本書首先介紹了一個關於關係的八維度的研究，這是本書的核心。接下來詳細討論關係這種現象在心理學與社會學中是如何被對待的。書中提出了“渴往的男人（女人）”模型，與弗洛伊德的“內疚的人”模型形成對比。作者在隨後章節中逐一介紹每一個維度，每一章都整合了一些相關的研究與理論，包括這一維度在人們的生活中是如何被表達出來的。在本書結尾，作者探索了男女在建立關係途徑方面的差異，並用關於愛的整合性章節來結束全書。
在本書中，朱瑟林·喬塞爾森博士不僅就如何改善婚姻關係或其他浪漫依戀給出了有益的建議，還提出了一個在情感上對與他人建立緊密聯繫非常重要的八維度關係模型：、抱持、依戀、激情體驗、坦誠相見的確認、理想化與認同、共同性與共鳴、嵌入、照料。
本書特色
非常重視人際之間相互的聯繫與共生共存。
對女性的心理世界進行了非常細膩的探索、研究和分析。
書中所有的案例都來自實際生活，作者及其學生對67個經歷不同、生活各異的人進行了現場訪談。一些受訪者在深度訪談中傾訴出很多他們自己從未對他人講述或難以對他人講述的往事與情感，但卻令人難以置信地很自然地都對作者“坦白”了。
在本書中，朱瑟林·喬塞爾森博士不僅就如何改善婚姻關係或其他浪漫依戀給出了有益的建議，還提出了一個在情感上對與他人建立緊密聯繫非常重要的八維度關係模型：、抱持、依戀、激情體驗、坦誠相見的確認、理想化與認同、共同性與共鳴、嵌入、照料。
本書特色
非常重視人際之間相互的聯繫與共生共存。
對女性的心理世界進行了非常細膩的探索、研究和分析。
書中所有的案例都來自實際生活，作者及其學生對67個經歷不同、生活各異的人進行了現場訪談。一些受訪者在深度訪談中傾訴出很多他們自己從未對他人講述或難以對他人講述的往事與情感，但卻令人難以置信地很自然地都對作者“坦白”了。
一部以全新的視角剖析當下生活的令人震撼之作。《紐約時報》稱："對於揭示掩藏在這個時代背後的社會真相而言，《小趨勢》無疑是一部完美的聖經。"與托夫勒的《未來的衝擊》和奈斯比特的《大趨勢》相比，《小趨勢》是新世紀商業社會預言中最摩登的話題。
三合會、黑手黨、卡巴拉教、共濟會、骷髏會、光明會、郇山隱修會、聖殿騎士團、光明會、共濟會、德魯伊教、諾斯替教、玫瑰十字會……從中東炙熱的河道流浪而來，後到加拿大魁北剋鄉村一座與世隔絶的農捨，再到美國貝弗利山人頭攢動的精品小店，約翰•勞倫斯•雷諾茲是位善講故事的大師級作傢，並多次獲得過奬項，他審視了歷史上最為人知的秘密團體，探究它們的來竜去脈和活動過程，揭示了幾百年來一直被人們傳承並麯解的秘密。
本書從部落偶像、身體、名字、語言、宗教、民族、歷史起源、新多元主義8種角度，探討群體認同在政治變遷壓力下的自我塑造，對於民族主義方興未艾，終將改變世界的政治面貌，率先發出警訊。作者返回源頭，從人性的基本面，考察群體認同的各種因素，如何以不同的方式、在不同的環境，糾纏扭結，以致我們以各自的形態變成今天這副模樣。
一個現代化的國傢和社會，建立在人民對法治的信念上，暴戾之氣衹是“人治”社會纔有的産物。法院好象嚴父，（註意，不是法官像嚴父，已經有警察先生當我們小民的爹啦，法官先生再出來當爹，怎麽受得了乎？）小民內心有一種信念，那就是，人世間有最高的天秤，不必訴諸詛咒、神仙、革命、賄賂，就可以得到公正的裁判。想當年德皇菲特列大帝，在波茨坦宮後面，修建一個禦花園，就在東南角上，有一個既破又爛的磨房在焉，如果不把它除掉，不但禦花園成不了四四方方的，而且和金碧輝煌的亭臺樓閣一對比，簡直成何體統。
作者： CCTV《對話》欄目組
醫療，社保，教育，就業，新農村，緑色GDP，知識産權海外角力；什麽是人民群衆最關心、最直接、最現實的利益問題？這裏的《對話》節目，一個個為您打開了這些問號。《對話》堅持與時俱進，努力成為對社會責任有所承擔、對民族命運有所擔當的精神殿堂。我們不能不把這些難忘的回憶鎸刻在這本書裏，因為我們始終倔強地相信：對話，對變化中的中國來說，她就是一部心靈的史詩。
醫療，社保，教育，就業，新農村，緑色GDP，知識産權海外角力；什麽是人民群衆最關心、最直接、最現實的利益問題？這裏的《對話》節目，一個個為您打開了這些問號。《對話》堅持與時俱進，努力成為對社會責任有所承擔、對民族命運有所擔當的精神殿堂。我們不能不把這些難忘的回憶鎸刻在這本書裏，因為我們始終倔強地相信：對話，對變化中的中國來說，她就是一部心靈的史詩。
幫助窮人僅僅是送點口糧已遠遠不夠，要實現可持續發展，更需要精神食糧，並且是激發他們轉變觀念的精神食糧。窮人天生一副好胃口，從不懼怕任何辛辣的食物。因而這本直面現實、一針見血、敲醒窮人的書，能得到如此廣泛的喜愛和包容，這也是時代的進步……
本書分析了社會財富的創造和分配方式，指出貧富不均是一種客觀現實，是一種必然的社會歷史現象。在此基礎上，從社會環境和個人素質等方面入手，指出了窮人的艱難處境，分析了窮人為什麽窮的原因，讓窮人認清自己的現狀，找到擺脫命運的途徑。本書還分析了窮人、富人各自的優勢和煩惱，讓窮人看到希望，為富人敲響警鐘。看起來像白領的中産階級，其實不是並不是真正意義上的富人，窮人缺的不是錢、房、車，而是缺富人的思維。
二十世紀中國最有影響力的處世學：厚黑學
本書以“臺北圖書館”的鎮館精品《厚黑學》為底本，首次將李宗吾的完整手稿整理出版，從字裏行間可以真正感悟李宗吾原版《厚黑學》的精髓。本書增加了林語堂、柏楊、南懷謹所寫的序言，查閱了大量三四十年代的報刊，收錄了李宗吾先生有關“厚黑學”的全部經典文章，使人們不但可以瞭解“厚黑學”的精髓，還可以看到李宗吾先生運用他所創立的學說對社會、政治問題所進行的深刻精闢的論述。本書將一部分文言文譯成了現代文，並對一些典故加以註釋，讓讀者在閱讀中更加深入、全面地理解這一在海內外影響深遠的學說。
本書以“臺北圖書館”的鎮館精品《厚黑學》為底本，首次將李宗吾的完整手稿整理出版，從字裏行間可以真正感悟李宗吾原版《厚黑學》的精髓。本書增加了林語堂、柏楊、南懷謹所寫的序言，查閱了大量三四十年代的報刊，收錄了李宗吾先生有關“厚黑學”的全部經典文章，使人們不但可以瞭解“厚黑學”的精髓，還可以看到李宗吾先生運用他所創立的學說對社會、政治問題所進行的深刻精闢的論述。本書將一部分文言文譯成了現代文，並對一些典故加以註釋，讓讀者在閱讀中更加深入、全面地理解這一在海內外影響深遠的學說。
利用幽默的方法來教授組織學習的理論，大衛·哈徹斯熱衷於研究組織中各種新的可能性及組織中的人，他的著作和演講內容主要在組織學習和組織變革等領域。
本書通過閱讀歷史、點評史料闡析為官之道，一般官場類書都從黑厚之學看待官場，總結出衆多對潛規則，給為官者鑒，但是本書反其道而行之，認為做官之人一定要提高自己的修養，提升領導的境界，才能成為一個好官。當然，要想成為一個好官並不容易，在官場中混也非易事，本書從“知書知理”、“養生養性”、“位尊位卑”、“識人識世”、“戒奢戒貪”、“官箴官德”幾個方面展開，作者深厚的歷史功底在點評中表現得淋漓盡致
1847年6月，共産主義者同盟第1次代表大會上，討論了恩格斯草擬的準備作為同盟綱領的《共産主義信條草案》，决定進一步討論修改。同年9月，同盟領導人K.沙佩爾、H.鮑威爾和J.莫爾提出的題為《共産主義問答》的草案，帶有空想社會主義的色彩。稍後，“真正的社會主義者”M.赫斯在巴黎提出一個修正前者的草案。在一次巴黎區部委員會會議上，恩格斯對這個草案作了尖銳批評。會議委托恩格斯擬出新草案。恩格斯寫了作為綱領初稿的《共産主義原理》。1847年11月舉行的共産主義者同盟第2次代表大會，經過激烈辯論接受馬剋思和恩格斯的觀點，委托他們起草一個周詳的理論和實踐的黨綱。馬剋思、恩格斯在倫敦和布魯塞爾就如何起草宣言交換意見，取得一致認識，並研究了宣言的整個內容和結構，由馬剋思執筆寫成。中央委員會接到《宣言》手稿後即付印出版。 1848年2月,《宣言》在倫敦第 1次以單行本問世。中國最早的《共産黨宣言》中譯本發現於山東省廣饒縣大王鎮，現存於東營市歷史博物館（廣饒縣）。
《共産黨宣言》-核心內容
《共産黨宣言》（又被譯為《共産主義宣言》）是卡爾·馬剋思和弗裏德裏希·恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的綱領，國際共産主義運動第一個綱領性文獻，馬剋思主義誕生的重要標志。 1847 年11月共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思和恩格斯起草一個周詳的理論和實踐的黨綱。馬剋思 、恩格斯取得一致認識，並研究了宣言的整個內容和結構，由馬剋思執筆寫成 。1848年2月，《宣言》在倫敦第一次以單行本問世。
《宣言》第一次全面係統地闡述了科學社會主義理論，指出共産主義運動已成為不可抗拒的歷史潮流。全文包括簡短的引論、資産者和無産者、無産者和共産黨人、社會主義的和共産主義的文獻、共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度等幾個部分。構成《宣言》核心的基本原理是：每一歷史時代主要的生産方式與交換方式以及必然由此産生的社會結構，是該時代政治的和精神的歷史所賴以確立的基礎，並且衹有從這一基礎出發，歷史才能得到說明。從原始社會解體以來人類社會的全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史；這個歷史包括一係列發展階段，現在已經達到這樣一個階段，即無産階級如果不同時使整個社會擺脫任何剝削、壓迫以及階級劃分和階級鬥爭，就不能使自己從資産階級的剝削統治下解放出來。
《宣言》運用辯證唯物主義和歷史唯物主義分析生産力與生産關係、基礎與上層建築的矛盾，分析階級和階級鬥爭，特別是資本主義社會階級鬥爭的産生、發展過程，論證資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律，作為資本主義掘墓人的無産階級肩負的世界歷史使命。《宣言》公開宣佈必須用革命的暴力推翻資産階級的統治，建立無産階級的“政治統治”，表述了以無産階級專政代替資産階級專政的思想。《宣言》還指出無産階級在奪取政權後，必須在大力發展生産力的基礎上,逐步地進行巨大的社會改造,進而達到消滅階級對立和階級本身的存在條件。《宣言》批判當時各種反動的社會主義思潮，對“空想的批判的社會主義”作了科學的分析和評價。
《宣言》闡述作為無産階級先進隊伍的共産黨的性質、特點和鬥爭策略,指出為黨的最近目的而奮鬥與爭取實現共産主義終極目的之間的聯繫。《宣言》最後莊嚴宣告：“無産者在這個革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈。他們獲得的將是整個世界。”並發出國際主義的戰鬥號召：“全世界無産者，聯合起來 !”
