本书首先介绍了一个关于关系的八维度的研究，这是本书的核心。接下来详细讨论关系这种现象在心理学与社会学中是如何被对待的。书中提出了“渴往的男人（女人）”模型，与弗洛伊德的“内疚的人”模型形成对比。作者在随后章节中逐一介绍每一个维度，每一章都整合了一些相关的研究与理论，包括这一维度在人们的生活中是如何被表达出来的。在本书结尾，作者探索了男女在建立关系途径方面的差异，并用关于爱的整合性章节来结束全书。
在本书中，朱瑟林·乔塞尔森博士不仅就如何改善婚姻关系或其他浪漫依恋给出了有益的建议，还提出了一个在情感上对与他人建立紧密联系非常重要的八维度关系模型：、抱持、依恋、激情体验、坦诚相见的确认、理想化与认同、共同性与共鸣、嵌入、照料。
本书特色
非常重视人际之间相互的联系与共生共存。
对女性的心理世界进行了非常细腻的探索、研究和分析。
书中所有的案例都来自实际生活，作者及其学生对67个经历不同、生活各异的人进行了现场访谈。一些受访者在深度访谈中倾诉出很多他们自己从未对他人讲述或难以对他人讲述的往事与情感，但却令人难以置信地很自然地都对作者“坦白”了。
在本书中，朱瑟林·乔塞尔森博士不仅就如何改善婚姻关系或其他浪漫依恋给出了有益的建议，还提出了一个在情感上对与他人建立紧密联系非常重要的八维度关系模型：、抱持、依恋、激情体验、坦诚相见的确认、理想化与认同、共同性与共鸣、嵌入、照料。
本书特色
非常重视人际之间相互的联系与共生共存。
对女性的心理世界进行了非常细腻的探索、研究和分析。
书中所有的案例都来自实际生活，作者及其学生对67个经历不同、生活各异的人进行了现场访谈。一些受访者在深度访谈中倾诉出很多他们自己从未对他人讲述或难以对他人讲述的往事与情感，但却令人难以置信地很自然地都对作者“坦白”了。
一部以全新的视角剖析当下生活的令人震撼之作。《纽约时报》称："对于揭示掩藏在这个时代背后的社会真相而言，《小趋势》无疑是一部完美的圣经。"与托夫勒的《未来的冲击》和奈斯比特的《大趋势》相比，《小趋势》是新世纪商业社会预言中最摩登的话题。
三合会、黑手党、卡巴拉教、共济会、骷髅会、光明会、郇山隐修会、圣殿骑士团、光明会、共济会、德鲁伊教、诺斯替教、玫瑰十字会……从中东炙热的河道流浪而来，后到加拿大魁北克乡村一座与世隔绝的农舍，再到美国贝弗利山人头攒动的精品小店，约翰•劳伦斯•雷诺兹是位善讲故事的大师级作家，并多次获得过奖项，他审视了历史上最为人知的秘密团体，探究它们的来龙去脉和活动过程，揭示了几百年来一直被人们传承并曲解的秘密。
本书从部落偶像、身体、名字、语言、宗教、民族、历史起源、新多元主义8种角度，探讨群体认同在政治变迁压力下的自我塑造，对于民族主义方兴未艾，终将改变世界的政治面貌，率先发出警讯。作者返回源头，从人性的基本面，考察群体认同的各种因素，如何以不同的方式、在不同的环境，纠缠扭结，以致我们以各自的形态变成今天这副模样。
一个现代化的国家和社会，建立在人民对法治的信念上，暴戾之气只是“人治”社会才有的产物。法院好象严父，（注意，不是法官像严父，已经有警察先生当我们小民的爹啦，法官先生再出来当爹，怎么受得了乎？）小民内心有一种信念，那就是，人世间有最高的天秤，不必诉诸诅咒、神仙、革命、贿赂，就可以得到公正的裁判。想当年德皇菲特列大帝，在波茨坦宫后面，修建一个御花园，就在东南角上，有一个既破又烂的磨房在焉，如果不把它除掉，不但御花园成不了四四方方的，而且和金碧辉煌的亭台楼阁一对比，简直成何体统。
作者： CCTV《对话》栏目组
医疗，社保，教育，就业，新农村，绿色GDP，知识产权海外角力；什么是人民群众最关心、最直接、最现实的利益问题？这里的《对话》节目，一个个为您打开了这些问号。《对话》坚持与时俱进，努力成为对社会责任有所承担、对民族命运有所担当的精神殿堂。我们不能不把这些难忘的回忆镌刻在这本书里，因为我们始终倔强地相信：对话，对变化中的中国来说，她就是一部心灵的史诗。
医疗，社保，教育，就业，新农村，绿色GDP，知识产权海外角力；什么是人民群众最关心、最直接、最现实的利益问题？这里的《对话》节目，一个个为您打开了这些问号。《对话》坚持与时俱进，努力成为对社会责任有所承担、对民族命运有所担当的精神殿堂。我们不能不把这些难忘的回忆镌刻在这本书里，因为我们始终倔强地相信：对话，对变化中的中国来说，她就是一部心灵的史诗。
帮助穷人仅仅是送点口粮已远远不够，要实现可持续发展，更需要精神食粮，并且是激发他们转变观念的精神食粮。穷人天生一副好胃口，从不惧怕任何辛辣的食物。因而这本直面现实、一针见血、敲醒穷人的书，能得到如此广泛的喜爱和包容，这也是时代的进步……
本书分析了社会财富的创造和分配方式，指出贫富不均是一种客观现实，是一种必然的社会历史现象。在此基础上，从社会环境和个人素质等方面入手，指出了穷人的艰难处境，分析了穷人为什么穷的原因，让穷人认清自己的现状，找到摆脱命运的途径。本书还分析了穷人、富人各自的优势和烦恼，让穷人看到希望，为富人敲响警钟。看起来像白领的中产阶级，其实不是并不是真正意义上的富人，穷人缺的不是钱、房、车，而是缺富人的思维。
二十世纪中国最有影响力的处世学：厚黑学
本书以“台北图书馆”的镇馆精品《厚黑学》为底本，首次将李宗吾的完整手稿整理出版，从字里行间可以真正感悟李宗吾原版《厚黑学》的精髓。本书增加了林语堂、柏杨、南怀谨所写的序言，查阅了大量三四十年代的报刊，收录了李宗吾先生有关“厚黑学”的全部经典文章，使人们不但可以了解“厚黑学”的精髓，还可以看到李宗吾先生运用他所创立的学说对社会、政治问题所进行的深刻精辟的论述。本书将一部分文言文译成了现代文，并对一些典故加以注释，让读者在阅读中更加深入、全面地理解这一在海内外影响深远的学说。
本书以“台北图书馆”的镇馆精品《厚黑学》为底本，首次将李宗吾的完整手稿整理出版，从字里行间可以真正感悟李宗吾原版《厚黑学》的精髓。本书增加了林语堂、柏杨、南怀谨所写的序言，查阅了大量三四十年代的报刊，收录了李宗吾先生有关“厚黑学”的全部经典文章，使人们不但可以了解“厚黑学”的精髓，还可以看到李宗吾先生运用他所创立的学说对社会、政治问题所进行的深刻精辟的论述。本书将一部分文言文译成了现代文，并对一些典故加以注释，让读者在阅读中更加深入、全面地理解这一在海内外影响深远的学说。
利用幽默的方法来教授组织学习的理论，大卫·哈彻斯热衷于研究组织中各种新的可能性及组织中的人，他的著作和演讲内容主要在组织学习和组织变革等领域。
本书通过阅读历史、点评史料阐析为官之道，一般官场类书都从黑厚之学看待官场，总结出众多对潜规则，给为官者鉴，但是本书反其道而行之，认为做官之人一定要提高自己的修养，提升领导的境界，才能成为一个好官。当然，要想成为一个好官并不容易，在官场中混也非易事，本书从“知书知理”、“养生养性”、“位尊位卑”、“识人识世”、“戒奢戒贪”、“官箴官德”几个方面展开，作者深厚的历史功底在点评中表现得淋漓尽致
1847年6月，共产主义者同盟第1次代表大会上，讨论了恩格斯草拟的准备作为同盟纲领的《共产主义信条草案》，决定进一步讨论修改。同年9月，同盟领导人K.沙佩尔、H.鲍威尔和J.莫尔提出的题为《共产主义问答》的草案，带有空想社会主义的色彩。稍后，“真正的社会主义者”M.赫斯在巴黎提出一个修正前者的草案。在一次巴黎区部委员会会议上，恩格斯对这个草案作了尖锐批评。会议委托恩格斯拟出新草案。恩格斯写了作为纲领初稿的《共产主义原理》。1847年11月举行的共产主义者同盟第2次代表大会，经过激烈辩论接受马克思和恩格斯的观点，委托他们起草一个周详的理论和实践的党纲。马克思、恩格斯在伦敦和布鲁塞尔就如何起草宣言交换意见，取得一致认识，并研究了宣言的整个内容和结构，由马克思执笔写成。中央委员会接到《宣言》手稿后即付印出版。 1848年2月,《宣言》在伦敦第 1次以单行本问世。中国最早的《共产党宣言》中译本发现于山东省广饶县大王镇，现存于东营市历史博物馆（广饶县）。
《共产党宣言》-核心内容
《共产党宣言》（又被译为《共产主义宣言》）是卡尔·马克思和弗里德里希·恩格斯为共产主义者同盟起草的纲领，国际共产主义运动第一个纲领性文献，马克思主义诞生的重要标志。 1847 年11月共产主义者同盟第二次代表大会委托马克思和恩格斯起草一个周详的理论和实践的党纲。马克思 、恩格斯取得一致认识，并研究了宣言的整个内容和结构，由马克思执笔写成 。1848年2月，《宣言》在伦敦第一次以单行本问世。
《宣言》第一次全面系统地阐述了科学社会主义理论，指出共产主义运动已成为不可抗拒的历史潮流。全文包括简短的引论、资产者和无产者、无产者和共产党人、社会主义的和共产主义的文献、共产党人对各种反对党派的态度等几个部分。构成《宣言》核心的基本原理是：每一历史时代主要的生产方式与交换方式以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史所赖以确立的基础，并且只有从这一基础出发，历史才能得到说明。从原始社会解体以来人类社会的全部历史都是阶级斗争的历史；这个历史包括一系列发展阶段，现在已经达到这样一个阶段，即无产阶级如果不同时使整个社会摆脱任何剥削、压迫以及阶级划分和阶级斗争，就不能使自己从资产阶级的剥削统治下解放出来。
《宣言》运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义分析生产力与生产关系、基础与上层建筑的矛盾，分析阶级和阶级斗争，特别是资本主义社会阶级斗争的产生、发展过程，论证资本主义必然灭亡和社会主义必然胜利的客观规律，作为资本主义掘墓人的无产阶级肩负的世界历史使命。《宣言》公开宣布必须用革命的暴力推翻资产阶级的统治，建立无产阶级的“政治统治”，表述了以无产阶级专政代替资产阶级专政的思想。《宣言》还指出无产阶级在夺取政权后，必须在大力发展生产力的基础上,逐步地进行巨大的社会改造,进而达到消灭阶级对立和阶级本身的存在条件。《宣言》批判当时各种反动的社会主义思潮，对“空想的批判的社会主义”作了科学的分析和评价。
《宣言》阐述作为无产阶级先进队伍的共产党的性质、特点和斗争策略,指出为党的最近目的而奋斗与争取实现共产主义终极目的之间的联系。《宣言》最后庄严宣告：“无产者在这个革命中失去的只是锁链。他们获得的将是整个世界。”并发出国际主义的战斗号召：“全世界无产者，联合起来 !”
《共产党宣言》-实践和影响
《宣言》的基本原理是客观规律的科学总结。马克思、恩格斯指出：“这些基本原理的实际运用，正如《宣言》中所说的，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移。”他们非常重视在实践中检验自己的理论，研究新的历史经验。及时总结巴黎公社(1792～1794)的经验并把它作为对《宣言》的补充和修改就是一个范例。全世界无产阶级一直把《宣言》作为争取解放的思想武器。
《宣言》在20世纪初开始传入中国。自1906年起一些报刊上陆续出现《宣言》的某些内容介绍和片断译文。1920年出版陈望道翻译的《共产党宣言》，是《宣言》在中国最早的全文译本。
《共产党宣言》-历史背景
《共产党宣言》由马克思和恩格斯、写于1847年12月至1848年1月，发表于1848年2月。
《宣言》是无产阶级反对资产阶级的斗争日益尖锐条件下产生的。
《宣言》是马克思、恩格斯进行理论研究和理论斗争争取得巨大成效的情况下产生的。
《宣言》是马克思和恩格斯为建立无产阶级政党而斗争的实践中产生的。
《共产党宣言》-内容提要
1848年2月24日，马克思和恩格斯合著的《共产党宣言》在伦敦第一次出版。这个宣言是共产主义者同盟第二次代表大会委托马克思、恩格斯起草的同盟纲领。
《共产党宣言》包括引言和正文四章。1872年—1893年，马克思和恩格斯先后为《宣言》的德文、俄文、英文、波兰文、意大利文版撰写了七篇序言。七篇序言简要说明了《宣言》的基本思想及其在国际共产主义运动中的历史地位，指明《宣言》的理论原理是历史唯物主义，并根据无产阶级革命的经验和教训，对《宣言》作了补充和修改。
引言部分说明写作《宣言》的背景和目的。
“资产者和无产者”这一章，马克思，恩格斯运用历史唯物主义的基本观点，分析了资产阶级和无产阶级的产生，发展及其相互斗争的过程，揭示了资本主义必然灭亡和社会主义必然胜利的客观规律，阐明了无产阶级的历史使命，论述了马克思主义的阶级斗争学说。
阶级斗争是推动阶级社会发展的直接动力（第1--5段）。
考察资产阶级的产生和发展过程，揭示资本主义必然灭亡的规律（第6-28段）。
无产阶级的产生和发展及其历史使命（第29--54段）。
“无产者和共产党人”这一章，马克思、恩格斯阐明了共产党的性质、特点、目的和任务，以及共产党的理论和基本纲领，批判了资产阶级攻击共产主义的各种谬论，阐述了无产阶级专政的基本思想和通向共产主义的必由之路。
共产党的性质、特点和基本纲领（第1--14段）。
批驳资产阶级攻击共产主义的各种谬论（第15--68段）。
无产阶级专政的基本思想和通向共产主义的必由之路（第69--86段）。
“社会主义和共产主义的文献”这章，分析和批判了当时的各种假社会主义和空想社会主义，指出它们代表各自的阶级利益，但是打着社会主义的旗号进行活动，分析了各种假社会主义流派产生的社会历史条件，并揭露了它们的阶级实质。
反动的社会主义（第1--34段）。
保守的或资产阶级的社会主义（第35--42段）。
批判的空想的社会主义和共产主义（第43--56段）。
《共产党宣言》《共产党宣言》
“共产党人对各种反对党派的态度”这一章，主要是从共产党人对带各种反对党派的态度上，阐述了共产党人革命斗争的思想策略。
共产党人政治斗争策略的基本原则（第1--4段）。
共产党人在德国的斗争策略（第5--7段）。
共产党人运用斗争策略的目的（第8--12段）。
《宣言》是科学共产主义的第一个纲领性文献，它标志着马克思主义的诞生。《宣言》刚刚发表，就迎来了欧洲1848年的革命风暴。
《宣言》完整、系统而严密地阐述了马克思主义的主要思想；阐述了马克思主义的世界观，特别是它的阶级斗争学说；揭示了资本主义社会的内在矛盾和发展规律，论证了资本主义灭亡和社会主义胜利的必然性。《宣言》论述了无产阶级作为资本主义掘墓人的伟大历史使命；阐述了马克思主义关于无产阶级专政的思想；阐明了共产主义革命不仅要同传统的所有制关系实行最彻底的决裂，而且要同传统观念实行最彻底的决裂；阐明了共产党的性质和任务。这部著作从诞生起就鼓舞和推动着全世界无产阶级争取解放斗争，成为无产阶级最锐利的战斗武器。恩格斯指出：它是全部社会主义文献中传播最广和最具国际性的著作，是世界各国千百万工人共同的纲领。
《宣言》结束时强调：共产党人向全世界宣布，用暴力革命推翻全部现成的社会制度实现共产主义。让一切反动阶级在共产主义革命的面前发抖！无产阶级革命中失去的只是锁链，它将获得整个世界。《宣言》用响云霄的最强音，发出无产阶级国际主义的伟大号召：全世界无产者，联合起来！
《共产党宣言》-1872年德文版序言
共产主义者同盟这个在当时条件下自然只能是秘密团体的国际工人组织，1847年11 月在伦敦代表大会上委托我们两人起草一个准备公布的周祥的理论和实践的党纲。结果就产生了这个《宣言》，《宣言》原稿在二月革命前几星期寄到伦敦付印。《宣言》最初用德文出版，后来又用德文在德国、英国和美国至少翻印过十二次。第一个英译本是由艾琳·麦克法林女士翻译的，于1850年在伦敦《红色共和党人》杂志上发表，后来在1871年至少又有三种不同的英译本在美国出版。法译本于1848年六月起义前不久第一次在巴黎印行，最近又在纽约《社会主义者报》上登载；现在又有人在准备新译本。波兰文译本在德国本初版问世后不久就在伦敦出现。俄译本是于六十年代在日内瓦出版的。丹麦文译本也是在原书问世后不久就出版了。
不管最近二十五年来的情况发生了多大变化，这个《宣言》中所发挥的一般基本原理整个说来直到现在还是完全正确的。个别地方本来可已作某些修改。这些原理的实际运用，正如《宣言》中所说的，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移，所以第二章末尾提出的那些革命措施并没有什么特殊的意义。现在这一段在许多方面都应该有不同的写法了。由于最近二十五年来大工业已有很大发展而工人阶级的政党组织也跟着发展起来，由于首先有了二月革命的实际经验而后来尤其是有了无产阶级第一次掌握政权达两月之久的巴黎公社的实际经验，所以这个纲领现在有些地方已经过时了。特别是公社已经证明：“工人阶级不能简单地掌握现成的国家机器，并运用它来达到自己的目的。”（见《法兰西内战。国际工人协会总委员会宣言》德文版第十九页，那里把这个思想发挥得更加完备。）其次，很明显，对于社会主义文献所做的批判在今天看来是不完全的，因为这一批判只包括到1847年为止；同样也很明显，关于共产党人对各种反对党派的态度问题所提出的意见（第四章）虽然大体上至今还是正确的，但是由于政治形式已经完全改变，而当时所列举的那些党派大部分已被历史的发展进程所彻底扫除，所以这些意见在实践方面毕竟是过时了。
但是《宣言》是一个历史文件，我们已没有权力来加以修改。下次再版时也许能加上一篇包括从1847年到现在这段时期的导言。这次再版太仓卒了，以致我们竟来不及做这件工作。
卡尔·马克思 弗里德里希·恩格斯 1872年6月24日于伦敦
《共产党宣言》-1883年德文版序言
本版序言不幸只能由我一个人署名了。马克思这位比其他任何人都更应受到欧美整个工人阶级感谢的人物，已经长眠于海格特公墓，他的墓上已经初次长出了青草。在他逝世以后，就更谈不上对《宣言》作什么修改或补充了。因此，我认为更有必要在这里再一次明确地申述下面这一点。
贯穿《宣言》的基本思想：每一历史时代的经济生产以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史的基础；因此(从原始土地公有制解体以来)全部历史都是阶级斗争的历史，即社会发展各个阶段上被剥削阶级和剥削阶级之间、被统治阶级和统治阶级之间斗争的历史；而这个斗争现在已经达到这样一个阶段，即被剥削被压迫的阶级(无产阶级)，如果不同时使整个社会永远摆脱剥削、压迫和阶级斗争，就不再能使自己从剥削它压迫它的那个阶级(资产阶级)下解放出来，—— 这个基本思想完全是属于马克思一个人的。
这一点我已经屡次说过，但正是现在必须在《宣言》本身的前面也写明这一点。
弗· 恩格斯 1883年6月28日于伦敦
《共产党宣言》-中国第一本中译本《共产党宣言》
简介
在东营市广饶县收藏着1920年8月出版的我国最早的《共产党宣言》中文译本，这看似平常的一本书，却被称为“国宝”，它的保存与流传，经历了世纪的风风雨雨。
《共产党宣言》节译发表
1919年4月6日，《每周评论》第十六号在 “名著”栏内刊载《共产党宣言》(节译)第二章《无产者与共产党人》后面属于纲领的一段，并在按语中指出：“这个宣言是马克思和恩格斯最先最重大的意见。......其要旨在主张阶段战争，要求各地的劳工联合。......是表示新时代的文书。”
《每周评论》第十六号还发表了陈独秀的短文《纲常名教》，文章说：“欧洲各国社会主义的学说，已经大大流行了，俄、德和匈牙利，并且成了共产党的世界，这种风气，恐怕马上就要来到东方。”
第一本中译本《共产党宣言》的发现及意义
广饶藏本《共产党宣言》(存于东营市历史博物馆)广饶藏本《共产党宣言》(存于东营市历史博物馆)
1975年，《共产党宣言》中文译本在广饶的发现，可谓石破天惊，它提出了新的情况并作出了新的说明。广饶藏本，系平装本，长18厘米，宽12 厘米，比现在的32开本略小一点。书面印有水红色马克思半身像，上端从右至左模印着“社会主义研究小丛书第一种”，上署“马格斯、安格尔斯合著”、“陈望道译”。全文用5号铅字竖排，计56页。封底印有“一千九百二十年八月出版”、“定价大洋一角”字样，印刷及发行者是“社会主义研究社”。经调查和研究得出：第一，广饶藏本纠正了过去在上海藏本报道中的不确之处。广饶藏本的封面标题是“共党产宣言”，而不是“共产党宣言”。《党史资料丛刊》所刊载的上海8 月藏本的介绍文章和照片，都标明上海本的封面标题是“共党产宣言”。经过对照，广饶本和上海本完全是一个版本。第二，广饶本打破了“孤本”和“孤证”的局面。过去，认为《共产党宣言》全译本在我国出版是1920年8月说，只有上海档案馆一本实物作证，被称为“孤本”、“孤证”。有了广饶藏本（另上海图书馆尚有同本），再加上北京图书馆保存的残本，至少是有了4本8月的版本。现在可以证明，《共产党宣言》全译本是1920年8月出版的。第三，进一步弄清了出版情况。从广饶藏本及上海档案馆、上海图书馆的收藏本封面标题都是“共党产宣言”这一情况来看，8月版本封面标题之误并非发生在个别印本之上。这个封面标题错误，显然是因排印或校对疏忽所造成的，而非什么译法或其他原因所造成的。因为，扉页上竖排的标题清楚地印着“共产党宣言”五个大字。可以断定，正是因为发生和发现了这一版封面标题的行文词序错误，又加新书售罄，故在9月间进行“再版”时纠正了封面标题错误。从现有已发现的各版本分析，1920年8月版本，就是最早的版本。而且8月版本封底分明印着“出版”，9月版本印着“再版”，中央档案馆收藏的1924年6月版本印着“第三版”字样，也足可说明。假定8月版本之前还有一个版本的话，则8月本就应为“再版”，9月本为“三版”，1924年6月本成了“四版”，但这种情况并不存在。
奇书的由来与传播
广饶收藏的这本《共产党宣言》先是在济南共产主义者手中，后又传到了广饶，不曾想经历了一番漫长而曲折的过程。
由于1919年 “五四”运动爆发的导火线是山东问题，故而，“五四”时期山东的爱国反帝斗争特别高涨与广泛。这就促使马克思著作《共产党宣言》在山东传播开来，那时《每周评论》向几个学校寄售。是年秋，王尽美、邓恩铭、王翔千等在济南成立马克思学说研究会，学习和研究的主要文献也是《共产党宣言》。会员马馥堂回忆说： “当时的主要学习资料是《共产党宣言》。我把《共产党宣言》、《向导》带回家去，我父亲看了，极为称赞，说马克思是圣人。”广饶收藏的这本《共产党宣言》最初就是在济南共产主义者中流传、学习的。
在广饶藏本《共产党宣言》的首页右下角盖有一方“葆臣”朱红印痕。而这位“葆臣”是谁呢？经调查，他是济南的早期团员和党员张葆臣。中央档案馆保存的1923年12月15日《济南地区团员调查表》表明，张葆臣是江苏无锡人，1922年1月1日入团，后到济南工作，从事青年运动。中央档案馆还有档案说明他是济南团的主要负责人之一，主管“教育兼发行”工作。据1922年曾任济南党的代理书记的马克先回忆，张葆臣是当时在济南的七名党员之一。据王辩、刘子久等济南地区的早期党员回忆，张葆臣当时在道生银行做职员，在党内管党、团刊物的发行工作。道生银行是沙俄在中国开设的银行，总行设在上海，十月革命后仍继续开办。张葆臣是该行济南分行的职员，常来往于上海、济南之间，又在党内负责党团刊物、马列书籍的发行工作，因此，他能收存这个最早版本的《共产党宣言》。那么，它又是怎样传到广饶县刘集村的呢？原来是通过另一名早期女共产党员刘雨辉。
刘雨辉是广饶县刘集村人，曾先后就读于济南女子养蚕讲习所和苏州女子产业学校，1925年夏毕业后回济南女子职业学校任教。在济南期间，她结识了济南女师的王辩、侯玉兰、于佩贞、刘淑琴、王兰英等许多共产党员，同年由于佩贞介绍加入中国共产党。他们常和延伯真、刘子久、李云生、张葆臣等男同志一起学习和活动。这样，那本盖有“葆臣”印痕的《共产党宣言》就辗转到了刘雨辉的手中。1926年春节，她和同乡延伯真、刘子久一同回家省亲时，就把这本《共产党宣言》和其他许多马克思主义书籍、党的宣传材料带回了广饶县刘集村。从此，这本革命文献便在这个偏僻的农村经历了不平凡的50个春秋。
广饶刘集党支部是在1925年春建立的。刘子久在帮助组建刘集党支部时，也曾从外地带回过一本《共产党宣言》和其他马列著作、党的宣传文件。
这本《共产党宣言》当时由支部书记刘良才保存。其后，1926年春节期间，刘雨辉又给刘集支部带来了那本盖有“葆臣”印痕的《共产党宣言》。这样，刘集支部六七个党员，就拥有了两本《共产党宣言》。这在当时一个普通的农村党支部来说，委实难能可贵。支部书记刘良才经常在晚上召集党员们，在他家的三间北屋里，于煤油灯下学习《共产党宣言》和其他文件。入冬农闲季节，党支部还举办农民夜校，由刘良才或其他党员宣讲革命道理和文化知识。《共产党宣言》又成了刘良才等同志备课的好材料。从现存《共产党宣言》可以看出，由于这本书当年经常被翻阅，以至于在书的左下角留下了明显的指渍痕迹和破损。
《共产党宣言》是马克思主义著作在中国传播得最早、最广泛的一部宝书。它在大城市，在知识分子中，在革命的先知先觉者那里发挥了极为重要的作用。但是像广饶藏本这样的传播情况，则是不多见的。它在当时山东这样只有百户人家的小村，在贫苦农民当中传播，发挥着实实在在的作用，这对认识“五四”后马克思主义在中国传播的广度和深度，不能不说是一个突破。
《共产党宣言》-指导思想
贯穿《宣言》全篇的基本思想或指导是唯物主义历史观，《宣言》的中心思想是关于“两个必然性”的原理。即运用唯物史观论证并阐明无产阶级解放的性质、条件和一般目的，尤其是关于现代工人阶级的伟大历史作用和历史使命，工人阶级先进政党得历史地位、历史使命指导思想和它的先进性、预见性、战斗性、原则性、策略性等特征，从而为工人阶级和全人类的彻底解放指明了科学的途径。
《共产党宣言》-主要特点
《共产党宣言》是马克思、恩格斯全部成熟著作的纲领和红线，是理解什么是马克思主义的关键。马克思、恩格斯的全部著作，就是为实现《宣言》中的“两个必然性”，为实现无产阶级的彻底解放而进行的理论研究。不断完善、发展科学社会主义理论，并使理论变为纲领，使纲领付诸实施，是理论同实践相结合，使科学社会主义同工人运动相结合这就是马克思主义的科学社会主义，与其它形形色色的社会主义相区别的主要特点。
《共产党宣言》-意义
（一）《共产党宣言》确立了科学社会主义的基本原理
第一、科学地论证了共产主义的历史必然性。
第二、明确指出了无产阶级革命的基本路线和主要任务。
第三、扼要地阐明了无产阶级的建党学说和策略原则。
（二）《共产党宣言》是工人阶级解放的伟大旗帜。
