。您需要一定的创造性和自律意识。
最好有一个团队。有一批志同道合人士的支持，将更容易为了你的目标坚持下去。或跟随一个
导师。
我不认为传统的（教育）方式没有任何价值。它们各有利弊。让我们来看看大学毕业生和自学
的人各自的优缺点。
大学学位的优点：
课程内容摆在你面前。你不必花费大量时间来研究需要学习什么，只需简单地参照课程结构进
行。
（人际关系）网是现成的。如果你在高校做得对，出来时你可以具有一个现成的已经牢靠的职
业或者生意联系网。
信誉。相当程度上证明你已经认真研究过你的专业。
大学学位的缺点：
课程过于死板。如果你和你的同行在学习相同的东西，你怎样才能与众不同呢？
说穿了，上大学很贵。
你被迫学习你并不关心的事。学位的课程要求，常常要你上一些几乎与学位无关的课。
自学的长处：
没有严格的课程，你可以更加灵活地建立一个知识库。如果您有很高的积极性，你可能会注意
到一个受过传统教育的人容易忽视的东西。
有可能需要更短的时间。如果你聪明，与首先取得一个学位相比，你可以花费较短的时间使自
己达到专业。
你更容易控制需要多长时间达到专业。
不太贵。图书证和注册维基（Wikipedia）都是免费的。
自学的缺点：
不容易，如果你没有自律意识。
你必须建立自己的（人际关系）网。在图书馆耗着不会给你带来与本行业的其他人接触的机
会。
你必须建立信誉。如果你没有一个学位做支撑，要证明你的能力，必须通过过去的成功。总之
自学和信誉不相关，因为不管有无大学学位，客户或公司希望看到不只是你研究过什么或者取
得怎样的分数，还有你已经实现了什么。
一些领域需要学位。有一些领域自学不足以证明你专业的性合法。例如：医生，律师，等。然

26. 而，这是职业名录中的一小部分。
因此，如果你考虑自学这条路，这里有一些很好的资源帮助你开始：
谷歌学术（Google Scholar）-轻松搜查同行在你感兴趣的主题上的文章，论文，著作。
维基百科（Wikipedia）-几乎有所有话题的信息和背景。
个人工商管理硕士（Personal MBA）-遵循可以教你一切你需要知道的关于成功做一桩生意的
哲学。
麻省理工学院开放式课件（MIT OpenCourseWare）
财务你的自由（Finance Your Freedom）-关于创建自己的职业道路、摒弃由 Clay Collins 创建
的主流方式的一个伟大的博客。
职业叛逆者（Career Renegade）-一本由 Jonathan Fields 写的，关于非常规的职业生涯和做自己
喜欢的事谋生的一本书。它也有一套实在的自我学习资源。
结束语
如果渴望成为化学家，人类学家，一名医生或律师，自学成才的道路可能不是你的最佳选择。
如果正梦想着技术、社会传媒、写作或者创业生涯，自学可能是你最好的选择。这一切都取决
于你想要的生活。很明显，你也可以两者结合起来。
最后，真正重要的是社会经验，还没有图书馆，教室或教师可以提供。
本文作者禅宗习惯贡献者 Jonathan Mead 的照亮心灵（Illuminated Mind）。若要了解更多关
于如何生活没有限制，抓紧订阅照明心灵（subscription to Illuminated Mind）。
-
如果你喜欢这篇文章，请登陆 del.icio.us 或 StumbleUpon。我非常感谢。 ： ）

27. Land Your Dream Job: Ditch School and Get a Library Card
Article by Zen Habits contributor Jonathan Mead; follow him on twitter.
What if you could do what you love for a living and make a great income at it? On top of that, what if
you didn’t have to go to school, spend hundreds of hours in a classroom and end up with a mountain of
debt when you finally earn your degree? Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
It’s true that the average college graduate earns more than someone without a bachelor’s degree.