《共産黨宣言》-實踐和影響
《宣言》的基本原理是客觀規律的科學總結。馬剋思、恩格斯指出：“這些基本原理的實際運用，正如《宣言》中所說的，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。”他們非常重視在實踐中檢驗自己的理論，研究新的歷史經驗。及時總結巴黎公社(1792～1794)的經驗並把它作為對《宣言》的補充和修改就是一個範例。全世界無産階級一直把《宣言》作為爭取解放的思想武器。
《宣言》在20世紀初開始傳入中國。自1906年起一些報刊上陸續出現《宣言》的某些內容介紹和片斷譯文。1920年出版陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》，是《宣言》在中國最早的全文譯本。
《共産黨宣言》-歷史背景
《共産黨宣言》由馬剋思和恩格斯、寫於1847年12月至1848年1月，發表於1848年2月。
《宣言》是無産階級反對資産階級的鬥爭日益尖銳條件下産生的。
《宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯進行理論研究和理論鬥爭爭取得巨大成效的情況下産生的。
《宣言》是馬剋思和恩格斯為建立無産階級政黨而鬥爭的實踐中産生的。
《共産黨宣言》-內容提要
1848年2月24日，馬剋思和恩格斯合著的《共産黨宣言》在倫敦第一次出版。這個宣言是共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思、恩格斯起草的同盟綱領。
《共産黨宣言》包括引言和正文四章。1872年—1893年，馬剋思和恩格斯先後為《宣言》的德文、俄文、英文、波蘭文、意大利文版撰寫了七篇序言。七篇序言簡要說明了《宣言》的基本思想及其在國際共産主義運動中的歷史地位，指明《宣言》的理論原理是歷史唯物主義，並根據無産階級革命的經驗和教訓，對《宣言》作了補充和修改。
引言部分說明寫作《宣言》的背景和目的。
“資産者和無産者”這一章，馬剋思，恩格斯運用歷史唯物主義的基本觀點，分析了資産階級和無産階級的産生，發展及其相互鬥爭的過程，揭示了資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律，闡明了無産階級的歷史使命，論述了馬剋思主義的階級鬥爭學說。
階級鬥爭是推動階級社會發展的直接動力（第1--5段）。
考察資産階級的産生和發展過程，揭示資本主義必然滅亡的規律（第6-28段）。
無産階級的産生和發展及其歷史使命（第29--54段）。
“無産者和共産黨人”這一章，馬剋思、恩格斯闡明了共産黨的性質、特點、目的和任務，以及共産黨的理論和基本綱領，批判了資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論，闡述了無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路。
共産黨的性質、特點和基本綱領（第1--14段）。
批駁資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論（第15--68段）。
無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路（第69--86段）。
“社會主義和共産主義的文獻”這章，分析和批判了當時的各種假社會主義和空想社會主義，指出它們代表各自的階級利益，但是打着社會主義的旗號進行活動，分析了各種假社會主義流派産生的社會歷史條件，並揭露了它們的階級實質。
反動的社會主義（第1--34段）。
保守的或資産階級的社會主義（第35--42段）。
批判的空想的社會主義和共産主義（第43--56段）。
《共産黨宣言》《共産黨宣言》
“共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度”這一章，主要是從共産黨人對帶各種反對黨派的態度上，闡述了共産黨人革命鬥爭的思想策略。
共産黨人政治鬥爭策略的基本原則（第1--4段）。
共産黨人在德國的鬥爭策略（第5--7段）。
共産黨人運用鬥爭策略的目的（第8--12段）。
《宣言》是科學共産主義的第一個綱領性文獻，它標志着馬剋思主義的誕生。《宣言》剛剛發表，就迎來了歐洲1848年的革命風暴。
《宣言》完整、係統而嚴密地闡述了馬剋思主義的主要思想；闡述了馬剋思主義的世界觀，特別是它的階級鬥爭學說；揭示了資本主義社會的內在矛盾和發展規律，論證了資本主義滅亡和社會主義勝利的必然性。《宣言》論述了無産階級作為資本主義掘墓人的偉大歷史使命；闡述了馬剋思主義關於無産階級專政的思想；闡明了共産主義革命不僅要同傳統的所有製關係實行最徹底的决裂，而且要同傳統觀念實行最徹底的决裂；闡明了共産黨的性質和任務。這部著作從誕生起就鼓舞和推動着全世界無産階級爭取解放鬥爭，成為無産階級最銳利的戰鬥武器。恩格斯指出：它是全部社會主義文獻中傳播最廣和最具國際性的著作，是世界各國千百萬工人共同的綱領。
《宣言》結束時強調：共産黨人嚮全世界宣佈，用暴力革命推翻全部現成的社會制度實現共産主義。讓一切反動階級在共産主義革命的面前發抖！無産階級革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈，它將獲得整個世界。《宣言》用響雲霄的最強音，發出無産階級國際主義的偉大號召：全世界無産者，聯合起來！
《共産黨宣言》-1872年德文版序言
共産主義者同盟這個在當時條件下自然衹能是秘密團體的國際工人組織，1847年11 月在倫敦代表大會上委托我們兩人起草一個準備公佈的周祥的理論和實踐的黨綱。結果就産生了這個《宣言》，《宣言》原稿在二月革命前幾星期寄到倫敦付印。《宣言》最初用德文出版，後來又用德文在德國、英國和美國至少翻印過十二次。第一個英譯本是由艾琳·麥剋法林女士翻譯的，於1850年在倫敦《紅色共和黨人》雜志上發表，後來在1871年至少又有三種不同的英譯本在美國出版。法譯本於1848年六月起義前不久第一次在巴黎印行，最近又在紐約《社會主義者報》上登載；現在又有人在準備新譯本。波蘭文譯本在德國本初版問世後不久就在倫敦出現。俄譯本是於六十年代在日內瓦出版的。丹麥文譯本也是在原書問世後不久就出版了。
不管最近二十五年來的情況發生了多大變化，這個《宣言》中所發揮的一般基本原理整個說來直到現在還是完全正確的。個別地方本來可已作某些修改。這些原理的實際運用，正如《宣言》中所說的，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移，所以第二章末尾提出的那些革命措施並沒有什麽特殊的意義。現在這一段在許多方面都應該有不同的寫法了。由於最近二十五年來大工業已有很大發展而工人階級的政黨組織也跟着發展起來，由於首先有了二月革命的實際經驗而後來尤其是有了無産階級第一次掌握政權達兩月之久的巴黎公社的實際經驗，所以這個綱領現在有些地方已經過時了。特別是公社已經證明：“工人階級不能簡單地掌握現成的國傢機器，並運用它來達到自己的目的。”（見《法蘭西內戰。國際工人協會總委員會宣言》德文版第十九頁，那裏把這個思想發揮得更加完備。）其次，很明顯，對於社會主義文獻所做的批判在今天看來是不完全的，因為這一批判衹包括到1847年為止；同樣也很明顯，關於共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度問題所提出的意見（第四章）雖然大體上至今還是正確的，但是由於政治形式已經完全改變，而當時所列舉的那些黨派大部分已被歷史的發展進程所徹底掃除，所以這些意見在實踐方面畢竟是過時了。
但是《宣言》是一個歷史文件，我們已沒有權力來加以修改。下次再版時也許能加上一篇包括從1847年到現在這段時期的導言。這次再版太倉卒了，以致我們竟來不及做這件工作。
卡爾·馬剋思 弗裏德裏希·恩格斯 1872年6月24日於倫敦
《共産黨宣言》-1883年德文版序言
本版序言不幸衹能由我一個人署名了。馬剋思這位比其他任何人都更應受到歐美整個工人階級感謝的人物，已經長眠於海格特公墓，他的墓上已經初次長出了青草。在他逝世以後，就更談不上對《宣言》作什麽修改或補充了。因此，我認為更有必要在這裏再一次明確地申述下面這一點。
貫穿《宣言》的基本思想：每一歷史時代的經濟生産以及必然由此産生的社會結構，是該時代政治的和精神的歷史的基礎；因此(從原始土地公有製解體以來)全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史，即社會發展各個階段上被剝削階級和剝削階級之間、被統治階級和統治階級之間鬥爭的歷史；而這個鬥爭現在已經達到這樣一個階段，即被剝削被壓迫的階級(無産階級)，如果不同時使整個社會永遠擺脫剝削、壓迫和階級鬥爭，就不再能使自己從剝削它壓迫它的那個階級(資産階級)下解放出來，—— 這個基本思想完全是屬於馬剋思一個人的。