工人阶级蕴涵着自己解放自己的最强大的力量源泉，是推动历史前进的火车头。工人阶级是在改造旧世界、建设新社会的依靠力量和领导力量。这种力量的发现成了科学社会主义理论的第一块主要的“基石”。由于马克思主义是工人阶级利益的理论表现，即无产阶级解放条件的理论概括。因此，它一旦产生出来，并向工人阶级进行灌输后，它就能掌握千百万无产者的心灵被觉悟的工人所接受，成为工人阶级的世界观，导致工人阶级政党的产生，从而使无产阶级由自在阶级向自为阶级转变。
《宣言》阐明了工人阶级的历史作用、历史使命和无产阶级解放的性质、条件与目的。
《宣言》是无产阶级根本利益的理论表现。
马克思主义理论一经掌握群众，就会为不可战胜的物质力量。
（三）《共产党宣言》给予中国共产党人、中国革命和社会主义事业的伟大影响和光辉指导。
《共产党宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）是马克思和恩格斯为共产主义者同盟起草的党纲，是科学社会主义的纲领性文献。《宣言》揭示了人类社会发展的客观规律，对中国社会的发展产生了深远的影响。一个多世纪以来，中国产生了三位站在时代前列的代表人物：孙中山、毛泽东、李大钊，他们都受到《宣言》的直接影响和教育。
1896 年，中国革命的先行者孙中山留居英国期间，就在大英博物馆读到《宣言》等马克思主义论著。他曾敦促留学生研究马克思的《资本论》和《共产党宣言》。 1899年3月上海《万国公报》刊载节译的英国社会学家颉德的《大同学》一文就涉及到《宣言》的有关内容。1905年底，资产阶级革命派朱执信在同盟会机关报《民报》第二号上发表的《德意志社会革命家小传》一文，记述了马克思和恩格斯的生平和学说，并第一次简要介绍了《宣言》的写作背景、基本思想和历史意义，还依据《宣言》的日文本并参照英文本摘译了该书的几段文字和第二章的十大纲领全文，并作了解释。作者将该书的书名译为《共产主义宣言》。1908年3 月15日，刘师培（署名申叔）在《天义报》发表了《〈共产党宣言〉序》。这是中国人第一次为《宣言》作序。此后，有关《宣言》的文章不断见诸报端。
1917 年俄国十月革命的胜利，进一步唤醒了中国的先进分子。“五四运动”前后，中国出现了许多介绍和讨论《宣言》的文章，马克思主义在中国得到广泛的传播。 1920年3月，李大钊倡导成立的“北京大学马克斯（即马克思 ——编辑注）学研究会”集体翻译了德文版《宣言》的全文，印发了少量油印本在当时的先进分子中传阅。1920年8月，由陈望道根据日文和英文版本翻译的《宣言》的第一个中文译本在共产国际的资助下由上海社会主义研究社正式出版。陈望道译本在以后的20年中，多次重印，广为流传。毛泽东在1920年第一次阅读了考茨基著的《阶级斗争》、陈望道翻译的《共产党宣言》和一个英国人作的《社会主义史》。周恩来对陈望道就说过：“我们都是你教育出来的。”
《宣言》对当时在国外勤工俭学的青年也产生了重要的影响。1920年初，蔡和森在法国先后翻译出《宣言》、《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》等著作的重要段落，在赴法勤工俭学的学生中广为流传。邓小平也是在法国勤工俭学时读到《宣言》的。他后来说，我的入门老师是《共产党宣言》和《共产主义ＡＢＣ》。
随着中国革命形势的发展，对《宣言》的需求与日俱增。《宣言》的第一个中文译本出版后到1949年中华人民共和国成立，又有5个中文译本陆续问世，译文质量不断提高，所收序言不断增加，发行数量日益扩大。
新中国成立后，1949年11月在北京印了苏联外交出版局出版的收有马克思恩格斯写的全部7篇序言的《宣言》百周年纪念本。1958年中共中央编译局校订了《宣言》的中译本，收入《马克思恩格斯全集》第四卷。1964年根据德文并参考英法俄等文本再次作了校订，出版了单行本，是中国流传最广的版本。1972年5月，新编的四卷本《马克思恩格斯选集》正式出版，其中收入了《宣言》的正文和马克思恩格斯写的7篇序言。1995年6月，又编辑出版了第二版。这版《马克思恩格斯选集》对收载的文献作了较大调整，并按原著文字对译文重新作了校订。 1997年8月人民出版社又根据《马克思恩格斯选集》中文第二版第一卷中的 《宣言》的新译文出版了单行本，并作为马列著作的系列书《马克思列宁主义文库》之一种出版发行。这是《共产党宣言》迄今在我国出版的最新版本。
江泽民同志在党的十五大报告中指出：“近20年来改革开放和现代化建设取得成功的根本原因之一，就是克服了那些超越阶段的错误观念和政策，又抵制了抛弃社会主义基本制度的错误主张”。这就清楚地告诉我们，必须完整地、准确地理解关于社会主义初级阶段，这就决定了我们现阶段的奋斗目标是建设中国特色的社会主义，我们要为此而贡献自己的一切，舍此而空谈共产主义，那就是有意无意地、或多或少地背叛了共产主义。
《共产党宣言》-学习态度和方法
（一）对基本原理的实际运用，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移。
在《宣言》的出版序言中多次说明，对基本原理的实际运用，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移，对个别原理和具体原理更要根据此时此地的实际情况进行具体的分析。这里关键是准确把握基本原理和具体原理的科学界限，因为对基本原理是不能违背的，违背了基本原理就会走向马克思主义的反面，葬送革命成果，从而可能成为马克思主义的可耻叛徒。
（二）要实事求是地坚持马克思主义的唯物辨证观点
从长远看，社会主义终将彻底战胜资本主义，终将在全世界范围内取得完全胜利。而在此之前，社会主义在每个国家的实践有可能发生一次甚至多次的暂时失败或挫折，国际社会主义运动还可能经历若干个高潮交替的时期。因此，对社会主义的前途和命运，既要满怀信心又不可掉以轻心，任何悲观的论调和盲目乐观、麻痹大意侥幸心理，都是极其错误和十分有害的。
（三）马克思主义不是一成不变的教条，它必须随着时代的发展而不断地得到丰富和发展。
邓小平同志说过：“真正的马克思列宁主义者必须根据现在的情况，认识、继承和发展马克思列宁主义。.....不以新的思想、观点去继承、发展马克思主义，不是真正的马克思主义者。”必须废除静止地孤立地学习研究马克思主义的方法。离开本国的实际和时代发展来谈马克思主义，没有出路，也没有意义。正如党的十五大报告指出的那样：“一定要以我国改革开放和现代化建设的实际问题，以我们正在做的事情为中心，着眼于马克思主义理论的运用，着眼于对实际问题的理论思考，着眼于新的实践和新发展。”
（四）要正确认识从《共产党宣言》到邓小平理论的继承发展关系。
邓小平理论的基本观点同《共产党宣言》的基本原理和精神实质是一致的。包括《共产党宣言》在内的马列主义、毛泽东思想是邓小平理论的深厚根基和主要来源，邓小平理论是包括《宣言》在内的马列主义、毛泽东思想的基本原理原则的继承和发展，二者同处于一个科学体系之中，是不可分割的统一体，不应人为地把二者对立起来或割裂开来。所以，对那些事关重大原则的是非问题必须予以澄清，对已经造成很大的不良影响的有些非马克思主义的错误思想观点应当认真加以纠正和克服。
《共产党宣言》-结语
在过去不到一个半世纪中，社会主义的实践已经经历三次高潮。第一次高潮是巴黎公社的创立；第二次高潮是俄国十月革命的胜利和首先在苏联建设社会主义国家；第三次高潮是第二次世界大战后至70年代，社会主义革命和建设在一系列国家特别是在中国取得胜利。
社会主义的实践表明，实现社会主义和共产主义决不是什么空想，而是已经或将要变成活生生的现实，这是经过革命政党和人民持久奋斗终将取得最后胜利的崇高理想。同时表明，实现社会主义的道路是很曲折的，它要经过多次的成功与失败、高潮与低潮，这样迂回曲折的历程。
一部马克思主义发展史就是不断创造性发展和用新的原理代替个别旧的原理的过程。就马克思主义作为科学理论而言永远不会过时。因为它以实践为源头活水，不断与时俱进。会过时的是个别原理，而个别的原理的过时，正是整个马克思主义科学学说永具活力的保证。迄今为止，还没有一种理论和学说，在总体上能象马克思主义这样为人们认识和改造世界提供科学的基本理论和方法，也就有一种理论和学说像马克思主义这样强调理论的运用必须联系实际，必须具有创造性。
Friedrich Engels has often been credited in composing the first drafts, which led to The Communist Manifesto. In July 1847, Engels was elected into the Communist League, where he was assigned to draw up a catechism. This became the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith. The draft contained almost two dozen questions that helped express the ideas of both Engels and Karl Marx at the time. In October 1847, Engels composed his second draft for the Communist League entitled, The Principles of Communism. The text remained unpublished until 1914, despite its basis for The Manifesto. From Engels's drafts Marx was able to write, once commissioned by the Communist League, The Communist Manifesto, where he combined more of his ideas along with Engels's drafts and work, The Condition of the Working Class in England.
Although the names of both Engels and Karl Marx appear on the title page alongside the "persistent assumption of joint-authorship", Engels, in the preface introduction to the 1883 German edition of the Manifesto, said that the Manifesto was "essentially Marx's work" and that "the basic thought... belongs solely and exclusively to Marx."
Engels wrote after Marx's death,
"I cannot deny that both before and during my forty years' collaboration with Marx I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations of the theory, but the greater part of its leading basic principles belong to Marx....Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name."
Textual history
The Communist Manifesto was first published (in German) in London by a group of German political refugees in 1848. It was also serialised at around the same time in a German-language London newspaper, the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung. The first English translation was produced by Helen Macfarlane in 1850. The Manifesto went through a number of editions from 1872 to 1890; notable new prefaces were written by Marx and Engels for the 1872 German edition, the 1882 Russian edition, the 1883 French edition, and the 1888 English edition. This edition, translated by Samuel Moore with the assistance of Engels, has been the most commonly used English text since.
However, some recent English editions, such as Phil Gasper's annotated "road map" (Haymarket Books, 2006), have used a slightly modified text in response to criticisms of the Moore translation made by Hal Draper in his 1994 history of the Manifesto, The Adventures of the "Communist Manifesto" (Center for Socialist History, 1994).
Contents
The Manifesto is divided into an introduction, three substantive sections, and a conclusion.
Preamble
The introduction begins with the notable comparison of communism to a "spectre", claiming that across Europe communism is feared, but not understood, and thus communists ought to make their views known with a manifesto:
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the opposition party that has not been decried as Communist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition party that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
The first section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", puts forward Marx's neo-Hegelian version of history, historical materialism, claiming that
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, have stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
The section goes on to argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between those who own the means of production, the ruling class or bourgeoisie, and those who labour for a wage, the working class or proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “payment in cash” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
However:
The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital; the essential condition of capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests entirely on the competition among the workers.
This section further explains that the proletarians will eventually rise to power through class struggle: the bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its manual labour and cheap wages, ultimately to create profit for the bourgeois; the proletariat rise to power through revolution against the bourgeoisie such as riots or creation of unions. The Communist Manifesto states that while there is still class struggle amongst society, capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat only to start again in the near future; ultimately communism is the key to class equality amongst the citizens of Europe.
II. Proletarians and Communists
The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class:
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
It goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.
The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. These included, among others, the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state. The implementation of these policies, would, the authors believed, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.
One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period:
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
It is this concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have highlighted. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Engels put it elsewhere) "wither away."
In a related dispute, later Marxists make a separation between "socialism", a society ruled by workers, and "communism", a classless society. Engels wrote little and Marx wrote less on the specifics of the transition to communism, so the authenticity of this distinction remains a matter of dispute.
10 point program of Communism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.
III. Socialist and Communist Literature
The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature," distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time the Manifesto was written. While the degree of reproach of Marx and Engels toward rival perspectives varies, all are eventually dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognize the preeminent role of the working class. Partly because of Marx's critique, most of the specific ideologies described in this section became politically negligible by the end of the nineteenth century.
IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties
The concluding section, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties," briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany. It then ends with a declaration of support for other communist revolutions and a call to action:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, unite!
《共产党宣言》-核心内容
《共产党宣言》（又被译为《共产主义宣言》）是卡尔·马克思和弗里德里希·恩格斯为共产主义者同盟起草的纲领，国际共产主义运动第一个纲领性文献，马克思主义诞生的重要标志。 1847 年11月共产主义者同盟第二次代表大会委托马克思和恩格斯起草一个周详的理论和实践的党纲。马克思 、恩格斯取得一致认识，并研究了宣言的整个内容和结构，由马克思执笔写成 。1848年2月，《宣言》在伦敦第一次以单行本问世。
《宣言》第一次全面系统地阐述了科学社会主义理论，指出共产主义运动已成为不可抗拒的历史潮流。全文包括简短的引论、资产者和无产者、无产者和共产党人、社会主义的和共产主义的文献、共产党人对各种反对党派的态度等几个部分。构成《宣言》核心的基本原理是：每一历史时代主要的生产方式与交换方式以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史所赖以确立的基础，并且只有从这一基础出发，历史才能得到说明。从原始社会解体以来人类社会的全部历史都是阶级斗争的历史；这个历史包括一系列发展阶段，现在已经达到这样一个阶段，即无产阶级如果不同时使整个社会摆脱任何剥削、压迫以及阶级划分和阶级斗争，就不能使自己从资产阶级的剥削统治下解放出来。
《宣言》运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义分析生产力与生产关系、基础与上层建筑的矛盾，分析阶级和阶级斗争，特别是资本主义社会阶级斗争的产生、发展过程，论证资本主义必然灭亡和社会主义必然胜利的客观规律，作为资本主义掘墓人的无产阶级肩负的世界历史使命。《宣言》公开宣布必须用革命的暴力推翻资产阶级的统治，建立无产阶级的“政治统治”，表述了以无产阶级专政代替资产阶级专政的思想。《宣言》还指出无产阶级在夺取政权后，必须在大力发展生产力的基础上,逐步地进行巨大的社会改造,进而达到消灭阶级对立和阶级本身的存在条件。《宣言》批判当时各种反动的社会主义思潮，对“空想的批判的社会主义”作了科学的分析和评价。
《宣言》阐述作为无产阶级先进队伍的共产党的性质、特点和斗争策略,指出为党的最近目的而奋斗与争取实现共产主义终极目的之间的联系。《宣言》最后庄严宣告：“无产者在这个革命中失去的只是锁链。他们获得的将是整个世界。”并发出国际主义的战斗号召：“全世界无产者，联合起来 !”
