A916上- 集體主義。China's Leadership。Russia Collective Leadership

      JCW 2010/08/22. NoDerives (ND) Creative commons Copyright. 

▽ External Link ▽ 

(1). My forum: https://city.udn.com/61613/forum      (3). It's fun: http://blog.udn.com/jctheoldman

(2). My blog: http://blog.udn.com/jcwang00/article   (4). Relay Story: http://blog.udn.com/JC00 

---------------------------Translate多語言翻譯器 ----------------------

集體領導是新近正在迅速發展的課題；它似乎尚待切實定義。

中國共產黨說中華人民共和國由中國共產黨一黨專政就是由中國共產黨集體領導治理中華人民共和國。共產黨內部實行集體領導是可能的；一黨專政是否就可以因為黨內實行集體領導而就算是集體領導治國呢？待考。

***   ***   ***   ***

我常批評維基百科的中文篇的內容多半很簡略，好像在敷衍搪塞似的。它的中文篇都是另寫的，我以為不如改為英譯中的譯作較實在。因為那種簡略不免有誤人之虞。口說無憑，以下就作一比較 (先中後英，錄全文)………

★(1). 集體主義、Collectivism-Wikipedia：

☆(1A). 中文篇、集體主義-維基百科 (34,546位元組,Hotmail)：集體主義，是主張個人從屬於社會，個人利益應當服從集團、民族、階級和國家利益的一種思想理論，是一種精神。

[目錄]：

1. 科學含義

集體主義，是主張個人從屬於社會，個人利益應當服從集團、民族、階級和國家利益的一種思想理論，是一種精神。它的最高標準是一切言論和行動符合人民群眾的集體利益，這是共產主義和無產階級世界觀的重要內容。其科學含義在於當個人利益和集體利益發生矛盾的時候要服從集體利益。一切行動和言論以集體為重個人為輕。

2. 提出

集體主義是史達林1934年7月，同英國作家威爾斯的談話中明確提出來的（《和英國作家赫伯特·喬治·威爾斯的對話》）。他說：「集體主義、社會主義並不否認個人利益，而是把個人利益和集體利益結合起來……」。他在談話中提出「個人和集體之間、個人利益和集體利益之間沒有而且也不應當有不可調和的對立。不應當有這種對立，是因為集體主義、社會主義並不否認個人利益，而是把個人利益和集體利益結合起來。社會主義是不能撇開個人利益的。只有社會主義社會才能給這種個人利益以最充分的滿足。此外，社會主義社會是保護個人利益唯一可靠的保證。」

3. 優點

集體主義的優越性在於它能使團體的前瞻性決策得以實現。

當集體內所有個人的利益受到侵害時候，理論上集體主義的優越性將無與倫比的體現出來。集體主義的優勢在災難面前尤其高大。集體主義並非社會主義所獨有。例如汶川地震時，湖南籍教師譚千秋犧牲自己生命以保護孩子的行為，發生游輪沉船事件應當讓老人、婦女、小孩先上救生艇(這未必符合集體利益)，以及日本為了集體而犧牲自己的武士思想。

共產主義也是一種建立於集體主義之上的經濟體制，所有生產資料由政府掌控，政府根據計畫安排每個人的工作和產量，分配所有人的生活所需，每個人為集體而工作，所以理論上沒有太過於不合理的貧富差距和由之衍伸出來的階級差距。[1]

4. 缺點

集體主義的優越性局限於其領導層和所有成員是否具有集體主義精神，是否具有無私的奉獻精神，是否具有全局觀念。

集體主義本身的含義主張個人要服從集體，集體利益重於或大於個人。如果集體內人人平等的服從集體，當然這個含義是科學而充滿大局觀的。然而形成集體，就會在集體內部形成領導層和非領導層，造成集體內部個人的不平等。集體主義在這種不平等狀況下，是一個空幻的幻想概念。

集體主義更容易成為「集體」的「老大哥」侵犯「集體」內的無權力人士個人利益的一種工具。事實上幾乎所有強調集體主義的「集體」都不同程度的在集體主義的大義下侵犯甚至剝奪集體內個體的一切可以被侵犯的利益。集體主義的局限性在災難面前尤其明顯例如在大規模水災時，集體的領導人會充分利用集體賦予的權力，率領家人使用優先的交通工具轉移財產和家人到安全的地區，所以負責分配資源和決定生產計畫的人本身就是一種階級。

若僅僅是不能完全消滅階級的問題，集體主義也許還能在不完美狀態下有效運作，然而最大問題是在於人的自私性，沒有人性是像蜜蜂中的工蜂一樣只為了團體而無止盡獻出自己的腦力或體力生產力，卻只和別人一樣享受同等的資源，所以產生「向下對齊」的效應，大家儘量偷懶與減少付出以不被懲罰為原則，反正分配資源時懶與勤的人都是拿差不多的份量，尤其是難以量化的無形創意或研究付出根本不會得到增加資源的獎勵反饋，更無人樂於從事。在人性自私本質下最後集體主義造成的並不是集體進步，而是集體的淪落最終走向崩解。[2]

5. 參考

^ 馬克思主義新解.1998.p51 許添年譯

^ 馬克思主義新解.1998.p248 許添年譯

6. 相關

共產

國有

人性本善

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

☆(1B). 英文篇、Collectivism-Wikipedia (72,738位元組, Hotmail)：For the anarchist political philosophy, see Collectivist anarchism(集産主義的無政府主義). For the magazine, see Collectivism (magazine).

Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists focus on community(團體) and society (社會), and seek to give priority to group rights over individual rights.