這一點我已經屢次說過，但正是現在必須在《宣言》本身的前面也寫明這一點。
弗· 恩格斯 1883年6月28日於倫敦
《共産黨宣言》-中國第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》
簡介
在東營市廣饒縣收藏着1920年8月出版的我國最早的《共産黨宣言》中文譯本，這看似平常的一本書，卻被稱為“國寶”，它的保存與流傳，經歷了世紀的風風雨雨。
《共産黨宣言》節譯發表
1919年4月6日，《每周評論》第十六號在 “名著”欄內刊載《共産黨宣言》(節譯)第二章《無産者與共産黨人》後面屬於綱領的一段，並在按語中指出：“這個宣言是馬剋思和恩格斯最先最重大的意見。......其要旨在主張階段戰爭，要求各地的勞工聯合。......是表示新時代的文書。”
《每周評論》第十六號還發表了陳獨秀的短文《綱常名教》，文章說：“歐洲各國社會主義的學說，已經大大流行了，俄、德和匈牙利，並且成了共産黨的世界，這種風氣，恐怕馬上就要來到東方。”
第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》的發現及意義
廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)
1975年，《共産黨宣言》中文譯本在廣饒的發現，可謂石破天驚，它提出了新的情況並作出了新的說明。廣饒藏本，係平裝本，長18釐米，寬12 釐米，比現在的32開本略小一點。書面印有水紅色馬剋思半身像，上端從右至左模印着“社會主義研究小叢書第一種”，上署“馬格斯、安格爾斯合著”、“陳望道譯”。全文用5號鉛字竪排，計56頁。封底印有“一千九百二十年八月出版”、“定價大洋一角”字樣，印刷及發行者是“社會主義研究社”。經調查和研究得出：第一，廣饒藏本糾正了過去在上海藏本報道中的不確之處。廣饒藏本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”，而不是“共産黨宣言”。《黨史資料叢刊》所刊載的上海8 月藏本的介紹文章和照片，都標明上海本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”。經過對照，廣饒本和上海本完全是一個版本。第二，廣饒本打破了“孤本”和“孤證”的局面。過去，認為《共産黨宣言》全譯本在我國出版是1920年8月說，衹有上海檔案館一本實物作證，被稱為“孤本”、“孤證”。有了廣饒藏本（另上海圖書館尚有同本），再加上北京圖書館保存的殘本，至少是有了4本8月的版本。現在可以證明，《共産黨宣言》全譯本是1920年8月出版的。第三，進一步弄清了出版情況。從廣饒藏本及上海檔案館、上海圖書館的收藏本封面標題都是“共黨産宣言”這一情況來看，8月版本封面標題之誤並非發生在個別印本之上。這個封面標題錯誤，顯然是因排印或校對疏忽所造成的，而非什麽譯法或其他原因所造成的。因為，扉頁上竪排的標題清楚地印着“共産黨宣言”五個大字。可以斷定，正是因為發生和發現了這一版封面標題的行文詞序錯誤，又加新書售罄，故在9月間進行“再版”時糾正了封面標題錯誤。從現有已發現的各版本分析，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”，中央檔案館收藏的1924年6月版本印着“第三版”字樣，也足可說明。假定8月版本之前還有一個版本的話，則8月本就應為“再版”，9月本為“三版”，1924年6月本成了“四版”，但這種情況並不存在。
奇書的由來與傳播
廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》先是在濟南共産主義者手中，後又傳到了廣饒，不曾想經歷了一番漫長而麯折的過程。
由於1919年 “五四”運動爆發的導火綫是山東問題，故而，“五四”時期山東的愛國反帝鬥爭特別高漲與廣泛。這就促使馬剋思著作《共産黨宣言》在山東傳播開來，那時《每周評論》嚮幾個學校寄售。是年秋，王盡美、鄧恩銘、王翔千等在濟南成立馬剋思學說研究會，學習和研究的主要文獻也是《共産黨宣言》。會員馬馥堂回憶說： “當時的主要學習資料是《共産黨宣言》。我把《共産黨宣言》、《嚮導》帶回傢去，我父親看了，極為稱贊，說馬剋思是聖人。”廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》最初就是在濟南共産主義者中流傳、學習的。
在廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》的首頁右下角蓋有一方“葆臣”朱紅印痕。而這位“葆臣”是誰呢？經調查，他是濟南的早期團員和黨員張葆臣。中央檔案館保存的1923年12月15日《濟南地區團員調查表》表明，張葆臣是江蘇無錫人，1922年1月1日入團，後到濟南工作，從事青年運動。中央檔案館還有檔案說明他是濟南團的主要負責人之一，主管“教育兼發行”工作。1922年曾任濟南黨的代理書記的馬剋先回憶，張葆臣是當時在濟南的七名黨員之一。據王辯、劉子久等濟南地區的早期黨員回憶，張葆臣當時在道生銀行做職員，在黨內管黨、團刊物的發行工作。道生銀行是沙俄在中國開設的銀行，總行設在上海，十月革命後仍繼續開辦。張葆臣是該行濟南分行的職員，常來往於上海、濟南之間，又在黨內負責黨團刊物、馬列書籍的發行工作，因此，他能收存這個最早版本的《共産黨宣言》。那麽，它又是怎樣傳到廣饒縣劉集村的呢？原來是通過另一名早期女共産黨員劉雨輝。
劉雨輝是廣饒縣劉集村人，曾先後就讀於濟南女子養蠶講習所和蘇州女子産業學校，1925年夏畢業後回濟南女子職業學校任教。在濟南期間，她結識了濟南女師的王辯、侯玉蘭、於佩貞、劉淑琴、王蘭英等許多共産黨員，同年由於佩貞介紹加入中國共産黨。他們常和延伯真、劉子久、李雲生、張葆臣等男同志一起學習和活動。這樣，那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》就輾轉到了劉雨輝的手中。1926年春節，她和同鄉延伯真、劉子久一同回傢省親時，就把這本《共産黨宣言》和其他許多馬剋思主義書籍、黨的宣傳材料帶回了廣饒縣劉集村。從此，這本革命文獻便在這個偏僻的農村經歷了不平凡的50個春秋。
廣饒劉集黨支部是在1925年春建立的。劉子久在幫助組建劉集黨支部時，也曾從外地帶回過一本《共産黨宣言》和其他馬列著作、黨的宣傳文件。
這本《共産黨宣言》當時由支部書記劉良纔保存。其後，1926年春節期間，劉雨輝又給劉集支部帶來了那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》。這樣，劉集支部六七個黨員，就擁有了兩本《共産黨宣言》。這在當時一個普通的農村黨支部來說，委實難能可貴。支部書記劉良纔經常在晚上召集黨員們，在他傢的三間北屋裏，於煤油燈下學習《共産黨宣言》和其他文件。入鼕農閑季節，黨支部還舉辦農民夜校，由劉良纔或其他黨員宣講革命道理和文化知識。《共産黨宣言》又成了劉良纔等同志備課的好材料。從現存《共産黨宣言》可以看出，由於這本書當年經常被翻閱，以至於在書的左下角留下了明顯的指漬痕跡和破損。
《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思主義著作在中國傳播得最早、最廣泛的一部寶書。它在大城市，在知識分子中，在革命的先知先覺者那裏發揮了極為重要的作用。但是像廣饒藏本這樣的傳播情況，則是不多見的。它在當時山東這樣衹有百戶人傢的小村，在貧苦農民當中傳播，發揮着實實在在的作用，這對認識“五四”後馬剋思主義在中國傳播的廣度和深度，不能不說是一個突破。
《共産黨宣言》-指導思想
貫穿《宣言》全篇的基本思想或指導是唯物主義歷史觀，《宣言》的中心思想是關於“兩個必然性”的原理。即運用唯物史觀論證並闡明無産階級解放的性質、條件和一般目的，尤其是關於現代工人階級的偉大歷史作用和歷史使命，工人階級先進政黨得歷史地位、歷史使命指導思想和它的先進性、預見性、戰鬥性、原則性、策略性等特徵，從而為工人階級和全人類的徹底解放指明了科學的途徑。
《共産黨宣言》-主要特點
《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯全部成熟著作的綱領和紅綫，是理解什麽是馬剋思主義的關鍵。馬剋思、恩格斯的全部著作，就是為實現《宣言》中的“兩個必然性”，為實現無産階級的徹底解放而進行的理論研究。不斷完善、發展科學社會主義理論，並使理論變為綱領，使綱領付諸實施，是理論同實踐相結合，使科學社會主義同工人運動相結合這就是馬剋思主義的科學社會主義，與其它形形色色的社會主義相區別的主要特點。
《共産黨宣言》-意義