《共产党宣言》-实践和影响
《宣言》的基本原理是客观规律的科学总结。马克思、恩格斯指出：“这些基本原理的实际运用，正如《宣言》中所说的，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移。”他们非常重视在实践中检验自己的理论，研究新的历史经验。及时总结巴黎公社(1792～1794)的经验并把它作为对《宣言》的补充和修改就是一个范例。全世界无产阶级一直把《宣言》作为争取解放的思想武器。
《宣言》在20世纪初开始传入中国。自1906年起一些报刊上陆续出现《宣言》的某些内容介绍和片断译文。1920年出版陈望道翻译的《共产党宣言》，是《宣言》在中国最早的全文译本。
《共产党宣言》-历史背景
《共产党宣言》由马克思和恩格斯、写于1847年12月至1848年1月，发表于1848年2月。
《宣言》是无产阶级反对资产阶级的斗争日益尖锐条件下产生的。
《宣言》是马克思、恩格斯进行理论研究和理论斗争争取得巨大成效的情况下产生的。
《宣言》是马克思和恩格斯为建立无产阶级政党而斗争的实践中产生的。
《共产党宣言》-内容提要
1848年2月24日，马克思和恩格斯合著的《共产党宣言》在伦敦第一次出版。这个宣言是共产主义者同盟第二次代表大会委托马克思、恩格斯起草的同盟纲领。
《共产党宣言》包括引言和正文四章。1872年—1893年，马克思和恩格斯先后为《宣言》的德文、俄文、英文、波兰文、意大利文版撰写了七篇序言。七篇序言简要说明了《宣言》的基本思想及其在国际共产主义运动中的历史地位，指明《宣言》的理论原理是历史唯物主义，并根据无产阶级革命的经验和教训，对《宣言》作了补充和修改。
引言部分说明写作《宣言》的背景和目的。
“资产者和无产者”这一章，马克思，恩格斯运用历史唯物主义的基本观点，分析了资产阶级和无产阶级的产生，发展及其相互斗争的过程，揭示了资本主义必然灭亡和社会主义必然胜利的客观规律，阐明了无产阶级的历史使命，论述了马克思主义的阶级斗争学说。
阶级斗争是推动阶级社会发展的直接动力（第1--5段）。
考察资产阶级的产生和发展过程，揭示资本主义必然灭亡的规律（第6-28段）。
无产阶级的产生和发展及其历史使命（第29--54段）。
“无产者和共产党人”这一章，马克思、恩格斯阐明了共产党的性质、特点、目的和任务，以及共产党的理论和基本纲领，批判了资产阶级攻击共产主义的各种谬论，阐述了无产阶级专政的基本思想和通向共产主义的必由之路。
共产党的性质、特点和基本纲领（第1--14段）。
批驳资产阶级攻击共产主义的各种谬论（第15--68段）。
无产阶级专政的基本思想和通向共产主义的必由之路（第69--86段）。
“社会主义和共产主义的文献”这章，分析和批判了当时的各种假社会主义和空想社会主义，指出它们代表各自的阶级利益，但是打着社会主义的旗号进行活动，分析了各种假社会主义流派产生的社会历史条件，并揭露了它们的阶级实质。
反动的社会主义（第1--34段）。
保守的或资产阶级的社会主义（第35--42段）。
批判的空想的社会主义和共产主义（第43--56段）。
《共产党宣言》《共产党宣言》
“共产党人对各种反对党派的态度”这一章，主要是从共产党人对带各种反对党派的态度上，阐述了共产党人革命斗争的思想策略。
共产党人政治斗争策略的基本原则（第1--4段）。
共产党人在德国的斗争策略（第5--7段）。
共产党人运用斗争策略的目的（第8--12段）。
《宣言》是科学共产主义的第一个纲领性文献，它标志着马克思主义的诞生。《宣言》刚刚发表，就迎来了欧洲1848年的革命风暴。
《宣言》完整、系统而严密地阐述了马克思主义的主要思想；阐述了马克思主义的世界观，特别是它的阶级斗争学说；揭示了资本主义社会的内在矛盾和发展规律，论证了资本主义灭亡和社会主义胜利的必然性。《宣言》论述了无产阶级作为资本主义掘墓人的伟大历史使命；阐述了马克思主义关于无产阶级专政的思想；阐明了共产主义革命不仅要同传统的所有制关系实行最彻底的决裂，而且要同传统观念实行最彻底的决裂；阐明了共产党的性质和任务。这部著作从诞生起就鼓舞和推动着全世界无产阶级争取解放斗争，成为无产阶级最锐利的战斗武器。恩格斯指出：它是全部社会主义文献中传播最广和最具国际性的著作，是世界各国千百万工人共同的纲领。
《宣言》结束时强调：共产党人向全世界宣布，用暴力革命推翻全部现成的社会制度实现共产主义。让一切反动阶级在共产主义革命的面前发抖！无产阶级革命中失去的只是锁链，它将获得整个世界。《宣言》用响云霄的最强音，发出无产阶级国际主义的伟大号召：全世界无产者，联合起来！
《共产党宣言》-1872年德文版序言
共产主义者同盟这个在当时条件下自然只能是秘密团体的国际工人组织，1847年11 月在伦敦代表大会上委托我们两人起草一个准备公布的周祥的理论和实践的党纲。结果就产生了这个《宣言》，《宣言》原稿在二月革命前几星期寄到伦敦付印。《宣言》最初用德文出版，后来又用德文在德国、英国和美国至少翻印过十二次。第一个英译本是由艾琳·麦克法林女士翻译的，于1850年在伦敦《红色共和党人》杂志上发表，后来在1871年至少又有三种不同的英译本在美国出版。法译本于1848年六月起义前不久第一次在巴黎印行，最近又在纽约《社会主义者报》上登载；现在又有人在准备新译本。波兰文译本在德国本初版问世后不久就在伦敦出现。俄译本是于六十年代在日内瓦出版的。丹麦文译本也是在原书问世后不久就出版了。
不管最近二十五年来的情况发生了多大变化，这个《宣言》中所发挥的一般基本原理整个说来直到现在还是完全正确的。个别地方本来可已作某些修改。这些原理的实际运用，正如《宣言》中所说的，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移，所以第二章末尾提出的那些革命措施并没有什么特殊的意义。现在这一段在许多方面都应该有不同的写法了。由于最近二十五年来大工业已有很大发展而工人阶级的政党组织也跟着发展起来，由于首先有了二月革命的实际经验而后来尤其是有了无产阶级第一次掌握政权达两月之久的巴黎公社的实际经验，所以这个纲领现在有些地方已经过时了。特别是公社已经证明：“工人阶级不能简单地掌握现成的国家机器，并运用它来达到自己的目的。”（见《法兰西内战。国际工人协会总委员会宣言》德文版第十九页，那里把这个思想发挥得更加完备。）其次，很明显，对于社会主义文献所做的批判在今天看来是不完全的，因为这一批判只包括到1847年为止；同样也很明显，关于共产党人对各种反对党派的态度问题所提出的意见（第四章）虽然大体上至今还是正确的，但是由于政治形式已经完全改变，而当时所列举的那些党派大部分已被历史的发展进程所彻底扫除，所以这些意见在实践方面毕竟是过时了。
但是《宣言》是一个历史文件，我们已没有权力来加以修改。下次再版时也许能加上一篇包括从1847年到现在这段时期的导言。这次再版太仓卒了，以致我们竟来不及做这件工作。
卡尔·马克思 弗里德里希·恩格斯 1872年6月24日于伦敦
《共产党宣言》-1883年德文版序言
本版序言不幸只能由我一个人署名了。马克思这位比其他任何人都更应受到欧美整个工人阶级感谢的人物，已经长眠于海格特公墓，他的墓上已经初次长出了青草。在他逝世以后，就更谈不上对《宣言》作什么修改或补充了。因此，我认为更有必要在这里再一次明确地申述下面这一点。
贯穿《宣言》的基本思想：每一历史时代的经济生产以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史的基础；因此(从原始土地公有制解体以来)全部历史都是阶级斗争的历史，即社会发展各个阶段上被剥削阶级和剥削阶级之间、被统治阶级和统治阶级之间斗争的历史；而这个斗争现在已经达到这样一个阶段，即被剥削被压迫的阶级(无产阶级)，如果不同时使整个社会永远摆脱剥削、压迫和阶级斗争，就不再能使自己从剥削它压迫它的那个阶级(资产阶级)下解放出来，—— 这个基本思想完全是属于马克思一个人的。
这一点我已经屡次说过，但正是现在必须在《宣言》本身的前面也写明这一点。
弗· 恩格斯 1883年6月28日于伦敦
《共产党宣言》-中国第一本中译本《共产党宣言》
简介
在东营市广饶县收藏着1920年8月出版的我国最早的《共产党宣言》中文译本，这看似平常的一本书，却被称为“国宝”，它的保存与流传，经历了世纪的风风雨雨。
《共产党宣言》节译发表
1919年4月6日，《每周评论》第十六号在 “名著”栏内刊载《共产党宣言》(节译)第二章《无产者与共产党人》后面属于纲领的一段，并在按语中指出：“这个宣言是马克思和恩格斯最先最重大的意见。......其要旨在主张阶段战争，要求各地的劳工联合。......是表示新时代的文书。”
《每周评论》第十六号还发表了陈独秀的短文《纲常名教》，文章说：“欧洲各国社会主义的学说，已经大大流行了，俄、德和匈牙利，并且成了共产党的世界，这种风气，恐怕马上就要来到东方。”
第一本中译本《共产党宣言》的发现及意义
广饶藏本《共产党宣言》(存于东营市历史博物馆)广饶藏本《共产党宣言》(存于东营市历史博物馆)
1975年，《共产党宣言》中文译本在广饶的发现，可谓石破天惊，它提出了新的情况并作出了新的说明。广饶藏本，系平装本，长18厘米，宽12 厘米，比现在的32开本略小一点。书面印有水红色马克思半身像，上端从右至左模印着“社会主义研究小丛书第一种”，上署“马格斯、安格尔斯合著”、“陈望道译”。全文用5号铅字竖排，计56页。封底印有“一千九百二十年八月出版”、“定价大洋一角”字样，印刷及发行者是“社会主义研究社”。经调查和研究得出：第一，广饶藏本纠正了过去在上海藏本报道中的不确之处。广饶藏本的封面标题是“共党产宣言”，而不是“共产党宣言”。《党史资料丛刊》所刊载的上海8 月藏本的介绍文章和照片，都标明上海本的封面标题是“共党产宣言”。经过对照，广饶本和上海本完全是一个版本。第二，广饶本打破了“孤本”和“孤证”的局面。过去，认为《共产党宣言》全译本在我国出版是1920年8月说，只有上海档案馆一本实物作证，被称为“孤本”、“孤证”。有了广饶藏本（另上海图书馆尚有同本），再加上北京图书馆保存的残本，至少是有了4本8月的版本。现在可以证明，《共产党宣言》全译本是1920年8月出版的。第三，进一步弄清了出版情况。从广饶藏本及上海档案馆、上海图书馆的收藏本封面标题都是“共党产宣言”这一情况来看，8月版本封面标题之误并非发生在个别印本之上。这个封面标题错误，显然是因排印或校对疏忽所造成的，而非什么译法或其他原因所造成的。因为，扉页上竖排的标题清楚地印着“共产党宣言”五个大字。可以断定，正是因为发生和发现了这一版封面标题的行文词序错误，又加新书售罄，故在9月间进行“再版”时纠正了封面标题错误。从现有已发现的各版本分析，1920年8月版本，就是最早的版本。而且8月版本封底分明印着“出版”，9月版本印着“再版”，中央档案馆收藏的1924年6月版本印着“第三版”字样，也足可说明。假定8月版本之前还有一个版本的话，则8月本就应为“再版”，9月本为“三版”，1924年6月本成了“四版”，但这种情况并不存在。
奇书的由来与传播
广饶收藏的这本《共产党宣言》先是在济南共产主义者手中，后又传到了广饶，不曾想经历了一番漫长而曲折的过程。
由于1919年 “五四”运动爆发的导火线是山东问题，故而，“五四”时期山东的爱国反帝斗争特别高涨与广泛。这就促使马克思著作《共产党宣言》在山东传播开来，那时《每周评论》向几个学校寄售。是年秋，王尽美、邓恩铭、王翔千等在济南成立马克思学说研究会，学习和研究的主要文献也是《共产党宣言》。会员马馥堂回忆说： “当时的主要学习资料是《共产党宣言》。我把《共产党宣言》、《向导》带回家去，我父亲看了，极为称赞，说马克思是圣人。”广饶收藏的这本《共产党宣言》最初就是在济南共产主义者中流传、学习的。
在广饶藏本《共产党宣言》的首页右下角盖有一方“葆臣”朱红印痕。而这位“葆臣”是谁呢？经调查，他是济南的早期团员和党员张葆臣。中央档案馆保存的1923年12月15日《济南地区团员调查表》表明，张葆臣是江苏无锡人，1922年1月1日入团，后到济南工作，从事青年运动。中央档案馆还有档案说明他是济南团的主要负责人之一，主管“教育兼发行”工作。据1922年曾任济南党的代理书记的马克先回忆，张葆臣是当时在济南的七名党员之一。据王辩、刘子久等济南地区的早期党员回忆，张葆臣当时在道生银行做职员，在党内管党、团刊物的发行工作。道生银行是沙俄在中国开设的银行，总行设在上海，十月革命后仍继续开办。张葆臣是该行济南分行的职员，常来往于上海、济南之间，又在党内负责党团刊物、马列书籍的发行工作，因此，他能收存这个最早版本的《共产党宣言》。那么，它又是怎样传到广饶县刘集村的呢？原来是通过另一名早期女共产党员刘雨辉。
刘雨辉是广饶县刘集村人，曾先后就读于济南女子养蚕讲习所和苏州女子产业学校，1925年夏毕业后回济南女子职业学校任教。在济南期间，她结识了济南女师的王辩、侯玉兰、于佩贞、刘淑琴、王兰英等许多共产党员，同年由于佩贞介绍加入中国共产党。他们常和延伯真、刘子久、李云生、张葆臣等男同志一起学习和活动。这样，那本盖有“葆臣”印痕的《共产党宣言》就辗转到了刘雨辉的手中。1926年春节，她和同乡延伯真、刘子久一同回家省亲时，就把这本《共产党宣言》和其他许多马克思主义书籍、党的宣传材料带回了广饶县刘集村。从此，这本革命文献便在这个偏僻的农村经历了不平凡的50个春秋。
广饶刘集党支部是在1925年春建立的。刘子久在帮助组建刘集党支部时，也曾从外地带回过一本《共产党宣言》和其他马列著作、党的宣传文件。
这本《共产党宣言》当时由支部书记刘良才保存。其后，1926年春节期间，刘雨辉又给刘集支部带来了那本盖有“葆臣”印痕的《共产党宣言》。这样，刘集支部六七个党员，就拥有了两本《共产党宣言》。这在当时一个普通的农村党支部来说，委实难能可贵。支部书记刘良才经常在晚上召集党员们，在他家的三间北屋里，于煤油灯下学习《共产党宣言》和其他文件。入冬农闲季节，党支部还举办农民夜校，由刘良才或其他党员宣讲革命道理和文化知识。《共产党宣言》又成了刘良才等同志备课的好材料。从现存《共产党宣言》可以看出，由于这本书当年经常被翻阅，以至于在书的左下角留下了明显的指渍痕迹和破损。
《共产党宣言》是马克思主义著作在中国传播得最早、最广泛的一部宝书。它在大城市，在知识分子中，在革命的先知先觉者那里发挥了极为重要的作用。但是像广饶藏本这样的传播情况，则是不多见的。它在当时山东这样只有百户人家的小村，在贫苦农民当中传播，发挥着实实在在的作用，这对认识“五四”后马克思主义在中国传播的广度和深度，不能不说是一个突破。
《共产党宣言》-指导思想
贯穿《宣言》全篇的基本思想或指导是唯物主义历史观，《宣言》的中心思想是关于“两个必然性”的原理。即运用唯物史观论证并阐明无产阶级解放的性质、条件和一般目的，尤其是关于现代工人阶级的伟大历史作用和历史使命，工人阶级先进政党得历史地位、历史使命指导思想和它的先进性、预见性、战斗性、原则性、策略性等特征，从而为工人阶级和全人类的彻底解放指明了科学的途径。
《共产党宣言》-主要特点
《共产党宣言》是马克思、恩格斯全部成熟著作的纲领和红线，是理解什么是马克思主义的关键。马克思、恩格斯的全部著作，就是为实现《宣言》中的“两个必然性”，为实现无产阶级的彻底解放而进行的理论研究。不断完善、发展科学社会主义理论，并使理论变为纲领，使纲领付诸实施，是理论同实践相结合，使科学社会主义同工人运动相结合这就是马克思主义的科学社会主义，与其它形形色色的社会主义相区别的主要特点。
《共产党宣言》-意义
（一）《共产党宣言》确立了科学社会主义的基本原理
第一、科学地论证了共产主义的历史必然性。
第二、明确指出了无产阶级革命的基本路线和主要任务。
第三、扼要地阐明了无产阶级的建党学说和策略原则。
（二）《共产党宣言》是工人阶级解放的伟大旗帜。
工人阶级蕴涵着自己解放自己的最强大的力量源泉，是推动历史前进的火车头。工人阶级是在改造旧世界、建设新社会的依靠力量和领导力量。这种力量的发现成了科学社会主义理论的第一块主要的“基石”。由于马克思主义是工人阶级利益的理论表现，即无产阶级解放条件的理论概括。因此，它一旦产生出来，并向工人阶级进行灌输后，它就能掌握千百万无产者的心灵被觉悟的工人所接受，成为工人阶级的世界观，导致工人阶级政党的产生，从而使无产阶级由自在阶级向自为阶级转变。
《宣言》阐明了工人阶级的历史作用、历史使命和无产阶级解放的性质、条件与目的。
《宣言》是无产阶级根本利益的理论表现。
马克思主义理论一经掌握群众，就会为不可战胜的物质力量。
（三）《共产党宣言》给予中国共产党人、中国革命和社会主义事业的伟大影响和光辉指导。
《共产党宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）是马克思和恩格斯为共产主义者同盟起草的党纲，是科学社会主义的纲领性文献。《宣言》揭示了人类社会发展的客观规律，对中国社会的发展产生了深远的影响。一个多世纪以来，中国产生了三位站在时代前列的代表人物：孙中山、毛泽东、李大钊，他们都受到《宣言》的直接影响和教育。
1896 年，中国革命的先行者孙中山留居英国期间，就在大英博物馆读到《宣言》等马克思主义论著。他曾敦促留学生研究马克思的《资本论》和《共产党宣言》。 1899年3月上海《万国公报》刊载节译的英国社会学家颉德的《大同学》一文就涉及到《宣言》的有关内容。1905年底，资产阶级革命派朱执信在同盟会机关报《民报》第二号上发表的《德意志社会革命家小传》一文，记述了马克思和恩格斯的生平和学说，并第一次简要介绍了《宣言》的写作背景、基本思想和历史意义，还依据《宣言》的日文本并参照英文本摘译了该书的几段文字和第二章的十大纲领全文，并作了解释。作者将该书的书名译为《共产主义宣言》。1908年3 月15日，刘师培（署名申叔）在《天义报》发表了《〈共产党宣言〉序》。这是中国人第一次为《宣言》作序。此后，有关《宣言》的文章不断见诸报端。
1917 年俄国十月革命的胜利，进一步唤醒了中国的先进分子。“五四运动”前后，中国出现了许多介绍和讨论《宣言》的文章，马克思主义在中国得到广泛的传播。 1920年3月，李大钊倡导成立的“北京大学马克斯（即马克思 ——编辑注）学研究会”集体翻译了德文版《宣言》的全文，印发了少量油印本在当时的先进分子中传阅。1920年8月，由陈望道根据日文和英文版本翻译的《宣言》的第一个中文译本在共产国际的资助下由上海社会主义研究社正式出版。陈望道译本在以后的20年中，多次重印，广为流传。毛泽东在1920年第一次阅读了考茨基著的《阶级斗争》、陈望道翻译的《共产党宣言》和一个英国人作的《社会主义史》。周恩来对陈望道就说过：“我们都是你教育出来的。”
《宣言》对当时在国外勤工俭学的青年也产生了重要的影响。1920年初，蔡和森在法国先后翻译出《宣言》、《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》等著作的重要段落，在赴法勤工俭学的学生中广为流传。邓小平也是在法国勤工俭学时读到《宣言》的。他后来说，我的入门老师是《共产党宣言》和《共产主义ＡＢＣ》。
随着中国革命形势的发展，对《宣言》的需求与日俱增。《宣言》的第一个中文译本出版后到1949年中华人民共和国成立，又有5个中文译本陆续问世，译文质量不断提高，所收序言不断增加，发行数量日益扩大。
新中国成立后，1949年11月在北京印了苏联外交出版局出版的收有马克思恩格斯写的全部7篇序言的《宣言》百周年纪念本。1958年中共中央编译局校订了《宣言》的中译本，收入《马克思恩格斯全集》第四卷。1964年根据德文并参考英法俄等文本再次作了校订，出版了单行本，是中国流传最广的版本。1972年5月，新编的四卷本《马克思恩格斯选集》正式出版，其中收入了《宣言》的正文和马克思恩格斯写的7篇序言。1995年6月，又编辑出版了第二版。这版《马克思恩格斯选集》对收载的文献作了较大调整，并按原著文字对译文重新作了校订。 1997年8月人民出版社又根据《马克思恩格斯选集》中文第二版第一卷中的 《宣言》的新译文出版了单行本，并作为马列著作的系列书《马克思列宁主义文库》之一种出版发行。这是《共产党宣言》迄今在我国出版的最新版本。
江泽民同志在党的十五大报告中指出：“近20年来改革开放和现代化建设取得成功的根本原因之一，就是克服了那些超越阶段的错误观念和政策，又抵制了抛弃社会主义基本制度的错误主张”。这就清楚地告诉我们，必须完整地、准确地理解关于社会主义初级阶段，这就决定了我们现阶段的奋斗目标是建设中国特色的社会主义，我们要为此而贡献自己的一切，舍此而空谈共产主义，那就是有意无意地、或多或少地背叛了共产主义。
《共产党宣言》-学习态度和方法
（一）对基本原理的实际运用，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移。
在《宣言》的出版序言中多次说明，对基本原理的实际运用，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移，对个别原理和具体原理更要根据此时此地的实际情况进行具体的分析。这里关键是准确把握基本原理和具体原理的科学界限，因为对基本原理是不能违背的，违背了基本原理就会走向马克思主义的反面，葬送革命成果，从而可能成为马克思主义的可耻叛徒。
（二）要实事求是地坚持马克思主义的唯物辨证观点
从长远看，社会主义终将彻底战胜资本主义，终将在全世界范围内取得完全胜利。而在此之前，社会主义在每个国家的实践有可能发生一次甚至多次的暂时失败或挫折，国际社会主义运动还可能经历若干个高潮交替的时期。因此，对社会主义的前途和命运，既要满怀信心又不可掉以轻心，任何悲观的论调和盲目乐观、麻痹大意侥幸心理，都是极其错误和十分有害的。
（三）马克思主义不是一成不变的教条，它必须随着时代的发展而不断地得到丰富和发展。
邓小平同志说过：“真正的马克思列宁主义者必须根据现在的情况，认识、继承和发展马克思列宁主义。.....不以新的思想、观点去继承、发展马克思主义，不是真正的马克思主义者。”必须废除静止地孤立地学习研究马克思主义的方法。离开本国的实际和时代发展来谈马克思主义，没有出路，也没有意义。正如党的十五大报告指出的那样：“一定要以我国改革开放和现代化建设的实际问题，以我们正在做的事情为中心，着眼于马克思主义理论的运用，着眼于对实际问题的理论思考，着眼于新的实践和新发展。”
（四）要正确认识从《共产党宣言》到邓小平理论的继承发展关系。
邓小平理论的基本观点同《共产党宣言》的基本原理和精神实质是一致的。包括《共产党宣言》在内的马列主义、毛泽东思想是邓小平理论的深厚根基和主要来源，邓小平理论是包括《宣言》在内的马列主义、毛泽东思想的基本原理原则的继承和发展，二者同处于一个科学体系之中，是不可分割的统一体，不应人为地把二者对立起来或割裂开来。所以，对那些事关重大原则的是非问题必须予以澄清，对已经造成很大的不良影响的有些非马克思主义的错误思想观点应当认真加以纠正和克服。
《共产党宣言》-结语
在过去不到一个半世纪中，社会主义的实践已经经历三次高潮。第一次高潮是巴黎公社的创立；第二次高潮是俄国十月革命的胜利和首先在苏联建设社会主义国家；第三次高潮是第二次世界大战后至70年代，社会主义革命和建设在一系列国家特别是在中国取得胜利。
社会主义的实践表明，实现社会主义和共产主义决不是什么空想，而是已经或将要变成活生生的现实，这是经过革命政党和人民持久奋斗终将取得最后胜利的崇高理想。同时表明，实现社会主义的道路是很曲折的，它要经过多次的成功与失败、高潮与低潮，这样迂回曲折的历程。
一部马克思主义发展史就是不断创造性发展和用新的原理代替个别旧的原理的过程。就马克思主义作为科学理论而言永远不会过时。因为它以实践为源头活水，不断与时俱进。会过时的是个别原理，而个别的原理的过时，正是整个马克思主义科学学说永具活力的保证。迄今为止，还没有一种理论和学说，在总体上能象马克思主义这样为人们认识和改造世界提供科学的基本理论和方法，也就有一种理论和学说像马克思主义这样强调理论的运用必须联系实际，必须具有创造性。
Friedrich Engels has often been credited in composing the first drafts, which led to The Communist Manifesto. In July 1847, Engels was elected into the Communist League, where he was assigned to draw up a catechism. This became the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith. The draft contained almost two dozen questions that helped express the ideas of both Engels and Karl Marx at the time. In October 1847, Engels composed his second draft for the Communist League entitled, The Principles of Communism. The text remained unpublished until 1914, despite its basis for The Manifesto. From Engels's drafts Marx was able to write, once commissioned by the Communist League, The Communist Manifesto, where he combined more of his ideas along with Engels's drafts and work, The Condition of the Working Class in England.