The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism(整體論) or organicism(有機體主義), the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. This form of collectivism is often referred to as corporatism(社團主義). Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. Collectivism is widely seen as being opposed to individualism(個人主義). Notably these views are sometimes combined in systems.

[Contents]：

* 1 Politics：Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is considered an example of collectivist political philosophy, which maintains that human society is organized along the lines of an implicit contract between members of society, and that the terms of this contract (e.g. the powers of government, the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens, etc.) are rightfully decided by the "general will" - that is, the will of the people. The people are represented by the government.

According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy "collectivism" refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."

However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There are variants of anarchism, such as collectivist anarchism and anarchist communism, which are collectivist. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to collective property, but they advocate the ownership of this collective property by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than a government. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods. Thus, Bakunin's "Collectivist Anarchism," not withstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.

Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of non-state collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well. According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, "And as long as dwelling-houses, fields, and factories belong to isolated owners, men will have to pay them, in one way or another, for being allowed to work in the fields or factories, or for living in the houses. The owners will accept to be paid by the workers in gold, in paper-money, or in cheques exchangeable for all sorts of commodities. But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?"

* 2 Economics：Generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by the group and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Collectivists can apply this principle to the means of production as well as services, while others argue that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of the state, wish to place all goods under communal access without a state or manager. They argue that since, according to them, the value of labor cannot truly be measured, individuals should be free to produce and consume to their own self-determined needs. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, where the principles of anarcho-communism were first laid out, it was stated:

The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

Anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin believed that a lack of collectivization of goods would be a dis-service to individuals.

* 3 Typology：Collectivism can be typified as "horizontal collectivism", wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or "vertical collectivism", wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice.[11] Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.[12] Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one's own skills and talents,

equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.[13]

Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .

 Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.[12] Harry Triandis and Michele Gelfand argue that horizontal collectivist societies are those based on communal living, such as Israeli kibbutzim, while vertical collectivist societies are for example Stalinist and fascist countries or traditional communities with strong patriarchal leaders; vertical collectivism also correlates with Right-wing Authoritarianism

* 4 Collectivist societies：There are many examples of societies around the world which have characterized themselves or have been characterized by outsiders as "collectivist".

On the one hand, there are the socialist governments, which have often nationalized most economic sectors, agriculture in particular, with the exception of Cuba. If these states practice agricultural collectivism, they are often called Communist states. On the other hand, there are Israeli kibbutzim (voluntary communes where people live and farm together without private ownership), the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (non-hierarchical income-sharing intentional communities), and communities such as the Freetown Christiania in Denmark (a small anarchist political experiment centered around an abandoned military installation in Copenhagen; Christiania has laws abolishing private property).

Many political movements such as fascism, all other forms of totalitarianism, and certain forms of nationalism and patriotism can be considered collectivist as well, as they emphasize the role of the nation or the state over individuals. However, Fascism and Nazism have Social Darwinism, which is anti-collectivist and leans toward individualism, as core tenants as well as collective nationalism.[15]

Democracy, with its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, has been characterized by some as a form of (political) collectivism.

* 5 Criticism：There are two main objections to collectivism, which come from the ideas of liberal individualism. One is that collectivism stifles individuality and diversity by insisting upon a common social identity, such as nationalism, racialism, or some other group focus. The other is that collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals.[16]

Criticism of collectivism comes from individualists, such as classical liberals, libertarians, individualist anarchists, and Objectivists. Perhaps the most notable modern criticism of collectivism is the one put forward by Friedrich Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944 and translated into approximately 20 languages.

Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism, was a particularly vocal opponent who believed the philosophy of collectivism led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good."[17] (The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in Auguste Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.").[18]

Anti-collectivists often argue that all authoritarian and totalitarian societies are collectivist in nature. George Orwell, an advocate of democratic socialism,[19] believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals and oppression.

It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.[20]

Yet in the subsequent sentence he also warns:

... that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state.[20]

Marxists criticize this use of the term "collectivism," on the grounds that all societies are based on class interests and therefore all societies could be considered "collectivist." Even the liberal ideal of the free individual is seen from a Marxist perspective as a smokescreen for the collective interests of the capitalist class.[citation needed] Social anarchists argue that "individualism" is a front for the interests of the upper class. As anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:

'rugged individualism'... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality. ... [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.' ... Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretenses the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion.[21]

Ludwig von Mises wrote:

On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day of its own decisive victory and the final overthrow and extermination of all other ideologies and their supporters. ... As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy.

* 6 See also：Collective guilt：Collective identity；Collective responsibility；Communalism；Communism；Communitarianism；Europeanism；Groupthink；Primitive communism；Social solidarity；Socialism；Tribalism

* 7 References(略)

* 8 External links (無)

***   ***   ***   ***

這一篇說的是當年蘇聯赫魯雪夫的事………

蘇聯算是集體領導治國的嗎？

★(2). www.geographic.org、Russia Collective Leadership and the Rise of Khrushchev - The end of the Stalin era brought immediate liberalization in several aspects of Soviet life. Party leader Nikita S. Khrushchev denounced Stalin's tyrannical reign in 1956, signaling a sharp break with the past. Because Khrushchev lacked the all-encompassing power of Stalin, his time in office was marked by continuous maneuvering against political enemies much more real than Stalin's had been. Party control of cultural activity became much less restrictive with the onset of the first "thaw" in the mid-1950s. Khrushchev attempted reforms in both domestic and foreign policy, with mixed results. During his tenure (1953-64), world politics became much more complex as the insecurities of the Cold War persisted; Khrushchev ultimately was undone by a combination of failed policy innovations in agriculture, party politics, and industry.

==== 待續 ====