（一）《共産黨宣言》確立了科學社會主義的基本原理
第一、科學地論證了共産主義的歷史必然性。
第二、明確指出了無産階級革命的基本路綫和主要任務。
第三、扼要地闡明了無産階級的建黨學說和策略原則。
（二）《共産黨宣言》是工人階級解放的偉大旗幟。
工人階級藴涵着自己解放自己的最強大的力量源泉，是推動歷史前進的火車頭。工人階級是在改造舊世界、建設新社會的依靠力量和領導力量。這種力量的發現成了科學社會主義理論的第一塊主要的“基石”。由於馬剋思主義是工人階級利益的理論表現，即無産階級解放條件的理論概括。因此，它一旦産生出來，並嚮工人階級進行灌輸後，它就能掌握千百萬無産者的心靈被覺悟的工人所接受，成為工人階級的世界觀，導致工人階級政黨的産生，從而使無産階級由自在階級嚮自為階級轉變。
《宣言》闡明了工人階級的歷史作用、歷史使命和無産階級解放的性質、條件與目的。
《宣言》是無産階級根本利益的理論表現。
馬剋思主義理論一經掌握群衆，就會為不可戰勝的物質力量。
（三）《共産黨宣言》給予中國共産黨人、中國革命和社會主義事業的偉大影響和光輝指導。
《共産黨宣言》（以下簡稱《宣言》）是馬剋思和恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的黨綱，是科學社會主義的綱領性文獻。《宣言》揭示了人類社會發展的客觀規律，對中國社會的發展産生了深遠的影響。一個多世紀以來，中國産生了三位站在時代前列的代表人物：孫中山、毛澤東、李大釗，他們都受到《宣言》的直接影響和教育。
1896 年，中國革命的先行者孫中山留居英國期間，就在大英博物館讀到《宣言》等馬剋思主義論著。他曾敦促留學生研究馬剋思的《資本論》和《共産黨宣言》。 1899年3月上海《萬國公報》刊載節譯的英國社會學家頡德的《大同學》一文就涉及到《宣言》的有關內容。1905年底，資産階級革命派朱執信在同盟會機關報《民報》第二號上發表的《德意志社會革命傢小傳》一文，記述了馬剋思和恩格斯的生平和學說，並第一次簡要介紹了《宣言》的寫作背景、基本思想和歷史意義，還依據《宣言》的日文本並參照英文本摘譯了該書的幾段文字和第二章的十大綱領全文，並作瞭解釋。作者將該書的書名譯為《共産主義宣言》。1908年3 月15日，劉師培（署名申叔）在《天義報》發表了《〈共産黨宣言〉序》。這是中國人第一次為《宣言》作序。此後，有關《宣言》的文章不斷見諸報端。
1917 年俄國十月革命的勝利，進一步喚醒了中國的先進分子。“五四運動”前後，中國出現了許多介紹和討論《宣言》的文章，馬剋思主義在中國得到廣泛的傳播。 1920年3月，李大釗倡導成立的“北京大學馬剋斯（即馬剋思 ——編輯註）學研究會”集體翻譯了德文版《宣言》的全文，印發了少量油印本在當時的先進分子中傳閱。1920年8月，由陳望道根據日文和英文版本翻譯的《宣言》的第一個中文譯本在共産國際的資助下由上海社會主義研究社正式出版。陳望道譯本在以後的20年中，多次重印，廣為流傳。毛澤東在1920年第一次閱讀了考茨基著的《階級鬥爭》、陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》和一個英國人作的《社會主義史》。周恩來對陳望道就說過：“我們都是你教育出來的。”
《宣言》對當時在國外勤工儉學的青年也産生了重要的影響。1920年初，蔡和森在法國先後翻譯出《宣言》、《社會主義從空想到科學的發展》等著作的重要段落，在赴法勤工儉學的學生中廣為流傳。鄧小平也是在法國勤工儉學時讀到《宣言》的。他後來說，我的入門老師是《共産黨宣言》和《共産主義ＡＢＣ》。
隨着中國革命形勢的發展，對《宣言》的需求與日俱增。《宣言》的第一個中文譯本出版後到1949年中華人民共和國成立，又有5個中文譯本陸續問世，譯文質量不斷提高，所收序言不斷增加，發行數量日益擴大。
新中國成立後，1949年11月在北京印了蘇聯外交出版局出版的收有馬剋思恩格斯寫的全部7篇序言的《宣言》百周年紀念本。1958年中共中央編譯局校訂了《宣言》的中譯本，收入《馬剋思恩格斯全集》第四捲。1964年根據德文並參考英法俄等文本再次作了校訂，出版了單行本，是中國流傳最廣的版本。1972年5月，新編的四捲本《馬剋思恩格斯選集》正式出版，其中收入了《宣言》的正文和馬剋思恩格斯寫的7篇序言。1995年6月，又編輯出版了第二版。這版《馬剋思恩格斯選集》對收載的文獻作了較大調整，並按原著文字對譯文重新作了校訂。 1997年8月人民出版社又根據《馬剋思恩格斯選集》中文第二版第一捲中的 《宣言》的新譯文出版了單行本，並作為馬列著作的係列書《馬剋思列寧主義文庫》之一種出版發行。這是《共産黨宣言》迄今在我國出版的最新版本。
江澤民同志在黨的十五大報告中指出：“近20年來改革開放和現代化建設取得成功的根本原因之一，就是剋服了那些超越階段的錯誤觀念和政策，又抵製了拋棄社會主義基本制度的錯誤主張”。這就清楚地告訴我們，必須完整地、準確地理解關於社會主義初級階段，這就决定了我們現階段的奮鬥目標是建設中國特色的社會主義，我們要為此而貢獻自己的一切，捨此而空談共産主義，那就是有意無意地、或多或少地背叛了共産主義。
《共産黨宣言》-學習態度和方法
（一）對基本原理的實際運用，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。
在《宣言》的出版序言中多次說明，對基本原理的實際運用，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移，對個別原理和具體原理更要根據此時此地的實際情況進行具體的分析。這裏關鍵是準確把握基本原理和具體原理的科學界限，因為對基本原理是不能違背的，違背了基本原理就會走嚮馬剋思主義的反面，葬送革命成果，從而可能成為馬剋思主義的可恥叛徒。
（二）要實事求是地堅持馬剋思主義的唯物辨證觀點
從長遠看，社會主義終將徹底戰勝資本主義，終將在全世界範圍內取得完全勝利。而在此之前，社會主義在每個國傢的實踐有可能發生一次甚至多次的暫時失敗或挫折，國際社會主義運動還可能經歷若幹個高潮交替的時期。因此，對社會主義的前途和命運，既要滿懷信心又不可掉以輕心，任何悲觀的論調和盲目樂觀、麻痹大意僥幸心理，都是極其錯誤和十分有害的。
（三）馬剋思主義不是一成不變的教條，它必須隨着時代的發展而不斷地得到豐富和發展。
鄧小平同志說過：“真正的馬剋思列寧主義者必須根據現在的情況，認識、繼承和發展馬剋思列寧主義。.....不以新的思想、觀點去繼承、發展馬剋思主義，不是真正的馬剋思主義者。”必須廢除靜止地孤立地學習研究馬剋思主義的方法。離開本國的實際和時代發展來談馬剋思主義，沒有出路，也沒有意義。正如黨的十五大報告指出的那樣：“一定要以我國改革開放和現代化建設的實際問題，以我們正在做的事情為中心，着眼於馬剋思主義理論的運用，着眼於對實際問題的理論思考，着眼於新的實踐和新發展。”
（四）要正確認識從《共産黨宣言》到鄧小平理論的繼承發展關係。
鄧小平理論的基本觀點同《共産黨宣言》的基本原理和精神實質是一致的。包括《共産黨宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想是鄧小平理論的深厚根基和主要來源，鄧小平理論是包括《宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想的基本原理原則的繼承和發展，二者同處於一個科學體係之中，是不可分割的統一體，不應人為地把二者對立起來或割裂開來。所以，對那些事關重大原則的是非問題必須予以澄清，對已經造成很大的不良影響的有些非馬剋思主義的錯誤思想觀點應當認真加以糾正和剋服。
《共産黨宣言》-結語
在過去不到一個半世紀中，社會主義的實踐已經經歷三次高潮。第一次高潮是巴黎公社的創立；第二次高潮是俄國十月革命的勝利和首先在蘇聯建設社會主義國傢；第三次高潮是第二次世界大戰後至70年代，社會主義革命和建設在一係列國傢特別是在中國取得勝利。
社會主義的實踐表明，實現社會主義和共産主義决不是什麽空想，而是已經或將要變成活生生的現實，這是經過革命政黨和人民持久奮鬥終將取得最後勝利的崇高理想。同時表明，實現社會主義的道路是很麯折的，它要經過多次的成功與失敗、高潮與低潮，這樣迂回麯折的歷程。
一部馬剋思主義發展史就是不斷創造性發展和用新的原理代替個別舊的原理的過程。就馬剋思主義作為科學理論而言永遠不會過時。因為它以實踐為源頭活水，不斷與時俱進。會過時的是個別原理，而個別的原理的過時，正是整個馬剋思主義科學學說永具活力的保證。迄今為止，還沒有一種理論和學說，在總體上能象馬剋思主義這樣為人們認識和改造世界提供科學的基本理論和方法，也就有一種理論和學說像馬剋思主義這樣強調理論的運用必須聯繫實際，必須具有創造性。
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!