Although the names of both Engels and Karl Marx appear on the title page alongside the "persistent assumption of joint-authorship", Engels, in the preface introduction to the 1883 German edition of the Manifesto, said that the Manifesto was "essentially Marx's work" and that "the basic thought... belongs solely and exclusively to Marx."
Engels wrote after Marx's death,
"I cannot deny that both before and during my forty years' collaboration with Marx I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations of the theory, but the greater part of its leading basic principles belong to Marx....Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name."
Textual history
The Communist Manifesto was first published (in German) in London by a group of German political refugees in 1848. It was also serialised at around the same time in a German-language London newspaper, the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung. The first English translation was produced by Helen Macfarlane in 1850. The Manifesto went through a number of editions from 1872 to 1890; notable new prefaces were written by Marx and Engels for the 1872 German edition, the 1882 Russian edition, the 1883 French edition, and the 1888 English edition. This edition, translated by Samuel Moore with the assistance of Engels, has been the most commonly used English text since.
However, some recent English editions, such as Phil Gasper's annotated "road map" (Haymarket Books, 2006), have used a slightly modified text in response to criticisms of the Moore translation made by Hal Draper in his 1994 history of the Manifesto, The Adventures of the "Communist Manifesto" (Center for Socialist History, 1994).
Contents
The Manifesto is divided into an introduction, three substantive sections, and a conclusion.
Preamble
The introduction begins with the notable comparison of communism to a "spectre", claiming that across Europe communism is feared, but not understood, and thus communists ought to make their views known with a manifesto:
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the opposition party that has not been decried as Communist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition party that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
The first section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", puts forward Marx's neo-Hegelian version of history, historical materialism, claiming that
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, have stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
The section goes on to argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between those who own the means of production, the ruling class or bourgeoisie, and those who labour for a wage, the working class or proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “payment in cash” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
However:
The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital; the essential condition of capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests entirely on the competition among the workers.
This section further explains that the proletarians will eventually rise to power through class struggle: the bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its manual labour and cheap wages, ultimately to create profit for the bourgeois; the proletariat rise to power through revolution against the bourgeoisie such as riots or creation of unions. The Communist Manifesto states that while there is still class struggle amongst society, capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat only to start again in the near future; ultimately communism is the key to class equality amongst the citizens of Europe.
II. Proletarians and Communists
The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class:
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
It goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.
The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. These included, among others, the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state. The implementation of these policies, would, the authors believed, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.
One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period:
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
It is this concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have highlighted. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Engels put it elsewhere) "wither away."
In a related dispute, later Marxists make a separation between "socialism", a society ruled by workers, and "communism", a classless society. Engels wrote little and Marx wrote less on the specifics of the transition to communism, so the authenticity of this distinction remains a matter of dispute.
10 point program of Communism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.
III. Socialist and Communist Literature
The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature," distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time the Manifesto was written. While the degree of reproach of Marx and Engels toward rival perspectives varies, all are eventually dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognize the preeminent role of the working class. Partly because of Marx's critique, most of the specific ideologies described in this section became politically negligible by the end of the nineteenth century.
IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties
The concluding section, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties," briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany. It then ends with a declaration of support for other communist revolutions and a call to action:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, unite!
《社会契约论》-名书简介
作者：（法国）卢梭（1712-1788年）
类型： 政治理论著作
成书时间：1762年
《社会契约论》-背景搜索
卢梭出生于瑞士日内瓦一个钟表匠家庭，从小失去母亲，靠别人抚养教育长大。虽然生活条件艰苦，但他发奋图强，自学成才。16岁离家外出流浪，当过学徒、仆役、私人秘书、乐谱抄写员。在巴黎，他展现了自己的才华，1750年，卢梭以征文《论科学与艺术》获头等奖而出名。得到了许多上流社会贵妇人的爱慕。这些拥金百万的贵妇为他供应舒适的生活，给他介绍所需要认识的人，卢梭很快就进入了完全不同的生活圈子。
从 1762年起，卢梭由于写政论文章，与当局发生了严重的纠纷。他的一些同事开始疏远他，大约就在这个时期，他患了明显的偏执狂症。虽然有些人对他表示友好，但他却采取怀疑和敌视的态度，同他们每个人都争吵过。他一生的最后20年基本上是在悲惨痛苦中度过的，1778年他在法国迈农维尔去世。
推荐阅读版本：何兆武译，商务印书馆出版。
《社会契约论》-内容精要
《社会契约论》全书共分4卷，第一卷主要论述了人类是怎样由自然状态过渡到政治状态的，契约的根本条件是什么；第二卷主要讨论国家的立法问题；第三卷论述的是政治法即政府的形成；第四卷在继续讨论政治法的同时阐述了巩固国家体制的方法，从古罗马历史出发论述了主权者意志实现的某些细节。
“人是生而自由的，但却无往不在枷锁之中，自以为是其他一切的主人，反而比其他一切更是奴隶。”《社会契约论》的开篇第一句话就提出了这个振聋发聩的观点。卢梭的这一论断是在君主专制制度横行欧洲的时代，针对英国王权专制论代表人物费尔玛关于“没有人是生而自由的”这一绝对君主专制制度赖以依存的理论而提出来的。这本书以反对封建专制、倡言民主共和、主张人民主权为其主题和中心内容，提出了富于革命性的宪政理论。
卢梭认为，自由的人们最初生活在自然状态，人们的行为受自然法支配。自然法以理性为基础，赋予人类一系列普遍的、永恒的自然权利，即生存、自由、平等、追求幸福、获得财产和人身、财产不受侵犯的权利。由于自然状态存在种种弊端，自由的人们以平等的资格订立契约，从自然状态下摆脱出来，寻找出一种结合的形式，使它能以全部共同的力量来卫护和保障每个结合者的人身和财富，并且由于这一结合而使每一个与全体相联合的个人又只不过是在服从自己本人，并且仍然像以往一样地自由。这种结合的形式就是国家。由于国家是自由的人们以平等的资格订立契约产生的，人们只是把自然权利转让给整个社会而并不是奉献给任何个人，因此人民在国家中仍是自由的，国家的主权只能属于人民。
然后，卢梭进一步阐述了人民主权的原则：主权是不可转让的，因为国家由主权者构成，只有主权者才能行使主权；主权是不可分割的，因为代表主权的意志是一个整体；主权是不可代表的，因为 “主权在本质上是由公意所构成的，而意志又是绝不可以代表的；它只能是同一个意志，或者是另一个意志，而绝不能有什么中间的东西。因此人民的议员就不是、也不可能是人民的代表，他们只不过是人民的办事员罢了；他们并不能做出任何肯定的决定”。同时，主权是绝对的、至高无上和不可侵犯的，因为主权是公意的体现，是国家的灵魂。基于这样的理论，卢梭反对君主立宪而坚决主张民主共和。
《社会契约论》还论述了一系列法律基本理论，在其中贯穿着以人民主权为中心内容的资产阶级民主主义精神。卢梭指出法律是人民公共意志的体现，是人民自己意志的记录和全体人民为自己所做的规定。法律的特点在于意志的普遍性和对像的普遍性，前者指法律是人民公意的体现，后者指法律考虑的对像是全体的行为而非个别人。
同时，他阐述了法律与自由的关系：首先，法律与自由是一致的，人民服从法律就是服从自己的意志，就意味着自由。其次，法律是自由的保障。一方面，人人遵守法律，才能给人们以享受自由权利的安全保障；另一方面，法律可以强迫人们自由。
此外，卢梭还系统地提出了立法理论。他认为要依法治国就要有理想的法律，在制定法律时必须遵循下列原则：立法必须以谋取人民最大幸福为原则；立法权必须由人民掌握；由贤明者具体承担立法的责任；立法要注意各种自然的社会条件，法律只不过是保障、遵循和矫正自然的关系而已；既要保持法律的稳定性，又要适时修改、废除不好的法律。
“人是生而自由平等的，这是天赋的权利”，《社会契约论》中的这一 理论，开创了欧洲及全世界民主平等思想之先河，它的“人权天赋“，主权在民”的新学说向“君权神授”的传统观念发起了挑战。它所揭示的“人权自由、权利平等”的原则，至今仍作为西方政治的基础。
《社会契约论》-专家点评
卢梭是18世纪法国启蒙运动杰出的政治思想家、文学家。他的才思文藻风靡了当时的整个欧洲，并为后人留下了一系列划时代的巨著。很少有几个哲学家能带来卢梭著作那样的震撼。他的《艺术与科学谈》获法国第戎奖，使他荣获欧洲哲学大师称号。他的文学名著《新爱洛伊丝》在世界文学史上有着很高地位，使他跻身于启蒙时期著名文学家的行列。《社会契约论》又译作《民约论》是他最为杰出的代表作之一，被誉为“人类解放的第一个呼声，世界大革命的第一个煽动者”。卢梭是欧洲启蒙运动中重要的思想家，与伏尔泰齐名。他的主要作品有《忏悔录》、《爱弥儿》、《社会契约论》、《新爱洛伊丝》。他的主要思想：天赋人权学说，提出“人民主权”的口号。其思想是法国大革命中雅各宾派的旗帜，对欧美各国的资产阶级革命产生了深刻影响。
他的《社会契约论》中的“主权在民”一说，就划分了一个时代。
《社会契约论》卢梭将野花送给喂奶的母亲
《社会契约论》第一次提出了“天赋人权和主权在民的思想”。它刚一问世就遭到了禁止。卢梭本人也被迫流亡到英国。但《社会契约论》所提倡的民主理论却很快风靡全世界。它引发了震惊世界的法国大革命。法国国家格言“自由、平等、博爱”便来自《社会契约论》。1789年法国国民代表大会通过的《人权宣言》中“社会的目的是为大众谋福利的”、“统治权属于人民”等内容充分体现了《社会契约论》的精神。《社会契约论》还对美国的《独立宣言》产生了重要影响，从罗伯斯庇尔到列宁都曾用《社会契约论》为自己的政权做解释。1978年，在纪念卢梭逝世200周年的活动中，专门召开了国际研讨会，研究卢梭的思想，出版他的新传，推出以他为题材的电视剧。他的遗骸被安放在法国的伟人祠内。卢梭在《社会契约论》中预见的“消费者的各种陷阱，大城市的骚乱以及毁灭性的军费负担”等等，都已成为当代社会的现实问题。目前，单在法国就有150多位学者在专门研究卢梭的思想。
有说卢梭的政治理论深受柏拉图的《理想国》的影响。《理想国》的概念，建立于人性善的理念基础上，柏拉图笔下的苏格拉底说，“只有正直的人才会幸福”，“善的意志”成为他的理想国的基础。卢梭也相信人性善，他提倡宽容理性，坚定地反对任何政治暴力。同是论述理想国的原则，不同于柏拉图，卢梭将其理论框架完全建立在“人生而自由”的基础之上，也就是说“自由意志”。这个基础就实在多了。很早以前，人们有一个更好的但文言的说法：“天赋人权。”由天赋人权作为第一原理，他所构造的不再只是理想，而是现代公民社会的基本原则。公民社会中，公民失去了自由人无所不为的自由，而得到公民的政治权利、政治自由。他的《社会契约论》（又译《民约论》）所要解决的是人权和法律的有机结合。从此，合法性只能来自人民，成了卢梭的继承者和背叛者的共同的理念。前者产生了美国革命和民主的建立，后者以人民之名专权屠杀。卢梭，作为“主权在民”的勾画者，就是在200年后还处于争论的中心：他的理论到底是在提倡民主自由，还是在提倡极权暴政？
《社会契约论》哲学家卢梭大部头著作
人权是属于个体的，法律是属于国家的。个体约定而成国家的合理性，是法律有效性和政权合法性的终极判断。自由，不是来自法律对个人的保护，而是来自个体对立法的彻底参与。这是切实保障个体自由的先决条件。在这一过程里，个体利益的“交集”而非“并集”（不完全是数学上的那种）形成公民意志——主权者的意志——一般意志，而这种主权者因为个体的不断参与，其内容是常新的，其利益与个体利益共荣的。从这一点出发，多数人说了算的约法三章必然成为主权在民的道德的体现方式。
卢梭把政权明白地分成了立法和行政两个部分，前者属于社会契约的范畴，而后者不是契约的内容（因此是可变可推翻的）。这个理念对后来民主政治的发展有着不可磨灭的贡献。在卢梭之前，孟德斯鸠的《论法的精神》对法律的理解更加深刻，惟缺卢梭的“主权在民”的动力。《社会契约论》自始至终只扬弃了一种体制：专制政府。按卢梭的话，这就是那种蔑视法律把个体的权力高于主权者之上的体制。其他的体制，卢梭仅仅论述了它们合法的自然依据。从直接民主制、贵族代议制到君主立宪制，统治的根据必须是人民主权———其真正表达就是法律。卢梭并进而把任何真正依法而治的政体统称为共和政体。在卢梭看来，他那个时代的政治社会形态是腐朽的，他要到古希腊时代才能找到合理的回归。
《社会契约论》是世界政治法律学说史上最重要的经典之一，是震撼世界的1789年法国大革命的号角和福音书。它阐述的许多原则原理不仅在革命之初被载入法国《人权宣言》等重要文献中，在革命后的长时期里成为资产阶级的政治法律制度的基石。卢梭的思想对后世思想家们理论的形成有重大影响。
卢梭的政治著作中有许多思想独特新颖，引人入胜。但是总体说来就是一种追求平等的强烈欲望和一种同样强烈的感受：现存社会制度的不合理已经达到了令人不能容忍的程度，人生下来本来是自由的，但是无论走到哪里都要戴上枷锁。卢梭自己可能并不喜欢暴力行为，但是他无疑激励了其他人实行暴力革命，逐步改革社会制度。
有人批评卢梭是一个极其神经质的人，是一个大男子主义者，是一个思想不切实际的、糊涂的思想家，这样的批评大体上是正确的。但是远比他的缺点更重要的是他的洞察力和杰出的创造精神所闪现出来的思想火花，两个多世纪以来，不断地影响着现代思想。
《社会契约论》-妙语佳句
我看到了另一个世界，我的全部激情都被对真理、对自由、对道德的热爱窒息掉了。
谁第一个把一块土地圈起来并想到这是自己的，而且被头脑简单的人所相信的话，那他就是文明的奠基者。
Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism. However, they drew quite different conclusions from this starting-point. Hobbes advocated an authoritarian monarchy, Locke advocated a liberal monarchy, while Rousseau advocated liberal republicanism. Their work provided theoretical groundwork of constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy and republicanism. The Social Contract was used in the Declaration of Independence as a sign of enforcing Democracy, and more recently has been revived by thinkers such as John Rawls.
Overview
According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.
Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.
Violations of the contract
The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest ("general will" in Rousseau). Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.
Since civil rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who choose to violate their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, abdicate their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).
History
Classical thought
Many have argued that Plato's dialog Crito expresses a Greek version of social contract theory. In this dialog, Socrates refuses to escape from jail to avoid being put to death. He argues that since he has willingly remained in Athens all of his life despite opportunities to go elsewhere, he has accepted the social contract i.e. the burden of the local laws, and he cannot violate these laws even when they are against his self-interest.
Epicurus seems to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law being rooted in mutual agreement and advantage, as evidenced by these lines, among others, from his Principal Doctrines:
31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another. 32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm. 33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm. 34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.
Also see Epicurean ethics
Renaissance developments
Quentin Skinner has argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings from French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work in turn was invoked by writers in the Low Countries who objected to their subjection to Spain and, later still, by Catholics in England. Among these, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), from the School of Salamanca, might be considered as an early theorist of the social contract, theorizing natural law in an attempt to limit the divine right of absolute monarchy. All of these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty by means of a social covenant or contract: all of these arguments began with proto-“state of nature” arguments, to the effect that the basis of politics is that everyone is by nature free of subjection to any government.
However, these arguments relied on a corporatist theory found in Roman Law, according to which "a populus" can exist as a distinct legal entity. Therefore these arguments held that a community of people can join a government because they have the capacity to exercise a single will and make decisions with a single voice in the absence of sovereign authority — a notion rejected by Hobbes and later contract theorists.
Philosophers
Hugo Grotius
In the early 17th century, Grotius (1583–1645) introduced the modern idea of natural rights of individuals. Grotius says that we each have natural rights which we have in order to preserve ourselves. He uses this idea to try to establish a basis for moral consensus in the face of religious diversity and the rise of natural science and to find a minimal basis for a moral beginning for society, a kind of natural law that everyone could potentially accept. He goes so far as to say even if we were to concede what we cannot concede without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, these laws would still hold. The idea was considered incendiary, since it suggests that power can ultimately go back to the individuals if the political society that they have set up forfeits the purpose for which it was originally established, which is to preserve themselves. In other words, the people i.e. the individual people, are sovereign. Grotius says that the people are sui juris - under their own jurisdiction. People have rights as human beings but there is a delineation of those rights because of what is possible for everyone to accept morally - everyone has to accept that each person is entitled to try to preserve themselves and therefore they shouldn't try to do harm to others or to interfere with them and they should punish any breach of someone else's rights that arises.
Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651)
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership/ the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.
The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of society, and by extension, the state, a sovereign entity (like the individuals, now under its rule, used to be) which was to protect these new rights which were now to regulate societal interactions. Society was thus no longer anarchic.
But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international relations, advanced by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several ways, but retained the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their action than accepted by Hobbes, but recognized that people would still live in fear of one another. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", and that could therefore protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued that laws could only be legitimate if they sought to achieve the common good. Locke also believed that people will do the right thing as a group, and that all people have natural rights.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a different version of social contract theory, based on popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government. Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as a whole in lawmaking, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. Citizens must, in at least some circumstances, be able to choose together the fundamental rules by which they would live, and be able to revise those rules on later occasions if they choose to do so - something the British people as a whole were unable to do.
Rousseau's political theory has some points in common with Locke's individualism, but departs from it in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to Diderot) of the general will. Rousseau argues a citizen can be an egoist and decide that his personal interest should override the collective interest. However, as part of a collective body, the individual citizen puts aside his egoism to create a "general will", which is popular sovereignty itself. Popular sovereignty (i.e., the rule of law), thus decides what is good for society as a whole, and the individual (including the administrative head of state, who could be a monarch) must bow to it, or be forced to bow to it:
[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free" should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and breaks the law, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is voted by the people's representatives, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression; and enforcement of law, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)
While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:
What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)
John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)
John Rawls (1921–2002) proposed a contractarian approach that has a decidedly Kantian flavour, in A Theory of Justice (1971), whereby rational people in a hypothetical "original position", setting aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "veil of ignorance", would agree to certain general principles of justice. This idea is also used as a game-theoretical formalization of the notion of fairness.
Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)
Philip Pettit (b. 1945) has argued, in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997), that the theory of social contract, classically based on the consent of the governed (as it is assumed that the contract is valid as long as the people consent to being governed by its representatives, who exercise sovereignty), should be modified, in order to avoid dispute. Instead of arguing that an explicit consent, which can always be manufactured, should justify the validity of social contract, Philip Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against the contract is the only legitimacy of it.
Criticism
David Hume
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "On Civil Liberty", in whose second part, entitled, "Of the Original Contract ", he stressed that the concept of a "social contract" was a convenient fiction:
AS no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. . . . The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him. --David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1]
However, Hume did agree that, no matter how a government is founded, the consent of the governed is the only legitimate foundation on which a government can rest.
My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only pretend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted. --Ibid II.XII.20
Logic of contracting
According to the will theory of contract, which was dominant in the 19th century and still exerts a strong influence, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.
Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; then, more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.
Multiple contracts
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued, that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson, who argued that there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law". The second would be the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.