However, a good chunk of the biggest innovators and multimillionaires in the world were either high
school or college drop outs. (See: Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, Johnny Depp, Bill Gates and Quinten
Tarantino.)
So how did they do it?
Is it really possible to make as good of a living being self-taught, as someone with an expensive
degree? Each path has their unique benefits and drawbacks, and I’m not trying to convince you one
way or another. I’m just pointing out that the playing field has changed a lot in the past decade, and it’s

28. more possible than ever to trail blaze your own path. The biggest point is to determine what works best
for you.
A lot of people don’t know this, but I never graduated from high school. At the beginning of my
sophomore year I just stopped having an interest in going to class. The work was too easy for me and I
felt I was being forced to learn about things that I had no interest in. I felt like I had no participation in
my own education. So I stopped going.
A few years later I ended up attending a community college. I never finished that either, but I did like it
a lot better than high school. I didn’t choose a set major; I just took whatever classes interested me. I
had no desire to actually obtain a degree, I only wanted to learn about the things that interested me.
Honestly, I think taking classes that you find interesting should be a greater focus in college, because
too much emphasis is being placed on partying and fulfilling course requirements. College is your
chance to study the things you care about. Who cares if they don’t apply to your major? I didn’t.
In case you’re wondering what kind of options are out there, here are a few career opportunities that
don’t require a college degree:
• Pro-blogger
• Author
• Life coach
• Actor
• Musician
• Software developer
• Sales
• Entrepreneur
• Chef
• Social media consultant
• Public speaker
• DJ
• Professional photographer
The possibilities are only limited to your imagination. Most of the skills needed for these pursuits can
be learned with a simple library card and self teaching. You can obviously study most of these career
paths in a formal setting as well, but it’s not necessarily required.
It’s my opinion that over the course of the next decade, we’ll see a lot more people on the scene of the
self starting career path. The amount of free information and self educations resources is exploding.
Places like Wikipedia and Personal MBA are changing the playing field. Not only that, but it’s
becoming easier to establish yourself as an expert and build your network than ever before. Things like
blogging and online content publishing platforms can allow you to demonstrate your expertise without
decades of climbing your way up the corporate ladder. Social networks like Twitter and LinkedIn can
allow you to cut out the middle man and build direct, mutually beneficial relationships with the people
you need to know.
Despite how romantic this all sounds, this path isn’t always bed of roses. There are some qualities you
need in order to be a self-made renegade:

29. • Be a self starter. This means that you have to be self motivated to learn and immerse yourself
in the knowledge of your field.
• You have to have passion. Your source for motivation will come from your passion. If you’re
not passionate about what you’re doing, it will be hard to keep going.
• Self-reliance. Since there’s no course to follow, you’ll have to pave your own way. You need a
certain amount of creativity and self-discipline to remain persistent.
• It helps to have a tribe. It will be much easier to stay true to your goals when you have support
from a group of like-minded people or from a mentor.
I’m not claiming that the traditional path doesn’t have any value. There are benefits and disadvantages
to each side. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of a college graduate vs. the self educated person.
College degree pros:
• Curriculum is laid out before you. You don’t have to do much work researching what you need
to learn about, you simply follow the course structure.
• Network is built for you. If you do things right in college, you can likely come out with an
already strong network of business / professional contacts.
• Credibility. A reputable degree proves you’ve thoroughly studied your profession.
College degree cons:
• Curriculum can be too rigid. If you’re learning the same things everyone else is learning in your
profession, how do you differentiate yourself?
• To put it bluntly, college is expensive.
• You are forced to learn things you don’t really care about. Course requirements for a degree
often require that you to take classes with hardly any relevance to your major.
Self educated pros:
• No strict curriculum allows you to be more flexible in building a knowledge base. If you’re
highly motivated, you’re likely to pick out things that a traditionally educated person would
miss.
• Has the possibility to take less time. If you’re smart, you can establish yourself in a profession
in much less time than by first getting a degree.
• You’re more in control of how long it will take to become established.