《共産黨宣言》-核心內容
《共産黨宣言》（又被譯為《共産主義宣言》）是卡爾·馬剋思和弗裏德裏希·恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的綱領，國際共産主義運動第一個綱領性文獻，馬剋思主義誕生的重要標志。 1847 年11月共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思和恩格斯起草一個周詳的理論和實踐的黨綱。馬剋思 、恩格斯取得一致認識，並研究了宣言的整個內容和結構，由馬剋思執筆寫成 。1848年2月，《宣言》在倫敦第一次以單行本問世。
《宣言》第一次全面係統地闡述了科學社會主義理論，指出共産主義運動已成為不可抗拒的歷史潮流。全文包括簡短的引論、資産者和無産者、無産者和共産黨人、社會主義的和共産主義的文獻、共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度等幾個部分。構成《宣言》核心的基本原理是：每一歷史時代主要的生産方式與交換方式以及必然由此産生的社會結構，是該時代政治的和精神的歷史所賴以確立的基礎，並且衹有從這一基礎出發，歷史才能得到說明。從原始社會解體以來人類社會的全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史；這個歷史包括一係列發展階段，現在已經達到這樣一個階段，即無産階級如果不同時使整個社會擺脫任何剝削、壓迫以及階級劃分和階級鬥爭，就不能使自己從資産階級的剝削統治下解放出來。
《宣言》運用辯證唯物主義和歷史唯物主義分析生産力與生産關係、基礎與上層建築的矛盾，分析階級和階級鬥爭，特別是資本主義社會階級鬥爭的産生、發展過程，論證資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律，作為資本主義掘墓人的無産階級肩負的世界歷史使命。《宣言》公開宣佈必須用革命的暴力推翻資産階級的統治，建立無産階級的“政治統治”，表述了以無産階級專政代替資産階級專政的思想。《宣言》還指出無産階級在奪取政權後，必須在大力發展生産力的基礎上,逐步地進行巨大的社會改造,進而達到消滅階級對立和階級本身的存在條件。《宣言》批判當時各種反動的社會主義思潮，對“空想的批判的社會主義”作了科學的分析和評價。
《宣言》闡述作為無産階級先進隊伍的共産黨的性質、特點和鬥爭策略,指出為黨的最近目的而奮鬥與爭取實現共産主義終極目的之間的聯繫。《宣言》最後莊嚴宣告：“無産者在這個革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈。他們獲得的將是整個世界。”並發出國際主義的戰鬥號召：“全世界無産者，聯合起來 !”
《共産黨宣言》-實踐和影響
《宣言》的基本原理是客觀規律的科學總結。馬剋思、恩格斯指出：“這些基本原理的實際運用，正如《宣言》中所說的，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。”他們非常重視在實踐中檢驗自己的理論，研究新的歷史經驗。及時總結巴黎公社(1792～1794)的經驗並把它作為對《宣言》的補充和修改就是一個範例。全世界無産階級一直把《宣言》作為爭取解放的思想武器。
《宣言》在20世紀初開始傳入中國。自1906年起一些報刊上陸續出現《宣言》的某些內容介紹和片斷譯文。1920年出版陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》，是《宣言》在中國最早的全文譯本。
《共産黨宣言》-歷史背景
《共産黨宣言》由馬剋思和恩格斯、寫於1847年12月至1848年1月，發表於1848年2月。
《宣言》是無産階級反對資産階級的鬥爭日益尖銳條件下産生的。
《宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯進行理論研究和理論鬥爭爭取得巨大成效的情況下産生的。
《宣言》是馬剋思和恩格斯為建立無産階級政黨而鬥爭的實踐中産生的。
《共産黨宣言》-內容提要
1848年2月24日，馬剋思和恩格斯合著的《共産黨宣言》在倫敦第一次出版。這個宣言是共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思、恩格斯起草的同盟綱領。
《共産黨宣言》包括引言和正文四章。1872年—1893年，馬剋思和恩格斯先後為《宣言》的德文、俄文、英文、波蘭文、意大利文版撰寫了七篇序言。七篇序言簡要說明了《宣言》的基本思想及其在國際共産主義運動中的歷史地位，指明《宣言》的理論原理是歷史唯物主義，並根據無産階級革命的經驗和教訓，對《宣言》作了補充和修改。
引言部分說明寫作《宣言》的背景和目的。
“資産者和無産者”這一章，馬剋思，恩格斯運用歷史唯物主義的基本觀點，分析了資産階級和無産階級的産生，發展及其相互鬥爭的過程，揭示了資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律，闡明了無産階級的歷史使命，論述了馬剋思主義的階級鬥爭學說。
階級鬥爭是推動階級社會發展的直接動力（第1--5段）。
考察資産階級的産生和發展過程，揭示資本主義必然滅亡的規律（第6-28段）。
無産階級的産生和發展及其歷史使命（第29--54段）。
“無産者和共産黨人”這一章，馬剋思、恩格斯闡明了共産黨的性質、特點、目的和任務，以及共産黨的理論和基本綱領，批判了資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論，闡述了無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路。
共産黨的性質、特點和基本綱領（第1--14段）。
批駁資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論（第15--68段）。
無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路（第69--86段）。
“社會主義和共産主義的文獻”這章，分析和批判了當時的各種假社會主義和空想社會主義，指出它們代表各自的階級利益，但是打着社會主義的旗號進行活動，分析了各種假社會主義流派産生的社會歷史條件，並揭露了它們的階級實質。
反動的社會主義（第1--34段）。
保守的或資産階級的社會主義（第35--42段）。
批判的空想的社會主義和共産主義（第43--56段）。
《共産黨宣言》《共産黨宣言》
“共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度”這一章，主要是從共産黨人對帶各種反對黨派的態度上，闡述了共産黨人革命鬥爭的思想策略。
共産黨人政治鬥爭策略的基本原則（第1--4段）。
共産黨人在德國的鬥爭策略（第5--7段）。
共産黨人運用鬥爭策略的目的（第8--12段）。
《宣言》是科學共産主義的第一個綱領性文獻，它標志着馬剋思主義的誕生。《宣言》剛剛發表，就迎來了歐洲1848年的革命風暴。
《宣言》完整、係統而嚴密地闡述了馬剋思主義的主要思想；闡述了馬剋思主義的世界觀，特別是它的階級鬥爭學說；揭示了資本主義社會的內在矛盾和發展規律，論證了資本主義滅亡和社會主義勝利的必然性。《宣言》論述了無産階級作為資本主義掘墓人的偉大歷史使命；闡述了馬剋思主義關於無産階級專政的思想；闡明了共産主義革命不僅要同傳統的所有製關係實行最徹底的决裂，而且要同傳統觀念實行最徹底的决裂；闡明了共産黨的性質和任務。這部著作從誕生起就鼓舞和推動着全世界無産階級爭取解放鬥爭，成為無産階級最銳利的戰鬥武器。恩格斯指出：它是全部社會主義文獻中傳播最廣和最具國際性的著作，是世界各國千百萬工人共同的綱領。
《宣言》結束時強調：共産黨人嚮全世界宣佈，用暴力革命推翻全部現成的社會制度實現共産主義。讓一切反動階級在共産主義革命的面前發抖！無産階級革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈，它將獲得整個世界。《宣言》用響雲霄的最強音，發出無産階級國際主義的偉大號召：全世界無産者，聯合起來！
《共産黨宣言》-1872年德文版序言
共産主義者同盟這個在當時條件下自然衹能是秘密團體的國際工人組織，1847年11 月在倫敦代表大會上委托我們兩人起草一個準備公佈的周祥的理論和實踐的黨綱。結果就産生了這個《宣言》，《宣言》原稿在二月革命前幾星期寄到倫敦付印。《宣言》最初用德文出版，後來又用德文在德國、英國和美國至少翻印過十二次。第一個英譯本是由艾琳·麥剋法林女士翻譯的，於1850年在倫敦《紅色共和黨人》雜志上發表，後來在1871年至少又有三種不同的英譯本在美國出版。法譯本於1848年六月起義前不久第一次在巴黎印行，最近又在紐約《社會主義者報》上登載；現在又有人在準備新譯本。波蘭文譯本在德國本初版問世後不久就在倫敦出現。俄譯本是於六十年代在日內瓦出版的。丹麥文譯本也是在原書問世後不久就出版了。