Tacit consent
The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some government, people give consent to be governed. This consent is what gives legitimacy to the government. Philosopher Roderick Long argues that this is a case of question begging, because the argument has to presuppose its conclusion:
I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Criticisms of natural rights
Contractualism is based on the notion that rights are agreed upon in order to further our interests: each individual subject is accorded individual rights, which may or may not be inalienable, and form the basis of civil rights, as in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It must be underlined, however, as Hannah Arendt did on her book on imperialism, that the 1789 Declarations, in this agreeing with the social contract theory, bases the natural rights of the human-being on the civil rights of the citizen, instead of the reverse as the contractualist theory does. This criticism derives from a long tradition going back to St. Augustine of Hippo, who in The City of God (book) envisioned a unified Christian society presided over by a king who was responsible for the welfare of his subjects. Political Augustinianism with its insistence on divine sovereignty and on the two separate spheres of a heavenly and an earthly community, has indeed been regarded as incompatible with social contract theories. This raises the question of whether social contractarianism, as a central plank of liberal thought, is reconcilable with the Christian religion, and particularly with Catholicism and Catholic social teaching. The individualist and liberal approach has also been criticized since the 19th century by thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche & Freud, and afterward by structuralist and post-structuralist thinkers, such as Lacan, Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze or Derrida
作者：（法国）卢梭（1712-1788年）
类型： 政治理论著作
成书时间：1762年
《社会契约论》-背景搜索
卢梭出生于瑞士日内瓦一个钟表匠家庭，从小失去母亲，靠别人抚养教育长大。虽然生活条件艰苦，但他发奋图强，自学成才。16岁离家外出流浪，当过学徒、仆役、私人秘书、乐谱抄写员。在巴黎，他展现了自己的才华，1750年，卢梭以征文《论科学与艺术》获头等奖而出名。得到了许多上流社会贵妇人的爱慕。这些拥金百万的贵妇为他供应舒适的生活，给他介绍所需要认识的人，卢梭很快就进入了完全不同的生活圈子。
从 1762年起，卢梭由于写政论文章，与当局发生了严重的纠纷。他的一些同事开始疏远他，大约就在这个时期，他患了明显的偏执狂症。虽然有些人对他表示友好，但他却采取怀疑和敌视的态度，同他们每个人都争吵过。他一生的最后20年基本上是在悲惨痛苦中度过的，1778年他在法国迈农维尔去世。
推荐阅读版本：何兆武译，商务印书馆出版。
《社会契约论》-内容精要
《社会契约论》全书共分4卷，第一卷主要论述了人类是怎样由自然状态过渡到政治状态的，契约的根本条件是什么；第二卷主要讨论国家的立法问题；第三卷论述的是政治法即政府的形成；第四卷在继续讨论政治法的同时阐述了巩固国家体制的方法，从古罗马历史出发论述了主权者意志实现的某些细节。
“人是生而自由的，但却无往不在枷锁之中，自以为是其他一切的主人，反而比其他一切更是奴隶。”《社会契约论》的开篇第一句话就提出了这个振聋发聩的观点。卢梭的这一论断是在君主专制制度横行欧洲的时代，针对英国王权专制论代表人物费尔玛关于“没有人是生而自由的”这一绝对君主专制制度赖以依存的理论而提出来的。这本书以反对封建专制、倡言民主共和、主张人民主权为其主题和中心内容，提出了富于革命性的宪政理论。
卢梭认为，自由的人们最初生活在自然状态，人们的行为受自然法支配。自然法以理性为基础，赋予人类一系列普遍的、永恒的自然权利，即生存、自由、平等、追求幸福、获得财产和人身、财产不受侵犯的权利。由于自然状态存在种种弊端，自由的人们以平等的资格订立契约，从自然状态下摆脱出来，寻找出一种结合的形式，使它能以全部共同的力量来卫护和保障每个结合者的人身和财富，并且由于这一结合而使每一个与全体相联合的个人又只不过是在服从自己本人，并且仍然像以往一样地自由。这种结合的形式就是国家。由于国家是自由的人们以平等的资格订立契约产生的，人们只是把自然权利转让给整个社会而并不是奉献给任何个人，因此人民在国家中仍是自由的，国家的主权只能属于人民。
然后，卢梭进一步阐述了人民主权的原则：主权是不可转让的，因为国家由主权者构成，只有主权者才能行使主权；主权是不可分割的，因为代表主权的意志是一个整体；主权是不可代表的，因为 “主权在本质上是由公意所构成的，而意志又是绝不可以代表的；它只能是同一个意志，或者是另一个意志，而绝不能有什么中间的东西。因此人民的议员就不是、也不可能是人民的代表，他们只不过是人民的办事员罢了；他们并不能做出任何肯定的决定”。同时，主权是绝对的、至高无上和不可侵犯的，因为主权是公意的体现，是国家的灵魂。基于这样的理论，卢梭反对君主立宪而坚决主张民主共和。
《社会契约论》还论述了一系列法律基本理论，在其中贯穿着以人民主权为中心内容的资产阶级民主主义精神。卢梭指出法律是人民公共意志的体现，是人民自己意志的记录和全体人民为自己所做的规定。法律的特点在于意志的普遍性和对像的普遍性，前者指法律是人民公意的体现，后者指法律考虑的对像是全体的行为而非个别人。
同时，他阐述了法律与自由的关系：首先，法律与自由是一致的，人民服从法律就是服从自己的意志，就意味着自由。其次，法律是自由的保障。一方面，人人遵守法律，才能给人们以享受自由权利的安全保障；另一方面，法律可以强迫人们自由。
此外，卢梭还系统地提出了立法理论。他认为要依法治国就要有理想的法律，在制定法律时必须遵循下列原则：立法必须以谋取人民最大幸福为原则；立法权必须由人民掌握；由贤明者具体承担立法的责任；立法要注意各种自然的社会条件，法律只不过是保障、遵循和矫正自然的关系而已；既要保持法律的稳定性，又要适时修改、废除不好的法律。
“人是生而自由平等的，这是天赋的权利”，《社会契约论》中的这一 理论，开创了欧洲及全世界民主平等思想之先河，它的“人权天赋“，主权在民”的新学说向“君权神授”的传统观念发起了挑战。它所揭示的“人权自由、权利平等”的原则，至今仍作为西方政治的基础。
《社会契约论》-专家点评
卢梭是18世纪法国启蒙运动杰出的政治思想家、文学家。他的才思文藻风靡了当时的整个欧洲，并为后人留下了一系列划时代的巨著。很少有几个哲学家能带来卢梭著作那样的震撼。他的《艺术与科学谈》获法国第戎奖，使他荣获欧洲哲学大师称号。他的文学名著《新爱洛伊丝》在世界文学史上有着很高地位，使他跻身于启蒙时期著名文学家的行列。《社会契约论》又译作《民约论》是他最为杰出的代表作之一，被誉为“人类解放的第一个呼声，世界大革命的第一个煽动者”。卢梭是欧洲启蒙运动中重要的思想家，与伏尔泰齐名。他的主要作品有《忏悔录》、《爱弥儿》、《社会契约论》、《新爱洛伊丝》。他的主要思想：天赋人权学说，提出“人民主权”的口号。其思想是法国大革命中雅各宾派的旗帜，对欧美各国的资产阶级革命产生了深刻影响。
他的《社会契约论》中的“主权在民”一说，就划分了一个时代。
《社会契约论》卢梭将野花送给喂奶的母亲
《社会契约论》第一次提出了“天赋人权和主权在民的思想”。它刚一问世就遭到了禁止。卢梭本人也被迫流亡到英国。但《社会契约论》所提倡的民主理论却很快风靡全世界。它引发了震惊世界的法国大革命。法国国家格言“自由、平等、博爱”便来自《社会契约论》。1789年法国国民代表大会通过的《人权宣言》中“社会的目的是为大众谋福利的”、“统治权属于人民”等内容充分体现了《社会契约论》的精神。《社会契约论》还对美国的《独立宣言》产生了重要影响，从罗伯斯庇尔到列宁都曾用《社会契约论》为自己的政权做解释。1978年，在纪念卢梭逝世200周年的活动中，专门召开了国际研讨会，研究卢梭的思想，出版他的新传，推出以他为题材的电视剧。他的遗骸被安放在法国的伟人祠内。卢梭在《社会契约论》中预见的“消费者的各种陷阱，大城市的骚乱以及毁灭性的军费负担”等等，都已成为当代社会的现实问题。目前，单在法国就有150多位学者在专门研究卢梭的思想。
有说卢梭的政治理论深受柏拉图的《理想国》的影响。《理想国》的概念，建立于人性善的理念基础上，柏拉图笔下的苏格拉底说，“只有正直的人才会幸福”，“善的意志”成为他的理想国的基础。卢梭也相信人性善，他提倡宽容理性，坚定地反对任何政治暴力。同是论述理想国的原则，不同于柏拉图，卢梭将其理论框架完全建立在“人生而自由”的基础之上，也就是说“自由意志”。这个基础就实在多了。很早以前，人们有一个更好的但文言的说法：“天赋人权。”由天赋人权作为第一原理，他所构造的不再只是理想，而是现代公民社会的基本原则。公民社会中，公民失去了自由人无所不为的自由，而得到公民的政治权利、政治自由。他的《社会契约论》（又译《民约论》）所要解决的是人权和法律的有机结合。从此，合法性只能来自人民，成了卢梭的继承者和背叛者的共同的理念。前者产生了美国革命和民主的建立，后者以人民之名专权屠杀。卢梭，作为“主权在民”的勾画者，就是在200年后还处于争论的中心：他的理论到底是在提倡民主自由，还是在提倡极权暴政？
《社会契约论》哲学家卢梭大部头著作
人权是属于个体的，法律是属于国家的。个体约定而成国家的合理性，是法律有效性和政权合法性的终极判断。自由，不是来自法律对个人的保护，而是来自个体对立法的彻底参与。这是切实保障个体自由的先决条件。在这一过程里，个体利益的“交集”而非“并集”（不完全是数学上的那种）形成公民意志——主权者的意志——一般意志，而这种主权者因为个体的不断参与，其内容是常新的，其利益与个体利益共荣的。从这一点出发，多数人说了算的约法三章必然成为主权在民的道德的体现方式。
卢梭把政权明白地分成了立法和行政两个部分，前者属于社会契约的范畴，而后者不是契约的内容（因此是可变可推翻的）。这个理念对后来民主政治的发展有着不可磨灭的贡献。在卢梭之前，孟德斯鸠的《论法的精神》对法律的理解更加深刻，惟缺卢梭的“主权在民”的动力。《社会契约论》自始至终只扬弃了一种体制：专制政府。按卢梭的话，这就是那种蔑视法律把个体的权力高于主权者之上的体制。其他的体制，卢梭仅仅论述了它们合法的自然依据。从直接民主制、贵族代议制到君主立宪制，统治的根据必须是人民主权———其真正表达就是法律。卢梭并进而把任何真正依法而治的政体统称为共和政体。在卢梭看来，他那个时代的政治社会形态是腐朽的，他要到古希腊时代才能找到合理的回归。
《社会契约论》是世界政治法律学说史上最重要的经典之一，是震撼世界的1789年法国大革命的号角和福音书。它阐述的许多原则原理不仅在革命之初被载入法国《人权宣言》等重要文献中，在革命后的长时期里成为资产阶级的政治法律制度的基石。卢梭的思想对后世思想家们理论的形成有重大影响。
卢梭的政治著作中有许多思想独特新颖，引人入胜。但是总体说来就是一种追求平等的强烈欲望和一种同样强烈的感受：现存社会制度的不合理已经达到了令人不能容忍的程度，人生下来本来是自由的，但是无论走到哪里都要戴上枷锁。卢梭自己可能并不喜欢暴力行为，但是他无疑激励了其他人实行暴力革命，逐步改革社会制度。
有人批评卢梭是一个极其神经质的人，是一个大男子主义者，是一个思想不切实际的、糊涂的思想家，这样的批评大体上是正确的。但是远比他的缺点更重要的是他的洞察力和杰出的创造精神所闪现出来的思想火花，两个多世纪以来，不断地影响着现代思想。
《社会契约论》-妙语佳句
我看到了另一个世界，我的全部激情都被对真理、对自由、对道德的热爱窒息掉了。
谁第一个把一块土地圈起来并想到这是自己的，而且被头脑简单的人所相信的话，那他就是文明的奠基者。
Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism. However, they drew quite different conclusions from this starting-point. Hobbes advocated an authoritarian monarchy, Locke advocated a liberal monarchy, while Rousseau advocated liberal republicanism. Their work provided theoretical groundwork of constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy and republicanism. The Social Contract was used in the Declaration of Independence as a sign of enforcing Democracy, and more recently has been revived by thinkers such as John Rawls.
Overview
According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.
Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.
Violations of the contract
The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest ("general will" in Rousseau). Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.
Since civil rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who choose to violate their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, abdicate their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).
History
Classical thought
Many have argued that Plato's dialog Crito expresses a Greek version of social contract theory. In this dialog, Socrates refuses to escape from jail to avoid being put to death. He argues that since he has willingly remained in Athens all of his life despite opportunities to go elsewhere, he has accepted the social contract i.e. the burden of the local laws, and he cannot violate these laws even when they are against his self-interest.
Epicurus seems to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law being rooted in mutual agreement and advantage, as evidenced by these lines, among others, from his Principal Doctrines:
31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another. 32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm. 33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm. 34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.
Also see Epicurean ethics
Renaissance developments
Quentin Skinner has argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings from French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work in turn was invoked by writers in the Low Countries who objected to their subjection to Spain and, later still, by Catholics in England. Among these, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), from the School of Salamanca, might be considered as an early theorist of the social contract, theorizing natural law in an attempt to limit the divine right of absolute monarchy. All of these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty by means of a social covenant or contract: all of these arguments began with proto-“state of nature” arguments, to the effect that the basis of politics is that everyone is by nature free of subjection to any government.
However, these arguments relied on a corporatist theory found in Roman Law, according to which "a populus" can exist as a distinct legal entity. Therefore these arguments held that a community of people can join a government because they have the capacity to exercise a single will and make decisions with a single voice in the absence of sovereign authority — a notion rejected by Hobbes and later contract theorists.
Philosophers
Hugo Grotius
In the early 17th century, Grotius (1583–1645) introduced the modern idea of natural rights of individuals. Grotius says that we each have natural rights which we have in order to preserve ourselves. He uses this idea to try to establish a basis for moral consensus in the face of religious diversity and the rise of natural science and to find a minimal basis for a moral beginning for society, a kind of natural law that everyone could potentially accept. He goes so far as to say even if we were to concede what we cannot concede without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, these laws would still hold. The idea was considered incendiary, since it suggests that power can ultimately go back to the individuals if the political society that they have set up forfeits the purpose for which it was originally established, which is to preserve themselves. In other words, the people i.e. the individual people, are sovereign. Grotius says that the people are sui juris - under their own jurisdiction. People have rights as human beings but there is a delineation of those rights because of what is possible for everyone to accept morally - everyone has to accept that each person is entitled to try to preserve themselves and therefore they shouldn't try to do harm to others or to interfere with them and they should punish any breach of someone else's rights that arises.
Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651)
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership/ the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.
The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of society, and by extension, the state, a sovereign entity (like the individuals, now under its rule, used to be) which was to protect these new rights which were now to regulate societal interactions. Society was thus no longer anarchic.
But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international relations, advanced by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several ways, but retained the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their action than accepted by Hobbes, but recognized that people would still live in fear of one another. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", and that could therefore protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued that laws could only be legitimate if they sought to achieve the common good. Locke also believed that people will do the right thing as a group, and that all people have natural rights.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a different version of social contract theory, based on popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government. Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as a whole in lawmaking, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. Citizens must, in at least some circumstances, be able to choose together the fundamental rules by which they would live, and be able to revise those rules on later occasions if they choose to do so - something the British people as a whole were unable to do.
Rousseau's political theory has some points in common with Locke's individualism, but departs from it in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to Diderot) of the general will. Rousseau argues a citizen can be an egoist and decide that his personal interest should override the collective interest. However, as part of a collective body, the individual citizen puts aside his egoism to create a "general will", which is popular sovereignty itself. Popular sovereignty (i.e., the rule of law), thus decides what is good for society as a whole, and the individual (including the administrative head of state, who could be a monarch) must bow to it, or be forced to bow to it:
[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free" should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and breaks the law, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is voted by the people's representatives, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression; and enforcement of law, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)
While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:
What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)
John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)
John Rawls (1921–2002) proposed a contractarian approach that has a decidedly Kantian flavour, in A Theory of Justice (1971), whereby rational people in a hypothetical "original position", setting aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "veil of ignorance", would agree to certain general principles of justice. This idea is also used as a game-theoretical formalization of the notion of fairness.
Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)
Philip Pettit (b. 1945) has argued, in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997), that the theory of social contract, classically based on the consent of the governed (as it is assumed that the contract is valid as long as the people consent to being governed by its representatives, who exercise sovereignty), should be modified, in order to avoid dispute. Instead of arguing that an explicit consent, which can always be manufactured, should justify the validity of social contract, Philip Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against the contract is the only legitimacy of it.
Criticism
David Hume
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "On Civil Liberty", in whose second part, entitled, "Of the Original Contract ", he stressed that the concept of a "social contract" was a convenient fiction:
AS no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. . . . The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him. --David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1]
However, Hume did agree that, no matter how a government is founded, the consent of the governed is the only legitimate foundation on which a government can rest.
My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only pretend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted. --Ibid II.XII.20
Logic of contracting
According to the will theory of contract, which was dominant in the 19th century and still exerts a strong influence, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.
Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; then, more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.
Multiple contracts
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued, that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson, who argued that there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law". The second would be the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.
Tacit consent
The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some government, people give consent to be governed. This consent is what gives legitimacy to the government. Philosopher Roderick Long argues that this is a case of question begging, because the argument has to presuppose its conclusion:
I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Criticisms of natural rights