• Less expensive. A library card and access to Wikipedia are free.
Self education cons:
• Not easy if you’re not disciplined.
• You have to build your own network. Hanging out at library doesn’t give you much opportunity
to network with others in your field.
• You have to establish credibility. If you don’t have a degree to back you up, you’ll have to
demonstrate your competence through past successes. This is kind of irrelevant anyway,
because college degree or not, a client or company will want to see not just what you’ve studied
or your grades, but what you’ve actually accomplished.

30. • Some fields require a degree. There are some fields where being self-educated isn’t enough to
practice your profession legally. See: doctor, lawyer, etc. This is, however, a small fraction of
the career spectrum.
So if you’re thinking about the DIY path, here are some good resources to get you started:
• Google Scholar - Easily searched peer-reviewed papers, theses, books and articles on your
topic of interest.
• Wikipedia - Information and background on nearly every subject.
• Personal MBA - Follows the philosophy that you can teach yourself everything you need to
know about running a successful business.
• MIT OpenCourseWare
• Finance Your Freedom - A great blog on creating your own career path and ditching the
mainstream by Clay Collins.
• Career Renegade - An awesome book by Jonathan Fields on unconventional career paths and
doing what you love for a living. It also has a solid chapter on self teaching resources.
Closing thoughts
If you’re looking to become a chemist, anthropologist, a doctor or a lawyer, the self-educated path is
probably not the best choice for you. If you’re looking for a career in technology, social media, writing
or starting your own business, self teaching is probably your best bet. It all depends on what you want
out of life. You can obviously have a hybrid of both, too.
In the end, what really matters is real world experience, something no library, classroom or teacher
can offer.
This article was written by Zen Habits contributor Jonathan Mead of Illuminated Mind. To
learn more about how to live without limits, grab a subscription to Illuminated Mind.
—