不管最近二十五年來的情況發生了多大變化，這個《宣言》中所發揮的一般基本原理整個說來直到現在還是完全正確的。個別地方本來可已作某些修改。這些原理的實際運用，正如《宣言》中所說的，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移，所以第二章末尾提出的那些革命措施並沒有什麽特殊的意義。現在這一段在許多方面都應該有不同的寫法了。由於最近二十五年來大工業已有很大發展而工人階級的政黨組織也跟着發展起來，由於首先有了二月革命的實際經驗而後來尤其是有了無産階級第一次掌握政權達兩月之久的巴黎公社的實際經驗，所以這個綱領現在有些地方已經過時了。特別是公社已經證明：“工人階級不能簡單地掌握現成的國傢機器，並運用它來達到自己的目的。”（見《法蘭西內戰。國際工人協會總委員會宣言》德文版第十九頁，那裏把這個思想發揮得更加完備。）其次，很明顯，對於社會主義文獻所做的批判在今天看來是不完全的，因為這一批判衹包括到1847年為止；同樣也很明顯，關於共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度問題所提出的意見（第四章）雖然大體上至今還是正確的，但是由於政治形式已經完全改變，而當時所列舉的那些黨派大部分已被歷史的發展進程所徹底掃除，所以這些意見在實踐方面畢竟是過時了。
但是《宣言》是一個歷史文件，我們已沒有權力來加以修改。下次再版時也許能加上一篇包括從1847年到現在這段時期的導言。這次再版太倉卒了，以致我們竟來不及做這件工作。
卡爾·馬剋思 弗裏德裏希·恩格斯 1872年6月24日於倫敦
《共産黨宣言》-1883年德文版序言
本版序言不幸衹能由我一個人署名了。馬剋思這位比其他任何人都更應受到歐美整個工人階級感謝的人物，已經長眠於海格特公墓，他的墓上已經初次長出了青草。在他逝世以後，就更談不上對《宣言》作什麽修改或補充了。因此，我認為更有必要在這裏再一次明確地申述下面這一點。
貫穿《宣言》的基本思想：每一歷史時代的經濟生産以及必然由此産生的社會結構，是該時代政治的和精神的歷史的基礎；因此(從原始土地公有製解體以來)全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史，即社會發展各個階段上被剝削階級和剝削階級之間、被統治階級和統治階級之間鬥爭的歷史；而這個鬥爭現在已經達到這樣一個階段，即被剝削被壓迫的階級(無産階級)，如果不同時使整個社會永遠擺脫剝削、壓迫和階級鬥爭，就不再能使自己從剝削它壓迫它的那個階級(資産階級)下解放出來，—— 這個基本思想完全是屬於馬剋思一個人的。
這一點我已經屢次說過，但正是現在必須在《宣言》本身的前面也寫明這一點。
弗· 恩格斯 1883年6月28日於倫敦
《共産黨宣言》-中國第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》
簡介
在東營市廣饒縣收藏着1920年8月出版的我國最早的《共産黨宣言》中文譯本，這看似平常的一本書，卻被稱為“國寶”，它的保存與流傳，經歷了世紀的風風雨雨。
《共産黨宣言》節譯發表
1919年4月6日，《每周評論》第十六號在 “名著”欄內刊載《共産黨宣言》(節譯)第二章《無産者與共産黨人》後面屬於綱領的一段，並在按語中指出：“這個宣言是馬剋思和恩格斯最先最重大的意見。......其要旨在主張階段戰爭，要求各地的勞工聯合。......是表示新時代的文書。”
《每周評論》第十六號還發表了陳獨秀的短文《綱常名教》，文章說：“歐洲各國社會主義的學說，已經大大流行了，俄、德和匈牙利，並且成了共産黨的世界，這種風氣，恐怕馬上就要來到東方。”
第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》的發現及意義
廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)
1975年，《共産黨宣言》中文譯本在廣饒的發現，可謂石破天驚，它提出了新的情況並作出了新的說明。廣饒藏本，係平裝本，長18釐米，寬12 釐米，比現在的32開本略小一點。書面印有水紅色馬剋思半身像，上端從右至左模印着“社會主義研究小叢書第一種”，上署“馬格斯、安格爾斯合著”、“陳望道譯”。全文用5號鉛字竪排，計56頁。封底印有“一千九百二十年八月出版”、“定價大洋一角”字樣，印刷及發行者是“社會主義研究社”。經調查和研究得出：第一，廣饒藏本糾正了過去在上海藏本報道中的不確之處。廣饒藏本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”，而不是“共産黨宣言”。《黨史資料叢刊》所刊載的上海8 月藏本的介紹文章和照片，都標明上海本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”。經過對照，廣饒本和上海本完全是一個版本。第二，廣饒本打破了“孤本”和“孤證”的局面。過去，認為《共産黨宣言》全譯本在我國出版是1920年8月說，衹有上海檔案館一本實物作證，被稱為“孤本”、“孤證”。有了廣饒藏本（另上海圖書館尚有同本），再加上北京圖書館保存的殘本，至少是有了4本8月的版本。現在可以證明，《共産黨宣言》全譯本是1920年8月出版的。第三，進一步弄清了出版情況。從廣饒藏本及上海檔案館、上海圖書館的收藏本封面標題都是“共黨産宣言”這一情況來看，8月版本封面標題之誤並非發生在個別印本之上。這個封面標題錯誤，顯然是因排印或校對疏忽所造成的，而非什麽譯法或其他原因所造成的。因為，扉頁上竪排的標題清楚地印着“共産黨宣言”五個大字。可以斷定，正是因為發生和發現了這一版封面標題的行文詞序錯誤，又加新書售罄，故在9月間進行“再版”時糾正了封面標題錯誤。從現有已發現的各版本分析，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”，中央檔案館收藏的1924年6月版本印着“第三版”字樣，也足可說明。假定8月版本之前還有一個版本的話，則8月本就應為“再版”，9月本為“三版”，1924年6月本成了“四版”，但這種情況並不存在。
奇書的由來與傳播
廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》先是在濟南共産主義者手中，後又傳到了廣饒，不曾想經歷了一番漫長而麯折的過程。
由於1919年 “五四”運動爆發的導火綫是山東問題，故而，“五四”時期山東的愛國反帝鬥爭特別高漲與廣泛。這就促使馬剋思著作《共産黨宣言》在山東傳播開來，那時《每周評論》嚮幾個學校寄售。是年秋，王盡美、鄧恩銘、王翔千等在濟南成立馬剋思學說研究會，學習和研究的主要文獻也是《共産黨宣言》。會員馬馥堂回憶說： “當時的主要學習資料是《共産黨宣言》。我把《共産黨宣言》、《嚮導》帶回傢去，我父親看了，極為稱贊，說馬剋思是聖人。”廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》最初就是在濟南共産主義者中流傳、學習的。
在廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》的首頁右下角蓋有一方“葆臣”朱紅印痕。而這位“葆臣”是誰呢？經調查，他是濟南的早期團員和黨員張葆臣。中央檔案館保存的1923年12月15日《濟南地區團員調查表》表明，張葆臣是江蘇無錫人，1922年1月1日入團，後到濟南工作，從事青年運動。中央檔案館還有檔案說明他是濟南團的主要負責人之一，主管“教育兼發行”工作。1922年曾任濟南黨的代理書記的馬剋先回憶，張葆臣是當時在濟南的七名黨員之一。據王辯、劉子久等濟南地區的早期黨員回憶，張葆臣當時在道生銀行做職員，在黨內管黨、團刊物的發行工作。道生銀行是沙俄在中國開設的銀行，總行設在上海，十月革命後仍繼續開辦。張葆臣是該行濟南分行的職員，常來往於上海、濟南之間，又在黨內負責黨團刊物、馬列書籍的發行工作，因此，他能收存這個最早版本的《共産黨宣言》。那麽，它又是怎樣傳到廣饒縣劉集村的呢？原來是通過另一名早期女共産黨員劉雨輝。
劉雨輝是廣饒縣劉集村人，曾先後就讀於濟南女子養蠶講習所和蘇州女子産業學校，1925年夏畢業後回濟南女子職業學校任教。在濟南期間，她結識了濟南女師的王辯、侯玉蘭、於佩貞、劉淑琴、王蘭英等許多共産黨員，同年由於佩貞介紹加入中國共産黨。他們常和延伯真、劉子久、李雲生、張葆臣等男同志一起學習和活動。這樣，那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》就輾轉到了劉雨輝的手中。1926年春節，她和同鄉延伯真、劉子久一同回傢省親時，就把這本《共産黨宣言》和其他許多馬剋思主義書籍、黨的宣傳材料帶回了廣饒縣劉集村。從此，這本革命文獻便在這個偏僻的農村經歷了不平凡的50個春秋。
廣饒劉集黨支部是在1925年春建立的。劉子久在幫助組建劉集黨支部時，也曾從外地帶回過一本《共産黨宣言》和其他馬列著作、黨的宣傳文件。
這本《共産黨宣言》當時由支部書記劉良纔保存。其後，1926年春節期間，劉雨輝又給劉集支部帶來了那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》。這樣，劉集支部六七個黨員，就擁有了兩本《共産黨宣言》。這在當時一個普通的農村黨支部來說，委實難能可貴。支部書記劉良纔經常在晚上召集黨員們，在他傢的三間北屋裏，於煤油燈下學習《共産黨宣言》和其他文件。入鼕農閑季節，黨支部還舉辦農民夜校，由劉良纔或其他黨員宣講革命道理和文化知識。《共産黨宣言》又成了劉良纔等同志備課的好材料。從現存《共産黨宣言》可以看出，由於這本書當年經常被翻閱，以至於在書的左下角留下了明顯的指漬痕跡和破損。
《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思主義著作在中國傳播得最早、最廣泛的一部寶書。它在大城市，在知識分子中，在革命的先知先覺者那裏發揮了極為重要的作用。但是像廣饒藏本這樣的傳播情況，則是不多見的。它在當時山東這樣衹有百戶人傢的小村，在貧苦農民當中傳播，發揮着實實在在的作用，這對認識“五四”後馬剋思主義在中國傳播的廣度和深度，不能不說是一個突破。
《共産黨宣言》-指導思想