Contractualism is based on the notion that rights are agreed upon in order to further our interests: each individual subject is accorded individual rights, which may or may not be inalienable, and form the basis of civil rights, as in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It must be underlined, however, as Hannah Arendt did on her book on imperialism, that the 1789 Declarations, in this agreeing with the social contract theory, bases the natural rights of the human-being on the civil rights of the citizen, instead of the reverse as the contractualist theory does. This criticism derives from a long tradition going back to St. Augustine of Hippo, who in The City of God (book) envisioned a unified Christian society presided over by a king who was responsible for the welfare of his subjects. Political Augustinianism with its insistence on divine sovereignty and on the two separate spheres of a heavenly and an earthly community, has indeed been regarded as incompatible with social contract theories. This raises the question of whether social contractarianism, as a central plank of liberal thought, is reconcilable with the Christian religion, and particularly with Catholicism and Catholic social teaching. The individualist and liberal approach has also been criticized since the 19th century by thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche & Freud, and afterward by structuralist and post-structuralist thinkers, such as Lacan, Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze or Derrida
我真心接受这一名言——“最少管事的政府是最好的政府”；并希望它能更迅速更彻底地得到执行。执行之后，我也相信，它最终会变成：“一事不管的政府才是最好的政府”。只要人们对此有所期待，他们就会得到那样的政府。充其量政府只不过是一种权宜之计。但是大多数政府往往不得计，而所有的政府有时都会不得计。人们对常备军提出的意见很多，也很有份量，值得广泛宣传。但它最终也可能会用来反对常备政府。常备军只是政府的一个手臂。政府本身是由人民选择用来执行他们意志的一种模式。但是在人民能够通过它采取行动之前，它同样有可能被引入歧途，滥用职权。请看当前的墨西哥战争，这是相对少数人把常备政府当工具使用的例子。因为在一开始人民并不同意采取这种手段。
（梭罗的主张有点像是自由主义，并且在结果上倾向于无政府主义。读者按）
目前的美国政府——它实际上是个传统形式。虽说人选是新的，它却努力使自己完整地传送到下一代，而每一刻又都在失去它的完整性。除此之外它又能是什么呢？它的朝气和力量抵不上一个活人；因为一个人也能按他的意志使之屈从。对人民自己来说，它是一种木枪。如果他们一本正经地把它当真家伙用来互相攻击，它肯定会崩裂。但它的必要性不会因此而减少，因为人民必须要有这样或那样的复杂机器，并亲耳聆听它发出运转噪音，以此来满足他们有关政府的概念。因此政府便能显示出人们会多么容易地置身于强制之下，甚至是自我的强制，目的是为了从中获益。我们都必须承认这是桩妙事；但政府除了极善于偏离自己职能之外，它可从来没有促进过任何事业。它没有使国家保持自由。它没有安定西部。它没有提供教育。所有已取得的成就都是靠美国人民固有的性格而获得的；而且，要不是政府经常从中阻挠，这成就或许会更大些。如果人们能通过政府这一权宜之计实现互不约束，他们将会非常高兴。正如刚才所说，被统治者最不受约束时，正是统治机构最得计之时。贸易与商业，若没有与印第安人磨擦所造成的刺激，根本不可能越过立法者们不断设置的障碍而得以发展。如果我们仅根据政府行动的后果，而不顾及其动机，我们真应当将这批人当作那些在铁轨上放置障碍物的淘气鬼一样加以惩罚。
说实在的，作为一个公民，而不像那些自称为无政府的人，我并不要求立即废除政府，而是希望立即能有一个好一点的政府。让每一个人都说说什么样的政府能赢得他的尊敬，这将是建立那种政府的第一步。
（梭罗自己并不认为自己是一个无政府主义者）
当权力一旦落入人民手中，大部分人被允许长久地治理国家的理由毕竟不仅仅是因为他们代表着真理，也不因为这看来对少数人最公正，而是因为他们在力量上最强大。然而，即使是一个在所有情况下都由多数人统治的政府也不可能基于正义，哪怕是人们通常理解的正义。假设在政府里不靠多数人，而用良知来判断是非，多数人只决定政府该管或不该管的问题，这样的政府难道不可能实现吗？难道一个公民永远应当在特定时刻，或在最低程度上迫使他的良心服从立法者吗？如果这样，人们要良心又有何用？我想，我们首先应该是人，其次才是臣民。仅仅为了公正而培养尊敬法律的习惯是不可取的。我有权承担的惟一义务就是在任何时候做我认为是正确的事。公司没有良心，但是由有良心的人们组成的公司是有良心的公司，这样的说法完全正确。法律丝毫没有使人变得更公正些；相反，由于尊重法律，甚至是好心人也在日益变成非正义的执行者。你可以看到一个由士兵、上校、上尉、下士、一等兵和军火搬运工组成的队伍，以令人羡慕的队列翻山越岭，奔赴战争；但是由于他们违背了自己的意志、常情和良心，他们的行军变得异常困难，人人都感到心惊肉跳；这就是过分尊重法律的一个普通而自然的结果。他们所卷入的是一场可恶的交易，对此他们深信不疑；他们都希望和平。现在他们成了什么？是人吗？还是些小型活动堡垒或弹药库，在为某些不择手段的掌权者效劳？请参观海军基地，目睹一个水兵，那就是美国政府所能造就的人，或者说这就是它能用巫术把一个人改变成的模样：他只是人类的一个影子和回忆，一个被安放在那里站岗的活人。正如人们所说，这位士兵带着陪葬物，埋在武器堆里……
因此这些人并非作为人去为国效劳，而是作为肉体的机器。他们包括常备军、民兵、监狱看守、警察、地方民团等。在大部分情况下，他们自己的判断力和道德感没有发挥任何作用；他们视自己为木材、泥土和石块；要是能造出木头人来，也能达到同样的目的。这种人不会比稻草人或一堆土更能引起人们的尊敬。他们只具有与马和狗同等的价值。然而这样的人却被普遍视为好公民。其他人，诸如大多数立法者、政客、律师、牧师、官员等，主要用头脑来为国家服务。但是，由于他们很少辨别道德是非，而有可能不知不觉地像侍奉上帝一样为魔鬼服务。也有一些真正称得上是英雄、爱国者、殉道者或改革家的人，他们确实用良心为国家服务，因而往往会抵制国家的行径，结果他们通常被国家当作敌人看待。
一个人今天该怎样对待美国政府才合适呢？我说，他不可能与之相联而不失体面。我一刻也不能承认那个政治组织就是我的政府，因为它也是奴隶的政府。
所有的人都承认革命的权利：那就是当人们无法容忍一个独裁或无能的政府时，拒绝效忠并抵抗它的权力。但是几乎所有的人都说现在不是那种情况。他们认为只有１７７５年大革命才属于那种非常时期。要是有人告诉我，这是个坏政府，因为它向进入它港口的外国商品征税，我完全可能不把这种指控当回事，因为我可以不要这些商品：所有机器都有磨擦，这有可能抵消罪恶。无论如何，要是从中进行煽动便是极大的罪恶。但是当这一磨擦开始毁坏机器，当镇压和抢劫已组织起来时，我说，让我们再也不要这样的机器了。换句话说，当一个承诺要保护自由的国家的六分之一人口是奴隶，当一个国家完全被外国军队非法地蹂躏、征服，并由军法管制的时候，我想，过不了多久，诚实的人便会起来造反和革命。使得这一责任更为紧迫的事实是：被蹂躏的国家不是我们自己的，而侵略军却是我们的。
当然，一个人没有责任一定要致力于纠正某种谬误，哪怕是最不公正的谬误。他仍可以适当地从事其他事情。但他起码有责任同这谬误一刀两断。既然他不再拿它当回正事，他就应该基本上终止对它的支持。要是我致力于其他追求和思索，我首先至少得保证我没有骑在别人肩上。我必须先从他身上爬下来，好让他也能进行他自己的思索。请看这社会是多么地不和谐。我曾听到城里有些市民说：“我希望他们命令我前去镇压奴隶起义，或开赴墨西哥；——看我是否会去。”但正是这些人，他们每人都直接而忠诚地，起码是间接地通过出钱，提供了一个替身。拒绝参加一场非正义战争的士兵受到人们的赞美。可这些赞美者中的某些人并没有拒绝拥护那个发动这场战争的非正义政府。这些人的行为和权威正是士兵们所蔑视和不屑一顾的。在他们看来，似乎国家在犯罪时也有追悔之意，因而要专雇一人来鞭笞自己，但又没有后悔到要停止片刻犯罪的程度。因此在秩序和公民政府的名义下，我们最后都被迫对我们自己的卑劣行径表示敬意和支持。人们在犯罪的首次脸红之后学会了满不在乎。不道德似乎也变成了非道德。这种适应在我们的生活里并非完全没有必要。
……如果你被邻居骗走一元钱，你不可能仅仅满足于知道自己受骗，或对别人说自己受骗，或要求他如数偿还。你会立即采取有力步骤获得全部退赔，并设法保证自己不再受骗。出于原则的行动，——出于正义感并加以履行的行动，——能够改变事物及其关系。这种行动基本上是革命的，它同以前任何事物截然不同。它不仅分离了政府与教会，也分离了家庭；是的，它还分离个人，将他身上的恶魔从神圣的部分中分离出去。
非正义的法律的确存在。我们究竟是满足于服从它们，还是应当一边努力修改、一边服从它们直至我们成功，或者干脆超越它们？在目前这种政府统治下的人们通常认为他们应该等待，直至他们说服了多数人来修改法律。他们认为，如果他们抵抗，这种纠正方法将比罪恶的现状更坏。但造成这种无可补救局面的责任应当归咎于政府本身。它使之越改越坏。它为什么不能事先预计到改革并为之提供方便？它为什么不爱护少数明智的人？它为何在还没有受到伤害时就嚎叫着抵抗？它为何不鼓励公民们及时指出它的错误，并让他们主动地干好事情？它为何总是把基督钉在十字架上，将哥白尼和路德革出教门，并宣判华盛顿和富兰克林为叛逆？
有人会认为，政府对于那些故意而切实冒犯它权威的人往往是熟视无睹的。要不然，它怎么没有为此规定过明确、恰当和相应的惩罚？一个没有财产的人只要有一回拒绝向州政府交纳９个先令，他就会被送进监狱，关押他的时间不受我所知道的任何法律限制，仅仅由把他送进去的那伙人任意决定。但是，如果他从州里偷了９０倍于９先令的钱，他很快就能逍遥法外。
如果这样的不公正是政府机器必要磨擦的一部分，那就让它去，让它去吧。可能它会自己磨掉这些不平——当然，这机器到时也会完蛋。如果这种非正义有它专用的弹簧，滑轮，绳子，或曲柄，你可能认为改造它并不一定就是坏事。但是如果它的本性就要求你对另一人施虐，那么我要说，请犯法吧。用你的生命来反磨擦，好让这机器停止运转。在任何情况下，我必须保证自己不参与我所谴责的罪过。
至于说要执行州政府提出的消除罪恶的方法，我不知道有这种方法。它们费时太久，一个人的生命有限。我有其他事要做。我来到这世界的主要目的不是要将它建成生活的乐园，而是在此地生活，无论它好还是坏。一个人不必样样事都去做，而只需做一些事。正因为他不能样样事都做，他就不应该将一些事做错。假如州长或州议会没有义务向我请愿，我也没有义务向他们请愿。如果他们听不到我的请愿，我该怎么办？在目前情况下，州政府对此并没想出任何办法。真正的罪过在于它的宪法本身。这听来可能过于严厉、固执或不通情达理。但惟有这种精神才是我们对待宪治的态度，它含有最大程度的善意和最深刻的思考。这也是所有事物向好的方面转化的规律，就像人在同疾病的生死搏斗中会全身痉挛一样。
我毫不犹豫地敬告那些自称为废奴论者的人，他们必须立即真正地收回无论在个人和财产方面对马萨诸塞州政府的支持，不要等到他们形成多数后再在他们中间执行正义。我认为，只要有上帝站在他们那一边就够了，不必等待其他。再说，任何比他邻居更勇敢的人都可以形成一个多数。
我每年仅有一次机会通过收税官直接面对面地和美国政府，或它的代表——州政府打交道。这是像我这种处境的人必然和它打交道的惟一方式。这个政府十分清楚地要求我承认它。而我为了要在这种情况下应付它，并表达对它微乎其微的满意和爱戴，我的最简单、最有效、并在目前形势下最有必要的方式就是否认它。我的邻居，收税官，正是我要对付的人，——因为毕竟我并不跟羊皮纸文件，而是要跟人争论，——他已自愿当了政府的代理人……
在一个不公道地关押人的政府的统治下，一个正义者的真正归宿也是监狱。今天，马萨诸塞提供给那些较自由和有点朝气的人的合适地方就是她的监狱，州政府按自己的法令将他们驱逐出去或监禁起来，因为这些人已经按照他们的原则把自己放逐出去了。在监狱里，在那些逃亡的奴隶、保释的墨西哥战俘和前来投诉种族迫害的印第安人中间，他们找到了归宿。在那个与世隔绝，但更自由、更诚实的场所，州政府关押的不是赞成它，而是反对它的人，——那是一个蓄奴州里的自由人可以问心无愧地生活的惟一地方。如果有人认为，自由人的影响在监狱里会消失，他们的声音再也不能刺痛官员们的耳朵，他们在大墙之内也不再是敌人，那就错了。他们不知道真理要比谬误强大许多倍，也不知道亲身经历过一些非正义的人能够多么雄辩而有效地同非正义作斗争。投上你的整个选票吧，不单单是一张小纸条，而是你的全部影响。少数服从多数则软弱无力；它甚至还算不上少数。但如果尽全力抵制，它将势不可挡。一旦让州政府来选择出路：要么把所有正义者都关进监狱，要么放弃战争和奴隶制，我想它是会毫不迟疑的。要是今年有一千人拒交税款，那还算不上是暴力流血的手段。我们若交了税，则使州政府有能力实行暴力，造成无辜流血。事实上这就是和平革命的定义，要是任何这种革命是可能的话。假如那位收税官或任何其他政府官员问我，正如有人已问过的：“那么我该怎么办呢？”我的回答是：“如果你真要干点事，就请辞职吧。”当臣民拒绝效忠，官员辞去职务，那么这场革命就成功了。就算这种作法可能会引起流血吧。当人们的良心受到创伤时，这难道不也是一种流血吗？由于这种创伤，一个人将失去他真正的勇气和不朽的气质。他会如此流血不止，直至精神上的死亡。现在我看到这种无形的血正在流淌。
几年前，州政府曾以教会的名义要求我支付一笔钱以供养一个牧师，他的传道我父亲听过，而我从来未听过。“付钱吧，”它说，“要不然就进监狱。”我就是不付。但不幸的是另一个人觉得应该付。我不明白为什么教师要付税给牧师，而不是牧师付给教师。我不是州立学校的教师，但我靠自愿捐款为生。我不明白为什么学校就不能像教会那样，在州的支持下，提出自己的税单。然而，在当选议员们的要求下，我屈尊写下了这样的声明：“谨以此言为证，我，亨利·大卫·梭罗，不希望被认为是任何我没有加入的联合团体的一员。”我把这声明交给了镇公所的文书，他还保留着。虽然州政府当时说过，它必须坚持它原先的决定，但听说我不希望被认为是那个教堂的成员，打那以来，它一直没对我提出类似要求。我愿意一一签字，以表示与我从未签字认可的一切社会团体断绝关系。可惜我不知道这些团体的名称，也不知道该到何处去寻一份完整的名单。
我有六年没交人头税了。就为这我曾进监狱住了一晚。当我在那里站着思考，面对那二三英尺厚的坚实石墙、一英尺厚的木铁门和透光的铁栅栏时，我禁不住强烈地感到这监狱把我仅当作一个血肉之躯关进来是何等愚蠢。我怀疑它最后是否会断定这就是它对付我的最好方法，而从没想到要以某种方式来叫我做点事。我在想，虽然我和我的街坊邻里们之间隔了一堵石墙，但他们要达到像我一样自由，还有一堵更难攀越、更难打破的墙。我一刻也没感到被监禁，那墙似乎是石块和泥灰的巨大浪费。我似乎感到，全体市民中，只有我一人付了税。他们完全不知该怎样对待我，他们的言行缺乏教养。无论他们对我进行威胁或赞扬，总是错看了我的本意。因为他们认为，我的主要愿望是站到石墙的另一边。看到他们在我沉思时如何勤奋地锁门，我只好付之一笑。我的思绪不必开门，不必设障，又跟他们出去了，而这才是真正的危险。因为他们已无法理解我，他们便决定惩罚我的肉体；就像一群顽童，当他们无法接近他们所痛恨的人时，便虐待他的狗。我感到州政府智能低下，它就像拿着银汤匙的孤独女人一样胆小。它敌友不分。我对它剩下的一点尊敬已经荡然无存，我真为它遗憾。
由此看来，州政府从未有意识地正视过一个人的心灵，无论是从理智还是道义的角度。它只看到一个人的肉体和感官。它并不具备高级智能，也不见得诚实，只是在物质上强大罢了。我不是生来就受强制的人。我要按自己的方式呼吸空气。让我们看看谁最强大。民众有什么力量？他们只能强迫我，而我要服从比我更高的法规。他们强迫我成为像他们一样的人。我没听说有人应当服从多数人的强迫而以这种或那种方式生活。那样算是什么样的生活？当政府命令我说“交钱还是交命”时，我为什么要匆忙地把我的钱给它？它可能困难重重，不知如何是好；然而我怎么可能帮助它？它必须像我这样自己帮助自己。为此哭鼻子不值得。社会这部机器是否成功运转我不负责任，我不是工程师的儿子。我发现，当一粒橡子和一粒栗子并排落地后，没有哪个停下来谦让另一个。两者都按它们自己的规律，尽最大的能力去发芽、生长、变得茂盛。可能直至一个超越并毁灭另一个。一株植物如不能按自己本性生长则死亡；一个人也同样如此。
我不想与任何人或国家争吵。我不想无故挑剔，找出细微差别，也不想标榜自己高邻居一等。可以说，我甚至是要寻找一个借口来遵守国家法令。遵守国家法令我是再高兴不过了。但在这一问题上，我确实有理由怀疑自己。每年当收税官到来时，我总要审查一下国家和州政府的法令和态度，以及人民的情绪，以便找到一个遵守的前提。我相信州政府很快就会使我放弃所有这些作法，然后，我将变成一个和我的同胞相似的爱国者。从放低了的角度看，宪法虽然有许多缺陷，它仍不失为一部很好的宪法。法律和法庭令人尊敬。甚至本州政府和美国政府在许多方面也是相当令人钦佩而又罕见的机构，令人感恩不尽，许多人对此已作出描述。但是从略高一点的角度看，它们正如我已描述过的那样。要是换成最高的角度，有谁说得出它们是什么，或它们还真值得一看或一想？
然而政府与我没有多大关系，我将尽量不去想它。甚至在这个世界里，我在政府统治下生活的时刻不多。要是一个人思考自由，幻想自由，想象自由，不存在的事物从不会很久地被他看作是存在之物，那么，不明智的统治者和改革家的阻碍对他也起不了多大作用。
我知道大多数人与我想的不一样。但是那些专门以研究这一类问题为职业的人也很少令我满意。由于政治家和立法者们完全处于这一机构之内，他们决不可能清楚而客观地观察它。他们常说要推进社会，但他们舍此就没有立足之处。他们可能有一定的经验和见识，毫无疑问，也可能想出了一些有独创性的甚至是有用的制度，对此我们诚挚地感谢他们。但他们所有的智慧和效用都很有限。他们经常会忘记这世界并不是由政策和权宜之计所统治。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特从未调查过政府，因此，他也无权谈论它。对那些不考虑彻底改革现行政府的议员们来说，他的话就是智慧。而在思想家，那些一直在参与立法的思想家眼里，他从未正视过这一问题。据我了解，有些人通过对这一问题的宁静和明智的思考，不久将会揭示，韦伯斯特的思考范围和坦荡胸怀都是有限的。
但是与大多数改革者的平庸职业相比，与那些更为平庸而普通的政客的智慧与口才相比，韦伯斯特的话几乎是惟一有理智，有价值的话。我们为有他而感谢上帝。相比而言，他总是坚强有力，有独创性，尤其是讲究实际的。然而他的本质不是智慧，而是谨慎。律师的真理不是真理，只不过是协调，或协调的权宜之计。真理的自身永远是和谐的，它不是用来揭示那些可能与错误行为相一致的正义。韦伯斯特被称为“宪法的捍卫者”完全当之无愧。他对宪法只有捍卫，而从未真正攻击过。他不是领袖，而是随从。他的领袖是１７８７年起草宪法的人。“我从未作出努力，”他说，“从未建议作出努力，从未支持过努力，也从未打算支持那些企图打扰原定安排的努力。正是由于宪法的安排，各州组成了目前这个联邦。”在考虑宪法对奴隶制的默认问题时，他甚至说，“既然这是早先契约的一部分，——那就让它存在下去。”尽管他精明过人，才能超群，还是无法将一件事从它的纯政治关系中分离出来，把它看作是绝对要用才智来处理的事，——比如：在当今美国，就奴隶制这一问题，一个人到底应该干些什么。可是韦伯斯特只能或是被迫绝望地作出下列回答，同时还声明他是作为一个私下的朋友已把话说绝了， ——他这么说话，还能有什么新的和个人的社会责任的准则可谈？“方法，”他说，“以及那些蓄奴州的政府应该按什么形式来调整这一制度，必须由他们自己考虑，他们必须对他们的选民，对有关适度、人性和正义的普遍常规及上帝本身负责。在其他地方形成，从某种人类感情中产生，或由其他原因组成的社团都与此毫不相干。他们从未得到过我的鼓励，将来也永远不会得到。”
那些不知真理有更纯洁的源泉的人，那些不再沿真理的小溪往高处追寻的人，他们很聪明地守在圣经和宪法旁边，必恭必敬地掬水解渴。而那些看到水是从哪儿汇入这些湖泊的人们却再次整装出发，继续他们探寻真理源头的历程。
在美国没有出现过立法天才。这种人在世界史上亦属罕见。演说家、政治家和雄辩者成千上万，但是有能力解决当前棘手问题的发言人却尚未开口说话。我们喜欢雄辩只是因为它是一门技术，而不太考虑它可能表达的真理或激起某种英雄主义。我们的立法者们尚未懂得自由贸易和自由、联盟、公正对一个国家所具有的相对价值。他们没有天资或才能解决诸如税收、金融、商业、生产和农业等世俗政务。要是我们完全听凭国会里废话连篇的立法者们的指导，而他们的指导又得不到人民及时与合理的纠正，要不了多久，美国在世界上的地位便会丧失。《新约全书》问世已有一千八百年，虽然我可能没有资格说下面的话，但是具有足够智慧和实际能力以《新约》精神来指导立法科学的人又在哪里？
政府的权威，甚至是我愿顺从的权威，——因为我乐于服从那些懂得比我多、干得比我好的人，甚至在许多事情上服从那些懂得和干得都不如我的人，——仍然是不够纯洁的。严格说来，它必须得到被统治者的承认和同意。只要我没让步，它对我个人和财产就没有纯粹的权利。从绝对君主制到有限君主制，再从有限君主制到民主制的进程就是通向真正尊重个人的进程。我们所知道的民主制是否就是政府可能做的最后改进？难道就不能再迈进一步，承认并组织人权？州政府必须将个人作为一种更高和独立的力量而加以承认，并予以相应对待，因为政府所有的权力和权威都来自于这一力量。在此之前，决不会有真正自由和文明的州。我自鸣得意的是，我最后还是设想了一个州，这个州能公正对待所有的人，彬彬有礼地将个人视为邻居。即便有些人离群索居，只要他们不捣乱，也不听命于人，而是完成作为邻居和同胞的所有义务，州政府仍能处之泰然，任其自由。一个州如能结出这种果实，并忍耐到瓜熟蒂落的时刻，那将为我所设想的，另一个更完善、更壮丽的州铺平道路，尽管这个州至今任何地方都还看不到。
摘自《美国的历史文献》 赵一凡 编
三联书店１９８９年版
This American government -- what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts -- a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried."
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:--
"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God... that the established government be obeyed, and no longer.... This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other." Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does any one think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?
"A drab of state, a cloth-o'-silver slut, To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt."
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow -- one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico; -- see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.
The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves -- the union between themselves and the State -- and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?
How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing that you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that you are never cheated again. Action from principle -- the perception and the performance of right -- changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divides states and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth -- certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is an change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.
I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year -- no more -- in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with -- for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel -- and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborliness without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action? I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name -- if ten honest men only -- ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State's ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister -- though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her -- the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject the following winter.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her -- the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.
I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods -- though both will serve the same purpose -- because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man -- not to make any invidious comparison -- is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; and it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he; -- and one took a penny out of his pocket; -- if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God those things which are God's" -- leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.
When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said, "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame." No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.
Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster: for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:-- "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list.
I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.
The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirt-sleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, "Come, boys, it is time to lock up"; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as "a first-rate fellow and a clever man." When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in the town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest man, of course; and, as the world goes, I believe he was. "Why," said he, "they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it." As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.
He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even here there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of verses which were composed by some young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.
I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.
It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town-clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village-inn -- a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.
In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left; but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good-day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.
When I came out of prison -- for some one interfered, and paid that tax -- I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a tottering and gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene -- the town, and State, and country -- greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that in their sacrifices to humanity, they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.
It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the grating of a jail window, "How do ye do?" My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour -- for the horse was soon tackled -- was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.
This is the whole history of "My Prisons."
I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with -- the dollar is innocent -- but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases.
If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.
This, then, is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his action be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.
I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well; they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think, again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill-will, without personal feeling of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But, if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker of fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.
I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity.
"We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Our love or industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit."
I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better a patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?
However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.
I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects, content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was a part of the original compact -- let it stand." Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect -- what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in America to-day with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man -- from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will."