If you liked this article, please share it on del.icio.us or StumbleUpon. I’d appreciate it. :)
对圣雄甘地的思考
897 个读者 MINSHENG @ yeeyan.com 3 天前 11:24 双语对照 原文 字体大小 小 中 大
简介
奥威尔闻名于世的当然是《动物庄园》和《1984》，但他的生命是富有传奇和多姿多彩的，他
留下的作品题材广泛，有不少臧否人物和作品的佳作，此文从他的独特角度分析了圣雄甘地，
评论多于事实，但全部是基于事实的思考。
对圣雄甘地的思考
奥威尔 1949

31. 对圣人的判断应该永远使用有罪推定，不过，对圣人的测验方法当然不能一成不变。就甘地的
情况来说，人倾向于提出的问题是：甘地在多大程度上受虚荣心的影响 － 受一个谦卑，赤
裸的老人坐在祈祷席上用纯粹的精神力量震撼帝国的自我意识的影响 － 还有多大程度上他因
进入政治妥协了自己的原则，而政治的本质就与强迫和欺诈不可分割？要给出明确的答案，就
不得不极详尽地研究他的行动和著作，因为他的一 生就是某种一举一动都意味深长的朝圣。不
过，这部截至于十九世纪二十年代的部分自传是对他有利的有力证词，更有利的是书中所写的
是他会称作是他生命中冥顽 不化的那一段，提醒人在圣人或亚圣背後是位非常精明能干的人，
如果他那么选择的话，他会是杰出成功的律师、管理者或者甚至商人。
我记得大约自传首次出现的时间从某个印刷低劣的印度报纸阅读开篇的章节。那些章节给我留
下了好印象，而那时甘地本 人却没有给我好印象。那些人们与他联系在一起的东西 － 家纺
布，“灵魂力量”和素食主义－没有吸引力，而且他的中世纪式的纲领显然在落后，饥饿且人口
过 多的国家没有可行性。另外明显的是英国人在利用他，或者自以为在利用他。严格地说，他
是位民族主义者，是一个敌人，但由于在每次危机中他都运用自己的力量 阻止暴力－这一点在
英国人看来意味着阻止任何有效的行动－他会被看作是“我们的人”。这一点有时候私下里不无
嘲讽地承认。印度的百万富翁们的态度相似，甘 地号召他们忏悔，自然地，他们偏向他胜过偏
向社会主义者和共产主义者，那些人一有机会会实际上拿走他们的金钱。这种算计长远来说有
多大的可靠性值得怀疑； 如甘地本人所说“骗人者最终欺篇的只是他们自己”；但无论如何，涉
及他的时候的那种几乎无例外的柔和部分来自觉得他有用的感觉。英国保守派变得对他愤怒是
在 1942 年，当时他实际上把他的非暴力转向了不同的征服者。
但即使那时我也看得出来，那些说起他来既有乐趣又有反对的英国官员也真诚地喜欢他，钦佩
他，虽然有点勉强。没有任何人用任何粗俗的方式提到过他腐败或者有野心，或者他做的任何
事是由恐惧或者敌意促成的。评价象甘地那樣的人，人们似乎直觉地运用高标准，以至于他的
一些美德几乎未引起注意。例如，即使从他的自传也能明白他的天生的人身勇气是相当突出的:
他死去的方式后来就说明了这点，因为一个多多少少把自己的命看得重要的公众人物都 会有更
充分地保护。再者，他好象没有那种发狂的多疑，这个正如 E.M Forster 在“印度之行”里正确地
说到，是不断发作的印度病，正象虚伪之于英国。尽管毫无疑问他的精明足以发现欺骗，他好
像只要可能就相信别的人的行为出发点是好 的、有一种可以接近的更好的天性。而且尽管他出
身贫穷的中层社会家庭，起始相当不顺并且很可能其貌不扬，他并没有受嫉妒或者卑劣感的煎
熬。当他第一次在南 非见到肤色歧视的最恶劣的形式时，似乎相当吃惊。即使他在与事实上的
有色战争战斗时，他也没有以肤色或地位取人。一位省督、一位棉花百万富翁、一位饿得半 死
的德拉威人苦力、一位英国列兵，都是应以差不多同样方式接近的平等的人。值得注意的是，
即使在最可能糟糕的境况，例如他在南非因捍卫印度社区而不受欢迎 时，他也不乏欧洲朋友。
自传以短篇在报纸连载，不是文学杰作，但因其大部材料的寻常却更为感人。值得一提的是，
甘地起 初抱得是印度青年学生的正常的雄心，只是逐渐采用了他的那些偏激的思想，在某些情
况下还相当不情愿。有趣的是，他曾经戴大礼帽、上跳舞课、学习法语和拉丁 语、登上埃菲尔
铁塔甚至尝试学小提琴，所有这些都是尽可能全面吸收欧洲文明的意思。他不是那种从童年开
始就以其非凡的虔诚而受选的圣人，也不是那种历尽奢 华后脱离红尘的圣人。他全部坦白了年
轻时的不轨行为，但事实上没多少要坦白的。书的卷首插图有甘地去世时的财物的照片。全套
东西大概 5 英镑可以买得到。而甘地的罪，至少是肉体的罪，如果全部堆积起来也会跟他的财
物那样不起眼。几支香烟、几口肉、童年时偷了女佣的几个安那（印度旧货币-译 者注）、两
次逛妓院（每次都“没干什么”跑掉了）、一次与普利茅斯的女房东差点出轨、一次大发脾气 -
这差不多就是全部了。几乎从童年起他就有一种深深的执着，一种道德的而不是宗教的态度，
但直至 30 岁左右之前，没有非常确定的方向感。他首次参与可以称为 公共生活的事情是通过
素食主义。在他的不平常的品质背後，总是能感觉到他的祖先们-那些坚实的中层社会商人。能
感到即使在他放弃了个人抱负之后，他一定一 直是一位办法多多、精力充沛的律师和一位头脑
冷静的政治组织者，小心仔细地压低费用，一位娴熟的各种委员会的管理者和一位不屈不挠的