貫穿《宣言》全篇的基本思想或指導是唯物主義歷史觀，《宣言》的中心思想是關於“兩個必然性”的原理。即運用唯物史觀論證並闡明無産階級解放的性質、條件和一般目的，尤其是關於現代工人階級的偉大歷史作用和歷史使命，工人階級先進政黨得歷史地位、歷史使命指導思想和它的先進性、預見性、戰鬥性、原則性、策略性等特徵，從而為工人階級和全人類的徹底解放指明了科學的途徑。
《共産黨宣言》-主要特點
《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯全部成熟著作的綱領和紅綫，是理解什麽是馬剋思主義的關鍵。馬剋思、恩格斯的全部著作，就是為實現《宣言》中的“兩個必然性”，為實現無産階級的徹底解放而進行的理論研究。不斷完善、發展科學社會主義理論，並使理論變為綱領，使綱領付諸實施，是理論同實踐相結合，使科學社會主義同工人運動相結合這就是馬剋思主義的科學社會主義，與其它形形色色的社會主義相區別的主要特點。
《共産黨宣言》-意義
（一）《共産黨宣言》確立了科學社會主義的基本原理
第一、科學地論證了共産主義的歷史必然性。
第二、明確指出了無産階級革命的基本路綫和主要任務。
第三、扼要地闡明了無産階級的建黨學說和策略原則。
（二）《共産黨宣言》是工人階級解放的偉大旗幟。
工人階級藴涵着自己解放自己的最強大的力量源泉，是推動歷史前進的火車頭。工人階級是在改造舊世界、建設新社會的依靠力量和領導力量。這種力量的發現成了科學社會主義理論的第一塊主要的“基石”。由於馬剋思主義是工人階級利益的理論表現，即無産階級解放條件的理論概括。因此，它一旦産生出來，並嚮工人階級進行灌輸後，它就能掌握千百萬無産者的心靈被覺悟的工人所接受，成為工人階級的世界觀，導致工人階級政黨的産生，從而使無産階級由自在階級嚮自為階級轉變。
《宣言》闡明了工人階級的歷史作用、歷史使命和無産階級解放的性質、條件與目的。
《宣言》是無産階級根本利益的理論表現。
馬剋思主義理論一經掌握群衆，就會為不可戰勝的物質力量。
（三）《共産黨宣言》給予中國共産黨人、中國革命和社會主義事業的偉大影響和光輝指導。
《共産黨宣言》（以下簡稱《宣言》）是馬剋思和恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的黨綱，是科學社會主義的綱領性文獻。《宣言》揭示了人類社會發展的客觀規律，對中國社會的發展産生了深遠的影響。一個多世紀以來，中國産生了三位站在時代前列的代表人物：孫中山、毛澤東、李大釗，他們都受到《宣言》的直接影響和教育。
1896 年，中國革命的先行者孫中山留居英國期間，就在大英博物館讀到《宣言》等馬剋思主義論著。他曾敦促留學生研究馬剋思的《資本論》和《共産黨宣言》。 1899年3月上海《萬國公報》刊載節譯的英國社會學家頡德的《大同學》一文就涉及到《宣言》的有關內容。1905年底，資産階級革命派朱執信在同盟會機關報《民報》第二號上發表的《德意志社會革命傢小傳》一文，記述了馬剋思和恩格斯的生平和學說，並第一次簡要介紹了《宣言》的寫作背景、基本思想和歷史意義，還依據《宣言》的日文本並參照英文本摘譯了該書的幾段文字和第二章的十大綱領全文，並作瞭解釋。作者將該書的書名譯為《共産主義宣言》。1908年3 月15日，劉師培（署名申叔）在《天義報》發表了《〈共産黨宣言〉序》。這是中國人第一次為《宣言》作序。此後，有關《宣言》的文章不斷見諸報端。
1917 年俄國十月革命的勝利，進一步喚醒了中國的先進分子。“五四運動”前後，中國出現了許多介紹和討論《宣言》的文章，馬剋思主義在中國得到廣泛的傳播。 1920年3月，李大釗倡導成立的“北京大學馬剋斯（即馬剋思 ——編輯註）學研究會”集體翻譯了德文版《宣言》的全文，印發了少量油印本在當時的先進分子中傳閱。1920年8月，由陳望道根據日文和英文版本翻譯的《宣言》的第一個中文譯本在共産國際的資助下由上海社會主義研究社正式出版。陳望道譯本在以後的20年中，多次重印，廣為流傳。毛澤東在1920年第一次閱讀了考茨基著的《階級鬥爭》、陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》和一個英國人作的《社會主義史》。周恩來對陳望道就說過：“我們都是你教育出來的。”
《宣言》對當時在國外勤工儉學的青年也産生了重要的影響。1920年初，蔡和森在法國先後翻譯出《宣言》、《社會主義從空想到科學的發展》等著作的重要段落，在赴法勤工儉學的學生中廣為流傳。鄧小平也是在法國勤工儉學時讀到《宣言》的。他後來說，我的入門老師是《共産黨宣言》和《共産主義ＡＢＣ》。
隨着中國革命形勢的發展，對《宣言》的需求與日俱增。《宣言》的第一個中文譯本出版後到1949年中華人民共和國成立，又有5個中文譯本陸續問世，譯文質量不斷提高，所收序言不斷增加，發行數量日益擴大。
新中國成立後，1949年11月在北京印了蘇聯外交出版局出版的收有馬剋思恩格斯寫的全部7篇序言的《宣言》百周年紀念本。1958年中共中央編譯局校訂了《宣言》的中譯本，收入《馬剋思恩格斯全集》第四捲。1964年根據德文並參考英法俄等文本再次作了校訂，出版了單行本，是中國流傳最廣的版本。1972年5月，新編的四捲本《馬剋思恩格斯選集》正式出版，其中收入了《宣言》的正文和馬剋思恩格斯寫的7篇序言。1995年6月，又編輯出版了第二版。這版《馬剋思恩格斯選集》對收載的文獻作了較大調整，並按原著文字對譯文重新作了校訂。 1997年8月人民出版社又根據《馬剋思恩格斯選集》中文第二版第一捲中的 《宣言》的新譯文出版了單行本，並作為馬列著作的係列書《馬剋思列寧主義文庫》之一種出版發行。這是《共産黨宣言》迄今在我國出版的最新版本。
江澤民同志在黨的十五大報告中指出：“近20年來改革開放和現代化建設取得成功的根本原因之一，就是剋服了那些超越階段的錯誤觀念和政策，又抵製了拋棄社會主義基本制度的錯誤主張”。這就清楚地告訴我們，必須完整地、準確地理解關於社會主義初級階段，這就决定了我們現階段的奮鬥目標是建設中國特色的社會主義，我們要為此而貢獻自己的一切，捨此而空談共産主義，那就是有意無意地、或多或少地背叛了共産主義。
《共産黨宣言》-學習態度和方法
（一）對基本原理的實際運用，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。
在《宣言》的出版序言中多次說明，對基本原理的實際運用，隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移，對個別原理和具體原理更要根據此時此地的實際情況進行具體的分析。這裏關鍵是準確把握基本原理和具體原理的科學界限，因為對基本原理是不能違背的，違背了基本原理就會走嚮馬剋思主義的反面，葬送革命成果，從而可能成為馬剋思主義的可恥叛徒。
（二）要實事求是地堅持馬剋思主義的唯物辨證觀點
從長遠看，社會主義終將徹底戰勝資本主義，終將在全世界範圍內取得完全勝利。而在此之前，社會主義在每個國傢的實踐有可能發生一次甚至多次的暫時失敗或挫折，國際社會主義運動還可能經歷若幹個高潮交替的時期。因此，對社會主義的前途和命運，既要滿懷信心又不可掉以輕心，任何悲觀的論調和盲目樂觀、麻痹大意僥幸心理，都是極其錯誤和十分有害的。
（三）馬剋思主義不是一成不變的教條，它必須隨着時代的發展而不斷地得到豐富和發展。
鄧小平同志說過：“真正的馬剋思列寧主義者必須根據現在的情況，認識、繼承和發展馬剋思列寧主義。.....不以新的思想、觀點去繼承、發展馬剋思主義，不是真正的馬剋思主義者。”必須廢除靜止地孤立地學習研究馬剋思主義的方法。離開本國的實際和時代發展來談馬剋思主義，沒有出路，也沒有意義。正如黨的十五大報告指出的那樣：“一定要以我國改革開放和現代化建設的實際問題，以我們正在做的事情為中心，着眼於馬剋思主義理論的運用，着眼於對實際問題的理論思考，着眼於新的實踐和新發展。”
（四）要正確認識從《共産黨宣言》到鄧小平理論的繼承發展關係。
鄧小平理論的基本觀點同《共産黨宣言》的基本原理和精神實質是一致的。包括《共産黨宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想是鄧小平理論的深厚根基和主要來源，鄧小平理論是包括《宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想的基本原理原則的繼承和發展，二者同處於一個科學體係之中，是不可分割的統一體，不應人為地把二者對立起來或割裂開來。所以，對那些事關重大原則的是非問題必須予以澄清，對已經造成很大的不良影響的有些非馬剋思主義的錯誤思想觀點應當認真加以糾正和剋服。
《共産黨宣言》-結語
在過去不到一個半世紀中，社會主義的實踐已經經歷三次高潮。第一次高潮是巴黎公社的創立；第二次高潮是俄國十月革命的勝利和首先在蘇聯建設社會主義國傢；第三次高潮是第二次世界大戰後至70年代，社會主義革命和建設在一係列國傢特別是在中國取得勝利。
社會主義的實踐表明，實現社會主義和共産主義决不是什麽空想，而是已經或將要變成活生生的現實，這是經過革命政黨和人民持久奮鬥終將取得最後勝利的崇高理想。同時表明，實現社會主義的道路是很麯折的，它要經過多次的成功與失敗、高潮與低潮，這樣迂回麯折的歷程。
一部馬剋思主義發展史就是不斷創造性發展和用新的原理代替個別舊的原理的過程。就馬剋思主義作為科學理論而言永遠不會過時。因為它以實踐為源頭活水，不斷與時俱進。會過時的是個別原理，而個別的原理的過時，正是整個馬剋思主義科學學說永具活力的保證。迄今為止，還沒有一種理論和學說，在總體上能象馬剋思主義這樣為人們認識和改造世界提供科學的基本理論和方法，也就有一種理論和學說像馬剋思主義這樣強調理論的運用必須聯繫實際，必須具有創造性。
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!