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to -- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well -- is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
（梭罗的主张有点像是自由主义，并且在结果上倾向于无政府主义。读者按）
目前的美国政府——它实际上是个传统形式。虽说人选是新的，它却努力使自己完整地传送到下一代，而每一刻又都在失去它的完整性。除此之外它又能是什么呢？它的朝气和力量抵不上一个活人；因为一个人也能按他的意志使之屈从。对人民自己来说，它是一种木枪。如果他们一本正经地把它当真家伙用来互相攻击，它肯定会崩裂。但它的必要性不会因此而减少，因为人民必须要有这样或那样的复杂机器，并亲耳聆听它发出运转噪音，以此来满足他们有关政府的概念。因此政府便能显示出人们会多么容易地置身于强制之下，甚至是自我的强制，目的是为了从中获益。我们都必须承认这是桩妙事；但政府除了极善于偏离自己职能之外，它可从来没有促进过任何事业。它没有使国家保持自由。它没有安定西部。它没有提供教育。所有已取得的成就都是靠美国人民固有的性格而获得的；而且，要不是政府经常从中阻挠，这成就或许会更大些。如果人们能通过政府这一权宜之计实现互不约束，他们将会非常高兴。正如刚才所说，被统治者最不受约束时，正是统治机构最得计之时。贸易与商业，若没有与印第安人磨擦所造成的刺激，根本不可能越过立法者们不断设置的障碍而得以发展。如果我们仅根据政府行动的后果，而不顾及其动机，我们真应当将这批人当作那些在铁轨上放置障碍物的淘气鬼一样加以惩罚。
说实在的，作为一个公民，而不像那些自称为无政府的人，我并不要求立即废除政府，而是希望立即能有一个好一点的政府。让每一个人都说说什么样的政府能赢得他的尊敬，这将是建立那种政府的第一步。
（梭罗自己并不认为自己是一个无政府主义者）
当权力一旦落入人民手中，大部分人被允许长久地治理国家的理由毕竟不仅仅是因为他们代表着真理，也不因为这看来对少数人最公正，而是因为他们在力量上最强大。然而，即使是一个在所有情况下都由多数人统治的政府也不可能基于正义，哪怕是人们通常理解的正义。假设在政府里不靠多数人，而用良知来判断是非，多数人只决定政府该管或不该管的问题，这样的政府难道不可能实现吗？难道一个公民永远应当在特定时刻，或在最低程度上迫使他的良心服从立法者吗？如果这样，人们要良心又有何用？我想，我们首先应该是人，其次才是臣民。仅仅为了公正而培养尊敬法律的习惯是不可取的。我有权承担的惟一义务就是在任何时候做我认为是正确的事。公司没有良心，但是由有良心的人们组成的公司是有良心的公司，这样的说法完全正确。法律丝毫没有使人变得更公正些；相反，由于尊重法律，甚至是好心人也在日益变成非正义的执行者。你可以看到一个由士兵、上校、上尉、下士、一等兵和军火搬运工组成的队伍，以令人羡慕的队列翻山越岭，奔赴战争；但是由于他们违背了自己的意志、常情和良心，他们的行军变得异常困难，人人都感到心惊肉跳；这就是过分尊重法律的一个普通而自然的结果。他们所卷入的是一场可恶的交易，对此他们深信不疑；他们都希望和平。现在他们成了什么？是人吗？还是些小型活动堡垒或弹药库，在为某些不择手段的掌权者效劳？请参观海军基地，目睹一个水兵，那就是美国政府所能造就的人，或者说这就是它能用巫术把一个人改变成的模样：他只是人类的一个影子和回忆，一个被安放在那里站岗的活人。正如人们所说，这位士兵带着陪葬物，埋在武器堆里……
因此这些人并非作为人去为国效劳，而是作为肉体的机器。他们包括常备军、民兵、监狱看守、警察、地方民团等。在大部分情况下，他们自己的判断力和道德感没有发挥任何作用；他们视自己为木材、泥土和石块；要是能造出木头人来，也能达到同样的目的。这种人不会比稻草人或一堆土更能引起人们的尊敬。他们只具有与马和狗同等的价值。然而这样的人却被普遍视为好公民。其他人，诸如大多数立法者、政客、律师、牧师、官员等，主要用头脑来为国家服务。但是，由于他们很少辨别道德是非，而有可能不知不觉地像侍奉上帝一样为魔鬼服务。也有一些真正称得上是英雄、爱国者、殉道者或改革家的人，他们确实用良心为国家服务，因而往往会抵制国家的行径，结果他们通常被国家当作敌人看待。
一个人今天该怎样对待美国政府才合适呢？我说，他不可能与之相联而不失体面。我一刻也不能承认那个政治组织就是我的政府，因为它也是奴隶的政府。
所有的人都承认革命的权利：那就是当人们无法容忍一个独裁或无能的政府时，拒绝效忠并抵抗它的权力。但是几乎所有的人都说现在不是那种情况。他们认为只有１７７５年大革命才属于那种非常时期。要是有人告诉我，这是个坏政府，因为它向进入它港口的外国商品征税，我完全可能不把这种指控当回事，因为我可以不要这些商品：所有机器都有磨擦，这有可能抵消罪恶。无论如何，要是从中进行煽动便是极大的罪恶。但是当这一磨擦开始毁坏机器，当镇压和抢劫已组织起来时，我说，让我们再也不要这样的机器了。换句话说，当一个承诺要保护自由的国家的六分之一人口是奴隶，当一个国家完全被外国军队非法地蹂躏、征服，并由军法管制的时候，我想，过不了多久，诚实的人便会起来造反和革命。使得这一责任更为紧迫的事实是：被蹂躏的国家不是我们自己的，而侵略军却是我们的。
当然，一个人没有责任一定要致力于纠正某种谬误，哪怕是最不公正的谬误。他仍可以适当地从事其他事情。但他起码有责任同这谬误一刀两断。既然他不再拿它当回正事，他就应该基本上终止对它的支持。要是我致力于其他追求和思索，我首先至少得保证我没有骑在别人肩上。我必须先从他身上爬下来，好让他也能进行他自己的思索。请看这社会是多么地不和谐。我曾听到城里有些市民说：“我希望他们命令我前去镇压奴隶起义，或开赴墨西哥；——看我是否会去。”但正是这些人，他们每人都直接而忠诚地，起码是间接地通过出钱，提供了一个替身。拒绝参加一场非正义战争的士兵受到人们的赞美。可这些赞美者中的某些人并没有拒绝拥护那个发动这场战争的非正义政府。这些人的行为和权威正是士兵们所蔑视和不屑一顾的。在他们看来，似乎国家在犯罪时也有追悔之意，因而要专雇一人来鞭笞自己，但又没有后悔到要停止片刻犯罪的程度。因此在秩序和公民政府的名义下，我们最后都被迫对我们自己的卑劣行径表示敬意和支持。人们在犯罪的首次脸红之后学会了满不在乎。不道德似乎也变成了非道德。这种适应在我们的生活里并非完全没有必要。
……如果你被邻居骗走一元钱，你不可能仅仅满足于知道自己受骗，或对别人说自己受骗，或要求他如数偿还。你会立即采取有力步骤获得全部退赔，并设法保证自己不再受骗。出于原则的行动，——出于正义感并加以履行的行动，——能够改变事物及其关系。这种行动基本上是革命的，它同以前任何事物截然不同。它不仅分离了政府与教会，也分离了家庭；是的，它还分离个人，将他身上的恶魔从神圣的部分中分离出去。
非正义的法律的确存在。我们究竟是满足于服从它们，还是应当一边努力修改、一边服从它们直至我们成功，或者干脆超越它们？在目前这种政府统治下的人们通常认为他们应该等待，直至他们说服了多数人来修改法律。他们认为，如果他们抵抗，这种纠正方法将比罪恶的现状更坏。但造成这种无可补救局面的责任应当归咎于政府本身。它使之越改越坏。它为什么不能事先预计到改革并为之提供方便？它为什么不爱护少数明智的人？它为何在还没有受到伤害时就嚎叫着抵抗？它为何不鼓励公民们及时指出它的错误，并让他们主动地干好事情？它为何总是把基督钉在十字架上，将哥白尼和路德革出教门，并宣判华盛顿和富兰克林为叛逆？
有人会认为，政府对于那些故意而切实冒犯它权威的人往往是熟视无睹的。要不然，它怎么没有为此规定过明确、恰当和相应的惩罚？一个没有财产的人只要有一回拒绝向州政府交纳９个先令，他就会被送进监狱，关押他的时间不受我所知道的任何法律限制，仅仅由把他送进去的那伙人任意决定。但是，如果他从州里偷了９０倍于９先令的钱，他很快就能逍遥法外。
如果这样的不公正是政府机器必要磨擦的一部分，那就让它去，让它去吧。可能它会自己磨掉这些不平——当然，这机器到时也会完蛋。如果这种非正义有它专用的弹簧，滑轮，绳子，或曲柄，你可能认为改造它并不一定就是坏事。但是如果它的本性就要求你对另一人施虐，那么我要说，请犯法吧。用你的生命来反磨擦，好让这机器停止运转。在任何情况下，我必须保证自己不参与我所谴责的罪过。
至于说要执行州政府提出的消除罪恶的方法，我不知道有这种方法。它们费时太久，一个人的生命有限。我有其他事要做。我来到这世界的主要目的不是要将它建成生活的乐园，而是在此地生活，无论它好还是坏。一个人不必样样事都去做，而只需做一些事。正因为他不能样样事都做，他就不应该将一些事做错。假如州长或州议会没有义务向我请愿，我也没有义务向他们请愿。如果他们听不到我的请愿，我该怎么办？在目前情况下，州政府对此并没想出任何办法。真正的罪过在于它的宪法本身。这听来可能过于严厉、固执或不通情达理。但惟有这种精神才是我们对待宪治的态度，它含有最大程度的善意和最深刻的思考。这也是所有事物向好的方面转化的规律，就像人在同疾病的生死搏斗中会全身痉挛一样。
我毫不犹豫地敬告那些自称为废奴论者的人，他们必须立即真正地收回无论在个人和财产方面对马萨诸塞州政府的支持，不要等到他们形成多数后再在他们中间执行正义。我认为，只要有上帝站在他们那一边就够了，不必等待其他。再说，任何比他邻居更勇敢的人都可以形成一个多数。
我每年仅有一次机会通过收税官直接面对面地和美国政府，或它的代表——州政府打交道。这是像我这种处境的人必然和它打交道的惟一方式。这个政府十分清楚地要求我承认它。而我为了要在这种情况下应付它，并表达对它微乎其微的满意和爱戴，我的最简单、最有效、并在目前形势下最有必要的方式就是否认它。我的邻居，收税官，正是我要对付的人，——因为毕竟我并不跟羊皮纸文件，而是要跟人争论，——他已自愿当了政府的代理人……
在一个不公道地关押人的政府的统治下，一个正义者的真正归宿也是监狱。今天，马萨诸塞提供给那些较自由和有点朝气的人的合适地方就是她的监狱，州政府按自己的法令将他们驱逐出去或监禁起来，因为这些人已经按照他们的原则把自己放逐出去了。在监狱里，在那些逃亡的奴隶、保释的墨西哥战俘和前来投诉种族迫害的印第安人中间，他们找到了归宿。在那个与世隔绝，但更自由、更诚实的场所，州政府关押的不是赞成它，而是反对它的人，——那是一个蓄奴州里的自由人可以问心无愧地生活的惟一地方。如果有人认为，自由人的影响在监狱里会消失，他们的声音再也不能刺痛官员们的耳朵，他们在大墙之内也不再是敌人，那就错了。他们不知道真理要比谬误强大许多倍，也不知道亲身经历过一些非正义的人能够多么雄辩而有效地同非正义作斗争。投上你的整个选票吧，不单单是一张小纸条，而是你的全部影响。少数服从多数则软弱无力；它甚至还算不上少数。但如果尽全力抵制，它将势不可挡。一旦让州政府来选择出路：要么把所有正义者都关进监狱，要么放弃战争和奴隶制，我想它是会毫不迟疑的。要是今年有一千人拒交税款，那还算不上是暴力流血的手段。我们若交了税，则使州政府有能力实行暴力，造成无辜流血。事实上这就是和平革命的定义，要是任何这种革命是可能的话。假如那位收税官或任何其他政府官员问我，正如有人已问过的：“那么我该怎么办呢？”我的回答是：“如果你真要干点事，就请辞职吧。”当臣民拒绝效忠，官员辞去职务，那么这场革命就成功了。就算这种作法可能会引起流血吧。当人们的良心受到创伤时，这难道不也是一种流血吗？由于这种创伤，一个人将失去他真正的勇气和不朽的气质。他会如此流血不止，直至精神上的死亡。现在我看到这种无形的血正在流淌。
几年前，州政府曾以教会的名义要求我支付一笔钱以供养一个牧师，他的传道我父亲听过，而我从来未听过。“付钱吧，”它说，“要不然就进监狱。”我就是不付。但不幸的是另一个人觉得应该付。我不明白为什么教师要付税给牧师，而不是牧师付给教师。我不是州立学校的教师，但我靠自愿捐款为生。我不明白为什么学校就不能像教会那样，在州的支持下，提出自己的税单。然而，在当选议员们的要求下，我屈尊写下了这样的声明：“谨以此言为证，我，亨利·大卫·梭罗，不希望被认为是任何我没有加入的联合团体的一员。”我把这声明交给了镇公所的文书，他还保留着。虽然州政府当时说过，它必须坚持它原先的决定，但听说我不希望被认为是那个教堂的成员，打那以来，它一直没对我提出类似要求。我愿意一一签字，以表示与我从未签字认可的一切社会团体断绝关系。可惜我不知道这些团体的名称，也不知道该到何处去寻一份完整的名单。
我有六年没交人头税了。就为这我曾进监狱住了一晚。当我在那里站着思考，面对那二三英尺厚的坚实石墙、一英尺厚的木铁门和透光的铁栅栏时，我禁不住强烈地感到这监狱把我仅当作一个血肉之躯关进来是何等愚蠢。我怀疑它最后是否会断定这就是它对付我的最好方法，而从没想到要以某种方式来叫我做点事。我在想，虽然我和我的街坊邻里们之间隔了一堵石墙，但他们要达到像我一样自由，还有一堵更难攀越、更难打破的墙。我一刻也没感到被监禁，那墙似乎是石块和泥灰的巨大浪费。我似乎感到，全体市民中，只有我一人付了税。他们完全不知该怎样对待我，他们的言行缺乏教养。无论他们对我进行威胁或赞扬，总是错看了我的本意。因为他们认为，我的主要愿望是站到石墙的另一边。看到他们在我沉思时如何勤奋地锁门，我只好付之一笑。我的思绪不必开门，不必设障，又跟他们出去了，而这才是真正的危险。因为他们已无法理解我，他们便决定惩罚我的肉体；就像一群顽童，当他们无法接近他们所痛恨的人时，便虐待他的狗。我感到州政府智能低下，它就像拿着银汤匙的孤独女人一样胆小。它敌友不分。我对它剩下的一点尊敬已经荡然无存，我真为它遗憾。
由此看来，州政府从未有意识地正视过一个人的心灵，无论是从理智还是道义的角度。它只看到一个人的肉体和感官。它并不具备高级智能，也不见得诚实，只是在物质上强大罢了。我不是生来就受强制的人。我要按自己的方式呼吸空气。让我们看看谁最强大。民众有什么力量？他们只能强迫我，而我要服从比我更高的法规。他们强迫我成为像他们一样的人。我没听说有人应当服从多数人的强迫而以这种或那种方式生活。那样算是什么样的生活？当政府命令我说“交钱还是交命”时，我为什么要匆忙地把我的钱给它？它可能困难重重，不知如何是好；然而我怎么可能帮助它？它必须像我这样自己帮助自己。为此哭鼻子不值得。社会这部机器是否成功运转我不负责任，我不是工程师的儿子。我发现，当一粒橡子和一粒栗子并排落地后，没有哪个停下来谦让另一个。两者都按它们自己的规律，尽最大的能力去发芽、生长、变得茂盛。可能直至一个超越并毁灭另一个。一株植物如不能按自己本性生长则死亡；一个人也同样如此。
我不想与任何人或国家争吵。我不想无故挑剔，找出细微差别，也不想标榜自己高邻居一等。可以说，我甚至是要寻找一个借口来遵守国家法令。遵守国家法令我是再高兴不过了。但在这一问题上，我确实有理由怀疑自己。每年当收税官到来时，我总要审查一下国家和州政府的法令和态度，以及人民的情绪，以便找到一个遵守的前提。我相信州政府很快就会使我放弃所有这些作法，然后，我将变成一个和我的同胞相似的爱国者。从放低了的角度看，宪法虽然有许多缺陷，它仍不失为一部很好的宪法。法律和法庭令人尊敬。甚至本州政府和美国政府在许多方面也是相当令人钦佩而又罕见的机构，令人感恩不尽，许多人对此已作出描述。但是从略高一点的角度看，它们正如我已描述过的那样。要是换成最高的角度，有谁说得出它们是什么，或它们还真值得一看或一想？
然而政府与我没有多大关系，我将尽量不去想它。甚至在这个世界里，我在政府统治下生活的时刻不多。要是一个人思考自由，幻想自由，想象自由，不存在的事物从不会很久地被他看作是存在之物，那么，不明智的统治者和改革家的阻碍对他也起不了多大作用。
我知道大多数人与我想的不一样。但是那些专门以研究这一类问题为职业的人也很少令我满意。由于政治家和立法者们完全处于这一机构之内，他们决不可能清楚而客观地观察它。他们常说要推进社会，但他们舍此就没有立足之处。他们可能有一定的经验和见识，毫无疑问，也可能想出了一些有独创性的甚至是有用的制度，对此我们诚挚地感谢他们。但他们所有的智慧和效用都很有限。他们经常会忘记这世界并不是由政策和权宜之计所统治。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特从未调查过政府，因此，他也无权谈论它。对那些不考虑彻底改革现行政府的议员们来说，他的话就是智慧。而在思想家，那些一直在参与立法的思想家眼里，他从未正视过这一问题。据我了解，有些人通过对这一问题的宁静和明智的思考，不久将会揭示，韦伯斯特的思考范围和坦荡胸怀都是有限的。
但是与大多数改革者的平庸职业相比，与那些更为平庸而普通的政客的智慧与口才相比，韦伯斯特的话几乎是惟一有理智，有价值的话。我们为有他而感谢上帝。相比而言，他总是坚强有力，有独创性，尤其是讲究实际的。然而他的本质不是智慧，而是谨慎。律师的真理不是真理，只不过是协调，或协调的权宜之计。真理的自身永远是和谐的，它不是用来揭示那些可能与错误行为相一致的正义。韦伯斯特被称为“宪法的捍卫者”完全当之无愧。他对宪法只有捍卫，而从未真正攻击过。他不是领袖，而是随从。他的领袖是１７８７年起草宪法的人。“我从未作出努力，”他说，“从未建议作出努力，从未支持过努力，也从未打算支持那些企图打扰原定安排的努力。正是由于宪法的安排，各州组成了目前这个联邦。”在考虑宪法对奴隶制的默认问题时，他甚至说，“既然这是早先契约的一部分，——那就让它存在下去。”尽管他精明过人，才能超群，还是无法将一件事从它的纯政治关系中分离出来，把它看作是绝对要用才智来处理的事，——比如：在当今美国，就奴隶制这一问题，一个人到底应该干些什么。可是韦伯斯特只能或是被迫绝望地作出下列回答，同时还声明他是作为一个私下的朋友已把话说绝了， ——他这么说话，还能有什么新的和个人的社会责任的准则可谈？“方法，”他说，“以及那些蓄奴州的政府应该按什么形式来调整这一制度，必须由他们自己考虑，他们必须对他们的选民，对有关适度、人性和正义的普遍常规及上帝本身负责。在其他地方形成，从某种人类感情中产生，或由其他原因组成的社团都与此毫不相干。他们从未得到过我的鼓励，将来也永远不会得到。”
那些不知真理有更纯洁的源泉的人，那些不再沿真理的小溪往高处追寻的人，他们很聪明地守在圣经和宪法旁边，必恭必敬地掬水解渴。而那些看到水是从哪儿汇入这些湖泊的人们却再次整装出发，继续他们探寻真理源头的历程。
在美国没有出现过立法天才。这种人在世界史上亦属罕见。演说家、政治家和雄辩者成千上万，但是有能力解决当前棘手问题的发言人却尚未开口说话。我们喜欢雄辩只是因为它是一门技术，而不太考虑它可能表达的真理或激起某种英雄主义。我们的立法者们尚未懂得自由贸易和自由、联盟、公正对一个国家所具有的相对价值。他们没有天资或才能解决诸如税收、金融、商业、生产和农业等世俗政务。要是我们完全听凭国会里废话连篇的立法者们的指导，而他们的指导又得不到人民及时与合理的纠正，要不了多久，美国在世界上的地位便会丧失。《新约全书》问世已有一千八百年，虽然我可能没有资格说下面的话，但是具有足够智慧和实际能力以《新约》精神来指导立法科学的人又在哪里？
政府的权威，甚至是我愿顺从的权威，——因为我乐于服从那些懂得比我多、干得比我好的人，甚至在许多事情上服从那些懂得和干得都不如我的人，——仍然是不够纯洁的。严格说来，它必须得到被统治者的承认和同意。只要我没让步，它对我个人和财产就没有纯粹的权利。从绝对君主制到有限君主制，再从有限君主制到民主制的进程就是通向真正尊重个人的进程。我们所知道的民主制是否就是政府可能做的最后改进？难道就不能再迈进一步，承认并组织人权？州政府必须将个人作为一种更高和独立的力量而加以承认，并予以相应对待，因为政府所有的权力和权威都来自于这一力量。在此之前，决不会有真正自由和文明的州。我自鸣得意的是，我最后还是设想了一个州，这个州能公正对待所有的人，彬彬有礼地将个人视为邻居。即便有些人离群索居，只要他们不捣乱，也不听命于人，而是完成作为邻居和同胞的所有义务，州政府仍能处之泰然，任其自由。一个州如能结出这种果实，并忍耐到瓜熟蒂落的时刻，那将为我所设想的，另一个更完善、更壮丽的州铺平道路，尽管这个州至今任何地方都还看不到。
摘自《美国的历史文献》 赵一凡 编
三联书店１９８９年版
This American government -- what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts -- a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried."
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:--
"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God... that the established government be obeyed, and no longer.... This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other." Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does any one think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?
"A drab of state, a cloth-o'-silver slut, To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt."
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow -- one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico; -- see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.
The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves -- the union between themselves and the State -- and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?
How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing that you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that you are never cheated again. Action from principle -- the perception and the performance of right -- changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divides states and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth -- certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is an change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.
I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year -- no more -- in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with -- for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel -- and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborliness without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action? I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name -- if ten honest men only -- ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State's ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister -- though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her -- the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject the following winter.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her -- the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.
I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods -- though both will serve the same purpose -- because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man -- not to make any invidious comparison -- is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; and it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he; -- and one took a penny out of his pocket; -- if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God those things which are God's" -- leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.
When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said, "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame." No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.
Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster: for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:-- "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list.
I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.
The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirt-sleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, "Come, boys, it is time to lock up"; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as "a first-rate fellow and a clever man." When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in the town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest man, of course; and, as the world goes, I believe he was. "Why," said he, "they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it." As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.
He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even here there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of verses which were composed by some young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.
I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.
It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town-clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village-inn -- a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.
In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left; but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good-day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.
When I came out of prison -- for some one interfered, and paid that tax -- I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a tottering and gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene -- the town, and State, and country -- greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that in their sacrifices to humanity, they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.
It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the grating of a jail window, "How do ye do?" My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour -- for the horse was soon tackled -- was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.
This is the whole history of "My Prisons."
I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with -- the dollar is innocent -- but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases.
If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.
This, then, is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his action be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.
I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well; they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think, again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill-will, without personal feeling of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But, if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker of fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.
I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity.
"We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Our love or industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit."
I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better a patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?
However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.
I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects, content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was a part of the original compact -- let it stand." Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect -- what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in America to-day with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man -- from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will."
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to -- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well -- is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
本书为你描绘了从信息社会转变到梦想社会的成功蓝图，并指出工作场所、市场环境以及休闲娱乐等方面将发生的变化。本书谨献给每一位有志从商的人——第一个希望了解未来市场走向的人；当市场、消费者和员工们都跃入梦想社会时，每一个不想独自滞留在信息社会的人。这本书适合每一位心系未来、憧憬21世纪生活的人阅读。
本书第1章介绍了梦想社会的逻辑。公司如果不采用这种新型逻辑就会坐失即将出现的巨大市场增长机会。事实上，梦想社会已经像冰山一样悄然来临，虽沉着徐缓，却势不可挡。如果不顺势而为，恐怕要被冰山碾平。第2章探讨了市场轮廓、讲述故事以及六种已经初具雏形的情感市场，提出了一种有助于启发战略性思维的全新逻辑，并佐以丰富生动的事例，希望诸来如饮甘泉。第3章论述的是公司及其员工——未来的公司，其使命、远景和战略。公司被看做一个部落，充满形形色色的仪式，有自己的传奇逸闻。第4章涉及消费者和公司员工的家居休闲时光。在这一部分，我们想像未来的人们怎样打发休闲时光，并探讨工作和业余时间的关系。第5章放眼全球，探讨了发达国家之间的关系、逐渐成型的全球中产阶级以及发展中国家的情况，还描述了占10亿多人口的富裕消费者以及另外40亿暂时处于落后水平的人们。
哥本哈根未来研究院是享誉全球的未来学研究圣殿，一直以犀利敏锐、振聋发聩的预测而独树一帜，本书所描述的“梦想社会”则是其中最具有震撼性的杰出预言之一。
在信息社会端倪初现之后不久，天才的未来学家就在思考按踵而来的社会形态。作者宣称：信息时代已经日薄西山，人类的发展在历经渔猎文明、农业文明、工业文明和目前以计算机为标志的信息时代之后，即将跨入第五种社会形态：梦想社会。
即将来临的梦想社会，是一种完全新型的社会，其中的企业、社团和个人都凭借自己的故事扬名立业，而不再仅仅依赖于数据和信息。梦想社会并非痴人狂想，它在许多企业己初露峥嵘——未来产品必须打动人们的心灵，而不仅仅是说服人们的头脑。当前正是为产品和服务赋予情感价值的大好时机。本书提供了一套启发战略性思维的全新逻辑，有助于理解未来的企业和市场，是未来社会不可或缺的向导。
前言
1.未来主义与梦想社会的实现 2.故事和故事讲述者的市场（一）
2.故事和故事讲述者的市场(二） 3.从苦不堪言到乐趣十足
4.爱意融融的家庭公司和新型休闲时光 5.全球商业故事
致谢
本书第1章介绍了梦想社会的逻辑。公司如果不采用这种新型逻辑就会坐失即将出现的巨大市场增长机会。事实上，梦想社会已经像冰山一样悄然来临，虽沉着徐缓，却势不可挡。如果不顺势而为，恐怕要被冰山碾平。第2章探讨了市场轮廓、讲述故事以及六种已经初具雏形的情感市场，提出了一种有助于启发战略性思维的全新逻辑，并佐以丰富生动的事例，希望诸来如饮甘泉。第3章论述的是公司及其员工——未来的公司，其使命、远景和战略。公司被看做一个部落，充满形形色色的仪式，有自己的传奇逸闻。第4章涉及消费者和公司员工的家居休闲时光。在这一部分，我们想像未来的人们怎样打发休闲时光，并探讨工作和业余时间的关系。第5章放眼全球，探讨了发达国家之间的关系、逐渐成型的全球中产阶级以及发展中国家的情况，还描述了占10亿多人口的富裕消费者以及另外40亿暂时处于落后水平的人们。
哥本哈根未来研究院是享誉全球的未来学研究圣殿，一直以犀利敏锐、振聋发聩的预测而独树一帜，本书所描述的“梦想社会”则是其中最具有震撼性的杰出预言之一。
在信息社会端倪初现之后不久，天才的未来学家就在思考按踵而来的社会形态。作者宣称：信息时代已经日薄西山，人类的发展在历经渔猎文明、农业文明、工业文明和目前以计算机为标志的信息时代之后，即将跨入第五种社会形态：梦想社会。
即将来临的梦想社会，是一种完全新型的社会，其中的企业、社团和个人都凭借自己的故事扬名立业，而不再仅仅依赖于数据和信息。梦想社会并非痴人狂想，它在许多企业己初露峥嵘——未来产品必须打动人们的心灵，而不仅仅是说服人们的头脑。当前正是为产品和服务赋予情感价值的大好时机。本书提供了一套启发战略性思维的全新逻辑，有助于理解未来的企业和市场，是未来社会不可或缺的向导。
前言
1.未来主义与梦想社会的实现 2.故事和故事讲述者的市场（一）
2.故事和故事讲述者的市场(二） 3.从苦不堪言到乐趣十足
4.爱意融融的家庭公司和新型休闲时光 5.全球商业故事
致谢
一个由于疯狂而被纪念的时代．
一个染满最单纯的年轻人的血的时代．
一个毛泽东思想红旗插满全世界的时代．
六十年代，世界上不仅仅有我们，还有法国红卫兵，日本学生联合会和垮掉的一代．
记忆的死亡远比时间的流逝更可怕．在父辈的阴影下成长的我们，终于会有一天去仰视或俯视这无法替代的十年．
beatles去了u.s.s.r，我们回到六十年代．
一个染满最单纯的年轻人的血的时代．
一个毛泽东思想红旗插满全世界的时代．
六十年代，世界上不仅仅有我们，还有法国红卫兵，日本学生联合会和垮掉的一代．
记忆的死亡远比时间的流逝更可怕．在父辈的阴影下成长的我们，终于会有一天去仰视或俯视这无法替代的十年．
beatles去了u.s.s.r，我们回到六十年代．
一鸣惊人
作者：赖洪毅
前言
上篇 人的名声与成名
一 人为何要追求名声.
