论文部分内容阅读
[1] 为了论证君主的权威，人们就创造了“君权神授”的理论。不过为了社会安定，免得江山被倾覆，就有“屈君申天”之说，但终无“民权”。而所谓“民为贵”也无非是说“老百姓很重要”，如果没有老百姓的“劳力”，那么“治人”的人就无法“食于人”了。
[2] 因此，我们虽然可以说孟子的“民为贵”的思想在当时社会条件下是有意义的，甚至是难能可贵的，但它确实不是我们今天所要求的“民权”。中国的封建专制社会是一种以宗法关系为纽带的等级制社会，天子高高在上，一级一级的官僚统治着人民。
[3] 天子和各级官吏与老百姓的关系不仅是政治的统治与服从的关系，而且有着一种宗法的父母与子女的亲情关系，所以在过去的社会里把各级官吏都称为“父母官”，而“君主”更是天下人的父母了。这样就造成了希望“君主”是“圣明天子”，各级官吏都是“青天大老爷”的幻想。
[4] 其实，老百姓只能希望得到“圣明天子”和“青天大老爷”的恩赐，最好也不过得到“当官要为民做主”的结果。说到底，中国封建社会中的所谓“民本”思想是“治民”而不是“民治”。
[5] 在现代民主政治里，“民治”或“民主”思想应该是人民做“主”，怎么能由“官”做“主”呢？ 封建时期的中国显然是把两者关系颠倒了。因此，现代民主思想不仅不是中国古已有之的 “民本”思想的自然发展，而是对“民本”思想的否定。
[1] To authorize emperors’ power， the “theory of the divine right of emperors” was created. Sometimes， for the sake of stabilizing society and avoiding its subversion， “confining emperors’ power to the limits of Heaven” was advocated， but never were civil rights mentioned. The true meaning of the so-called “people-oriented thought” was to say the common people are important only in the sense of being the main labors， since without them the rulers had nothing to survive.
[2] Mencius’s concept of people-orientation might have some progressive and positive meanings under the social conditions of the time， but it definitely has nothing to do with today’s “civil rights”. We have to realize that the feudal Chinese system was a society bound by patriarchal relations， with the emperor on top of the hierarchical structure and officials at different levels ruling the people.
[3] In ancient China， the relations between the emperor， officials and the common people were not only political （ruler-ruled）， but also patriarchal， in the way officials at different levels were honored as “parental officials”， and the emperors were parents of the world. In this way， an illusion was created in the hope of all kings ought to be wise rulers and all officials the managers with integrity.
[4] In that way “sage-emperors” and “clean officials” were actually expected， with the best results of wise rulers ruling those ruled. All in all， in feudal Chinese society， it was rule of the people but not rule by the people.
[5] In a modern democracy， however， it should be the people， rather than officials， who determine the fate of a society， how can it be otherwise？ This relationship was nevertheless reversed in ancient China， where the “people-oriented thought”， in and of itself， bore no relationship whatsoever to the concept of modern democracy， and the opposite might also be true.
[2] 因此，我们虽然可以说孟子的“民为贵”的思想在当时社会条件下是有意义的，甚至是难能可贵的，但它确实不是我们今天所要求的“民权”。中国的封建专制社会是一种以宗法关系为纽带的等级制社会，天子高高在上，一级一级的官僚统治着人民。
[3] 天子和各级官吏与老百姓的关系不仅是政治的统治与服从的关系，而且有着一种宗法的父母与子女的亲情关系，所以在过去的社会里把各级官吏都称为“父母官”，而“君主”更是天下人的父母了。这样就造成了希望“君主”是“圣明天子”，各级官吏都是“青天大老爷”的幻想。
[4] 其实，老百姓只能希望得到“圣明天子”和“青天大老爷”的恩赐，最好也不过得到“当官要为民做主”的结果。说到底，中国封建社会中的所谓“民本”思想是“治民”而不是“民治”。
[5] 在现代民主政治里，“民治”或“民主”思想应该是人民做“主”，怎么能由“官”做“主”呢？ 封建时期的中国显然是把两者关系颠倒了。因此，现代民主思想不仅不是中国古已有之的 “民本”思想的自然发展，而是对“民本”思想的否定。
[1] To authorize emperors’ power， the “theory of the divine right of emperors” was created. Sometimes， for the sake of stabilizing society and avoiding its subversion， “confining emperors’ power to the limits of Heaven” was advocated， but never were civil rights mentioned. The true meaning of the so-called “people-oriented thought” was to say the common people are important only in the sense of being the main labors， since without them the rulers had nothing to survive.
[2] Mencius’s concept of people-orientation might have some progressive and positive meanings under the social conditions of the time， but it definitely has nothing to do with today’s “civil rights”. We have to realize that the feudal Chinese system was a society bound by patriarchal relations， with the emperor on top of the hierarchical structure and officials at different levels ruling the people.
[3] In ancient China， the relations between the emperor， officials and the common people were not only political （ruler-ruled）， but also patriarchal， in the way officials at different levels were honored as “parental officials”， and the emperors were parents of the world. In this way， an illusion was created in the hope of all kings ought to be wise rulers and all officials the managers with integrity.
[4] In that way “sage-emperors” and “clean officials” were actually expected， with the best results of wise rulers ruling those ruled. All in all， in feudal Chinese society， it was rule of the people but not rule by the people.
[5] In a modern democracy， however， it should be the people， rather than officials， who determine the fate of a society， how can it be otherwise？ This relationship was nevertheless reversed in ancient China， where the “people-oriented thought”， in and of itself， bore no relationship whatsoever to the concept of modern democracy， and the opposite might also be true.