（一）名声――种人生观；（二）追求名声有何好处；（三）为什么
要追求名声
二 一个人如何成名
（一）成名的三阶段；（二）如何立志和树立崇拜偶象；（三）如何
模仿崇拜偶像；（四）如何赶超名人和成名；（五）导致成名的一
些因素
三 论各大领域的成名方法
（一）政治；（二）宗教创立和改革；（三）思想和社会科学；（四）
自然科学；（五）发明；（六）军事；（七）文学；（八）音乐；（九）绘
画；（十）电影；（十一）富翁和企业家；（十二）宇航和探险；（十
三）体育；（十四）通俗文学；（十五）流行音乐；（十六）名人配偶
或情侣；（十七）猎奇。
四 人的名声的大小、好坏
（一）名声的实质；（二）名气大小的衡量；（三）什么样的人最有
名气；（四）决定名气大小的十个因素；（五）影响名声好坏的因
素；（六）名人的等级
五 扩大和传播名声的方法
（一）按自己的特点塑造出独特的形象；（二）起名须知；（三）大
办慈善事业，设奖或基金会，设立组织机构、兴建学校，并以自
己名字命名；（四）争取以自己的名字命名一种理论，观点、思
想、发现、发明、计量单位、自然景物、自然现象和事物、节日、
机构、学校、组织、团体、派别等；（五）写一本深受欢迎的自传；
（六）建立纪念性建筑；（七）制造各种神奇有趣的传说、轶事，
在民间广泛流传，以提高自己的名望；（八）以专制或强埠手段
传播名声；（九）功成身退；（十）永不自满，不断创新，不断取得
新成就
六 人应当如何生活
（一）时间与事业；（二）注意健康；（三）对待金钱；（四）如何择
偶；（五（如何应酬社交活动；（六）家庭关系
七 女性与成名
（一）女性的才能；（二）女性成名要克服的障碍；（三）女性成名
应具备的素质；（四）女性成名可选取的办法
八 名人产主的历史趋势
九 有关成名名声的誓言、警句
下篇 各大文明、民族和国家的名人
一 令人惊叹的犹太民族
（一）犹太伟人与名人；（二）犹太人追求成功的动力；（三）犹太
人在精神文化领域伟人辈出的原因；（四）犹太人在商业上的
成功
二 亘古绵延的中华文明
（一）在世界上最负盛名的十位中国人：（二）其它负有国际盛
名的中国人；（三）几位大政治家的未来地位；（四）中国文明的
衰落，面临的难题，中国将来的伟人
三 崇尚永恒与非暴力的印度人
（一）文明、哲学与社会；（二）伟大政治家的摇篮；（三）大宗教
祖师爷哲学家的故乡；（四）东方文学艺术的王国；（五）科学界
四 团结灵巧的日本人
（一）日本人――勇于变革与善于学习的民族；（二）集体主义
的日本人；（三）无能为力的单个日本人；（四）日本近现代化成
功的原因；（五）著名的日本人
五 中世纪最幸运的阿拉伯人
（一）政教人物；（二）阿拉伯文化的黄金时代出现的原因；
（三）文学成功的原因与杰出的文豪；（四）科学与学术的新纪
元
六 辉煌的希腊文明和希腊化文明
（一）希腊文明；（二）希腊化文明
七 金戈铁马的罗马文明
八 欧洲中世纪的经院文化
（一）中世纪早期的西欧文明；（二）拜占庭文明及其名人
九 欧具近现代文明的先驱英国人
（一）英国的中世纪政治家和社会活动家；（二）英国文化、民族
性格与近现代政治家；（三）英国对人类的伟大贡献与科学文
化名人
十 欧洲文化的老大哥法国人
（一）法国人的文化自负情结；（二）著名的政治活动家和法国
兴衰史；（三）法国的科技伟人；（四）法国的思想家、社会科学
家；（五）文学、艺术家
十一 令人敬畏的德国人
（一）德意志的民族政治文化和政治宗教名人；（二）德国民
族性格与经济成就；（三）德国民族性格与文化学术名人
十二 文艺复兴的摇篮意大利
（一）意大利的历史和民族性格；（二）中世纪的意大利人；
（三）文艺复兴时代；（四）文艺复兴后意大利的兴衰史；
（五）文艺复兴后意大利著名的科技文化人物
十三 特珠的欧洲大国俄苏
（一）俄苏的突出特点；（二）俄苏的政治名人录；（三）俄苏的
科技界名人；（四）俄苏的思想哲学成就；（五）俄苏的科学
家；（六）俄苏的文学艺术
十四 全能霸主美国人
（一）历史最独特的国家与全能的霸主；（二）历史与政治活
动家、军事家；（三）美利坚民族性格；（四）美国人在科学与
研究上取得成功的原因；（五）美国的思想界与人文科学界；
（六）自然科学界名人榜；（七）文艺界巨匠
十五 其它文明、民族和地区
作者：赖洪毅
前言
上篇 人的名声与成名
一 人为何要追求名声.
（一）名声――种人生观；（二）追求名声有何好处；（三）为什么
要追求名声
二 一个人如何成名
（一）成名的三阶段；（二）如何立志和树立崇拜偶象；（三）如何
模仿崇拜偶像；（四）如何赶超名人和成名；（五）导致成名的一
些因素
三 论各大领域的成名方法
（一）政治；（二）宗教创立和改革；（三）思想和社会科学；（四）
自然科学；（五）发明；（六）军事；（七）文学；（八）音乐；（九）绘
画；（十）电影；（十一）富翁和企业家；（十二）宇航和探险；（十
三）体育；（十四）通俗文学；（十五）流行音乐；（十六）名人配偶
或情侣；（十七）猎奇。
四 人的名声的大小、好坏
（一）名声的实质；（二）名气大小的衡量；（三）什么样的人最有
名气；（四）决定名气大小的十个因素；（五）影响名声好坏的因
素；（六）名人的等级
五 扩大和传播名声的方法
（一）按自己的特点塑造出独特的形象；（二）起名须知；（三）大
办慈善事业，设奖或基金会，设立组织机构、兴建学校，并以自
己名字命名；（四）争取以自己的名字命名一种理论，观点、思
想、发现、发明、计量单位、自然景物、自然现象和事物、节日、
机构、学校、组织、团体、派别等；（五）写一本深受欢迎的自传；
（六）建立纪念性建筑；（七）制造各种神奇有趣的传说、轶事，
在民间广泛流传，以提高自己的名望；（八）以专制或强埠手段
传播名声；（九）功成身退；（十）永不自满，不断创新，不断取得
新成就
六 人应当如何生活
（一）时间与事业；（二）注意健康；（三）对待金钱；（四）如何择
偶；（五（如何应酬社交活动；（六）家庭关系
七 女性与成名
（一）女性的才能；（二）女性成名要克服的障碍；（三）女性成名
应具备的素质；（四）女性成名可选取的办法
八 名人产主的历史趋势
九 有关成名名声的誓言、警句
下篇 各大文明、民族和国家的名人
一 令人惊叹的犹太民族
（一）犹太伟人与名人；（二）犹太人追求成功的动力；（三）犹太
人在精神文化领域伟人辈出的原因；（四）犹太人在商业上的
成功
二 亘古绵延的中华文明
（一）在世界上最负盛名的十位中国人：（二）其它负有国际盛
名的中国人；（三）几位大政治家的未来地位；（四）中国文明的
衰落，面临的难题，中国将来的伟人
三 崇尚永恒与非暴力的印度人
（一）文明、哲学与社会；（二）伟大政治家的摇篮；（三）大宗教
祖师爷哲学家的故乡；（四）东方文学艺术的王国；（五）科学界
四 团结灵巧的日本人
（一）日本人――勇于变革与善于学习的民族；（二）集体主义
的日本人；（三）无能为力的单个日本人；（四）日本近现代化成
功的原因；（五）著名的日本人
五 中世纪最幸运的阿拉伯人
（一）政教人物；（二）阿拉伯文化的黄金时代出现的原因；
（三）文学成功的原因与杰出的文豪；（四）科学与学术的新纪
元
六 辉煌的希腊文明和希腊化文明
（一）希腊文明；（二）希腊化文明
七 金戈铁马的罗马文明
八 欧洲中世纪的经院文化
（一）中世纪早期的西欧文明；（二）拜占庭文明及其名人
九 欧具近现代文明的先驱英国人
（一）英国的中世纪政治家和社会活动家；（二）英国文化、民族
性格与近现代政治家；（三）英国对人类的伟大贡献与科学文
化名人
十 欧洲文化的老大哥法国人
（一）法国人的文化自负情结；（二）著名的政治活动家和法国
兴衰史；（三）法国的科技伟人；（四）法国的思想家、社会科学
家；（五）文学、艺术家
十一 令人敬畏的德国人
（一）德意志的民族政治文化和政治宗教名人；（二）德国民
族性格与经济成就；（三）德国民族性格与文化学术名人
十二 文艺复兴的摇篮意大利
（一）意大利的历史和民族性格；（二）中世纪的意大利人；
（三）文艺复兴时代；（四）文艺复兴后意大利的兴衰史；
（五）文艺复兴后意大利著名的科技文化人物
十三 特珠的欧洲大国俄苏
（一）俄苏的突出特点；（二）俄苏的政治名人录；（三）俄苏的
科技界名人；（四）俄苏的思想哲学成就；（五）俄苏的科学
家；（六）俄苏的文学艺术
十四 全能霸主美国人
（一）历史最独特的国家与全能的霸主；（二）历史与政治活
动家、军事家；（三）美利坚民族性格；（四）美国人在科学与
研究上取得成功的原因；（五）美国的思想界与人文科学界；
（六）自然科学界名人榜；（七）文艺界巨匠
十五 其它文明、民族和地区
富人并不光荣，穷人并不可耻。现代人不完全以物质标准去评判一个人的价值，而且人的生活方式丰富多彩，并非富人就是快乐的，穷人就很痛苦，人生的幸福很多时候与穷富无关。
多穷才是穷人？多富才是富人？有没有一个具体的量化标准？
探讨穷富问题，很多时候只是一种心理分析，在同样的社会环境中，你，为什么是穷人呢？或者，为什么感觉自己是个穷人？谁都可以问问自己。我？为什么是穷人？谁还在为食物操心，谁就是穷人。生活对富人来说才是生活，对穷人来说只是生存。
你是富人吗？你是穷人吗？你不是穷人吗？
你可知道，你为什么是穷人？是什么造成了你的穷？穷给你和你身边的人带来了什么？穷人的前途在哪里？穷人怎样才能变成富人？富到什么程度才算够？人生怎样才算幸福？
不用再苦苦的追问自己，该畅销新作由学者古古撰写，关注并分析了这些问题。文字简练、优美，笔锋犀利，可读性强。
多穷才是穷人？多富才是富人？有没有一个具体的量化标准？
探讨穷富问题，很多时候只是一种心理分析，在同样的社会环境中，你，为什么是穷人呢？或者，为什么感觉自己是个穷人？谁都可以问问自己。我？为什么是穷人？谁还在为食物操心，谁就是穷人。生活对富人来说才是生活，对穷人来说只是生存。
你是富人吗？你是穷人吗？你不是穷人吗？
你可知道，你为什么是穷人？是什么造成了你的穷？穷给你和你身边的人带来了什么？穷人的前途在哪里？穷人怎样才能变成富人？富到什么程度才算够？人生怎样才算幸福？
不用再苦苦的追问自己，该畅销新作由学者古古撰写，关注并分析了这些问题。文字简练、优美，笔锋犀利，可读性强。
本书是孙中山关于三民主义的论著。
三民主义包括民族主义、民权主义和民生主义。民族主义要求中国民族解放，各民族平等，反对帝国主义的殖民政策；民权主义要求主权在民，建立法制国家，人民拥有政权，政府只拥有治权，实行立法、司法、行政、考试、监察五权分立；民生主义要求平均地权，耕者有其田，节制资本，让普通民众都吃得饱穿得暖有事做，“民生主义就是社会主义，就是共产主义，就是大同世界”。
三民主义包括民族主义、民权主义和民生主义。民族主义要求中国民族解放，各民族平等，反对帝国主义的殖民政策；民权主义要求主权在民，建立法制国家，人民拥有政权，政府只拥有治权，实行立法、司法、行政、考试、监察五权分立；民生主义要求平均地权，耕者有其田，节制资本，让普通民众都吃得饱穿得暖有事做，“民生主义就是社会主义，就是共产主义，就是大同世界”。
经济与社会:在制度约束和个人利益之间博弈
《经济与社会》全书两卷。1921～1922年出版。英文本由多位韦伯研究专家合作翻译，并加有长篇导言和注释，于1968年出版。韦伯在书中全面而系统地表述了他的社会学观点和对现代文明本质的见解。首先对社会学的定义、对象、方法以及一些基本范畴和概念作了详细阐释，统称为社会学的基础。然后分别又互有交叉地阐发了他的经济社会学、法律社会学、政治社会学和宗教社会学思想。韦伯在书中广泛地援引世界历史资料，把发生在不同时代、不同文明和不同社会中的经济形式、法律形式、统治形式和宗教形式纳入他独特的概念体系，分门别类地作出类型化比较研究和系统化因果分析。
《经济与社会》全书两卷。1921～1922年出版。英文本由多位韦伯研究专家合作翻译，并加有长篇导言和注释，于1968年出版。韦伯在书中全面而系统地表述了他的社会学观点和对现代文明本质的见解。首先对社会学的定义、对象、方法以及一些基本范畴和概念作了详细阐释，统称为社会学的基础。然后分别又互有交叉地阐发了他的经济社会学、法律社会学、政治社会学和宗教社会学思想。韦伯在书中广泛地援引世界历史资料，把发生在不同时代、不同文明和不同社会中的经济形式、法律形式、统治形式和宗教形式纳入他独特的概念体系，分门别类地作出类型化比较研究和系统化因果分析。
入世修行——马克斯·伟伯脱魔世界理性集
1918年，刚刚逃离人祸的欧洲人，又摊上了天灾：一场史无前例的流行性感冒席卷了大陆。死于这场瘟疫的人数，据说超过了前4年战争中死亡人数的总和。我们不幸的作者赶上了这场瘟疫的余威，1920年夏初，韦伯病倒了，持续高烧不退，一周后，转为肺炎，医生束手无策，如同今天面对一位癌症晚期病人一样。6月14日，星期一，黄昏，经过痛苦地挣扎，韦伯溘然长逝了。那间房子在慕尼黑英国公园旁边的湖街3号，今天改成了16号。他去时，外面下着雷雨，道道闪电划破昏暗，照亮了他的归程。亲人把他送回海德堡，让他安息在心爱的山水之间。慕尼黑大学的学生们，永远失去了一位睿智的良师。他原来答应下学期为他们开社会主义课，却匆匆去了……
1918年，刚刚逃离人祸的欧洲人，又摊上了天灾：一场史无前例的流行性感冒席卷了大陆。死于这场瘟疫的人数，据说超过了前4年战争中死亡人数的总和。我们不幸的作者赶上了这场瘟疫的余威，1920年夏初，韦伯病倒了，持续高烧不退，一周后，转为肺炎，医生束手无策，如同今天面对一位癌症晚期病人一样。6月14日，星期一，黄昏，经过痛苦地挣扎，韦伯溘然长逝了。那间房子在慕尼黑英国公园旁边的湖街3号，今天改成了16号。他去时，外面下着雷雨，道道闪电划破昏暗，照亮了他的归程。亲人把他送回海德堡，让他安息在心爱的山水之间。慕尼黑大学的学生们，永远失去了一位睿智的良师。他原来答应下学期为他们开社会主义课，却匆匆去了……
在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》一书中，韦伯主要考察了１６世纪宗教改革以后的基督教新教的宗教伦理与现代资本主义的亲和关系。在韦伯看来，“资本主义”不仅仅是一个经济学和政治学的范畴，而且还是一个社会学和文化学的范畴。他把“资本主义”当作一种整体性的文明来理解，认为它是１８世纪以来在欧洲科学、技术、政治、经济、法律、艺术、宗教中占主导地位的理性主义精神发展的结果，是现代西方文明的本质体现。在这样一种文明中，依靠勤勉、刻苦、利用健全的会计制度和精心盘算，把资本投入生产和流通过程，从而获取预期的利润，所有这一切构成了一个经济合理性的观念。这种合理性观念还表现在社会的其它领域，形成为一种带有普遍性的社会精神气质或社会心态，弥漫于近代欧洲，这就是韦伯所说的“资本主义精神”。它作为近代欧洲所独具的价值体系，驱动着人们按照合理化原则进行社会行动，最终导致了资本主义的产生。
在韦伯看来，资本主义精神的产生是与新教伦理分不开的。新教加尔文教派所信奉的“预定论”认为，上帝所要救赎的并非全部世人，而只是其中的“选民”。谁将要成为“选民”而得到救赎或谁将被弃绝，都是上帝预先确定了的，个人的行为对于解救自己无能为力。从表面上看，“预定论”的逻辑结果必然导致宿命论。但在韦伯看来，“预定论”认为个人对于改变自己的命运无能为力，这就在新教徒的内心深处产生了强烈的紧张和焦虑，教徒只能以世俗职业上的成就来确定上帝对自己的恩宠并以此证明上帝的存在。于是创造出自成了一种神圣的天职，世俗经济行为的成功不是为了创造可供于享受和挥霍的财富，而是为了证实上帝对自己的恩宠。从而，“预定论”的宗教伦理就导致了勤勉刻苦，把创造财富视为一桩严肃事业的资本主义精神。这就是韦伯在本书中的主要论点。
韦伯这种以精神、思想的因素来解释历史进程的方法，固然视角新颖而富于启发性，但在根本上是他的唯心史观的反映。
【作者简介】马克斯·韦伯(1846-1920)，德国著名社会学家，本世纪西方最有影响的社会科学家之一，现代文化比较研究的先驱人物。他一生致力于考察“世界各宗教的经济伦理”，亦即试图从比较的角度，去探讨世界各主要民族的精神文化气质与该民族的社会经济发展之间的内在关系。1920年正式出版的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》是韦伯最负盛名的代表作，三联书店1987年出版了于晓等人的中译本。
导论
上篇 问题
第一章 宗教派别和社会分层
第二章 资本主义精神
第三章 路德的“职业”概念（本书的研究任务）
下篇 禁欲主义新教诸分支的实践伦理观
第四章 世俗禁欲主义的宗教基础
第五章 禁欲主义与资本主义精神
在韦伯看来，资本主义精神的产生是与新教伦理分不开的。新教加尔文教派所信奉的“预定论”认为，上帝所要救赎的并非全部世人，而只是其中的“选民”。谁将要成为“选民”而得到救赎或谁将被弃绝，都是上帝预先确定了的，个人的行为对于解救自己无能为力。从表面上看，“预定论”的逻辑结果必然导致宿命论。但在韦伯看来，“预定论”认为个人对于改变自己的命运无能为力，这就在新教徒的内心深处产生了强烈的紧张和焦虑，教徒只能以世俗职业上的成就来确定上帝对自己的恩宠并以此证明上帝的存在。于是创造出自成了一种神圣的天职，世俗经济行为的成功不是为了创造可供于享受和挥霍的财富，而是为了证实上帝对自己的恩宠。从而，“预定论”的宗教伦理就导致了勤勉刻苦，把创造财富视为一桩严肃事业的资本主义精神。这就是韦伯在本书中的主要论点。
韦伯这种以精神、思想的因素来解释历史进程的方法，固然视角新颖而富于启发性，但在根本上是他的唯心史观的反映。
【作者简介】马克斯·韦伯(1846-1920)，德国著名社会学家，本世纪西方最有影响的社会科学家之一，现代文化比较研究的先驱人物。他一生致力于考察“世界各宗教的经济伦理”，亦即试图从比较的角度，去探讨世界各主要民族的精神文化气质与该民族的社会经济发展之间的内在关系。1920年正式出版的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》是韦伯最负盛名的代表作，三联书店1987年出版了于晓等人的中译本。
导论
上篇 问题
第一章 宗教派别和社会分层
第二章 资本主义精神
第三章 路德的“职业”概念（本书的研究任务）
下篇 禁欲主义新教诸分支的实践伦理观
第四章 世俗禁欲主义的宗教基础
第五章 禁欲主义与资本主义精神