《社會契約論》-名書簡介
作者：（法國）盧梭（1712-1788年）
類型： 政治理論著作
成書時間：1762年
《社會契約論》-背景搜索
盧梭出生於瑞士日內瓦一個鐘錶匠家庭，從小失去母親，靠別人撫養教育長大。雖然生活條件艱苦，但他發奮圖強，自學成纔。16歲離傢外出流浪，當過學徒、僕役、私人秘書、樂譜抄寫員。在巴黎，他展現了自己的才華，1750年，盧梭以徵文《論科學與藝術》獲頭等奬而出名。得到了許多上流社會貴婦人的愛慕。這些擁金百萬的貴婦為他供應舒適的生活，給他介紹所需要認識的人，盧梭很快就進入了完全不同的生活圈子。
從 1762年起，盧梭由於寫政論文章，與當局發生了嚴重的糾紛。他的一些同事開始疏遠他，大約就在這個時期，他患了明顯的偏執狂癥。雖然有些人對他表示友好，但他卻采取懷疑和敵視的態度，同他們每個人都爭吵過。他一生的最後20年基本上是在悲慘痛苦中度過的，1778年他在法國邁農維爾去世。
推薦閱讀版本：何兆武譯，商務印書館出版。
《社會契約論》-內容精要
《社會契約論》全書共分4捲，第一捲主要論述了人類是怎樣由自然狀態過渡到政治狀態的，契約的根本條件是什麽；第二捲主要討論國傢的立法問題；第三捲論述的是政治法即政府的形成；第四捲在繼續討論政治法的同時闡述了鞏固國傢體製的方法，從古羅馬歷史出發論述了主權者意志實現的某些細節。
“人是生而自由的，但卻無往不在枷鎖之中，自以為是其他一切的主人，反而比其他一切更是奴隸。”《社會契約論》的開篇第一句話就提出了這個振聾發聵的觀點。盧梭的這一論斷是在君主專製制度橫行歐洲的時代，針對英國王權專製論代表人物費爾瑪關於“沒有人是生而自由的”這一絶對君主專製制度賴以依存的理論而提出來的。這本書以反對封建專製、倡言民主共和、主張人民主權為其主題和中心內容，提出了富於革命性的憲政理論。
盧梭認為，自由的人們最初生活在自然狀態，人們的行為受自然法支配。自然法以理性為基礎，賦予人類一係列普遍的、永恆的自然權利，即生存、自由、平等、追求幸福、獲得財産和人身、財産不受侵犯的權利。由於自然狀態存在種種弊端，自由的人們以平等的資格訂立契約，從自然狀態下襬脫出來，尋找出一種結合的形式，使它能以全部共同的力量來衛護和保障每個結合者的人身和財富，並且由於這一結合而使每一個與全體相聯合的個人又衹不過是在服從自己本人，並且仍然像以往一樣地自由。這種結合的形式就是國傢。由於國傢是自由的人們以平等的資格訂立契約産生的，人們衹是把自然權利轉讓給整個社會而並不是奉獻給任何個人，因此人民在國傢中仍是自由的，國傢的主權衹能屬於人民。
然後，盧梭進一步闡述了人民主權的原則：主權是不可轉讓的，因為國傢由主權者構成，衹有主權者才能行使主權；主權是不可分割的，因為代表主權的意志是一個整體；主權是不可代表的，因為 “主權在本質上是由公意所構成的，而意志又是絶不可以代表的；它衹能是同一個意志，或者是另一個意志，而絶不能有什麽中間的東西。因此人民的議員就不是、也不可能是人民的代表，他們衹不過是人民的辦事員罷了；他們並不能做出任何肯定的决定”。同時，主權是絶對的、至高無上和不可侵犯的，因為主權是公意的體現，是國傢的靈魂。基於這樣的理論，盧梭反對君主立憲而堅决主張民主共和。
《社會契約論》還論述了一係列法律基本理論，在其中貫穿着以人民主權為中心內容的資産階級民主主義精神。盧梭指出法律是人民公共意志的體現，是人民自己意志的記錄和全體人民為自己所做的規定。法律的特點在於意志的普遍性和對像的普遍性，前者指法律是人民公意的體現，後者指法律考慮的對像是全體的行為而非個別人。
同時，他闡述了法律與自由的關係：首先，法律與自由是一致的，人民服從法律就是服從自己的意志，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，才能給人們以享受自由權利的安全保障；另一方面，法律可以強迫人們自由。
此外，盧梭還係統地提出了立法理論。他認為要依法治國就要有理想的法律，在製定法律時必須遵循下列原則：立法必須以謀取人民最大幸福為原則；立法權必須由人民掌握；由賢明者具體承擔立法的責任；立法要註意各種自然的社會條件，法律衹不過是保障、遵循和矯正自然的關係而已；既要保持法律的穩定性，又要適時修改、廢除不好的法律。
“人是生而自由平等的，這是天賦的權利”，《社會契約論》中的這一 理論，開創了歐洲及全世界民主平等思想之先河，它的“人權天賦“，主權在民”的新學說嚮“君權神授”的傳統觀念發起了挑戰。它所揭示的“人權自由、權利平等”的原則，至今仍作為西方政治的基礎。
《社會契約論》-專傢點評
盧梭是18世紀法國啓蒙運動傑出的政治思想傢、文學家。他的才思文藻風靡了當時的整個歐洲，並為後人留下了一係列劃時代的巨著。很少有幾個哲學家能帶來盧梭著作那樣的震撼。他的《藝術與科學談》獲法國第戎奬，使他榮獲歐洲哲學大師稱號。他的文學名著《新愛洛伊絲》在世界文學史上有着很高地位，使他躋身於啓蒙時期著名文學家的行列。《社會契約論》又譯作《民約論》是他最為傑出的代表作之一，被譽為“人類解放的第一個呼聲，世界大革命的第一個煽動者”。盧梭是歐洲啓蒙運動中重要的思想傢，與伏爾泰齊名。他的主要作品有《懺悔錄》、《愛彌兒》、《社會契約論》、《新愛洛伊絲》。他的主要思想：天賦人權學說，提出“人民主權”的口號。其思想是法國大革命中雅各賓派的旗幟，對歐美各國的資産階級革命産生了深刻影響。
他的《社會契約論》中的“主權在民”一說，就劃分了一個時代。
《社會契約論》盧梭將野花送給喂奶的母親
《社會契約論》第一次提出了“天賦人權和主權在民的思想”。它剛一問世就遭到了禁止。盧梭本人也被迫流亡到英國。但《社會契約論》所提倡的民主理論卻很快風靡全世界。它引發了震驚世界的法國大革命。法國國傢格言“自由、平等、博愛”便來自《社會契約論》。1789年法國國民代表大會通過的《人權宣言》中“社會的目的是為大衆謀福利的”、“統治權屬於人民”等內容充分體現了《社會契約論》的精神。《社會契約論》還對美國的《獨立宣言》産生了重要影響，從羅伯斯庇爾到列寧都曾用《社會契約論》為自己的政權做解釋。1978年，在紀念盧梭逝世200周年的活動中，專門召開了國際研討會，研究盧梭的思想，出版他的新傳，推出以他為題材的電視劇。他的遺骸被安放在法國的偉人祠內。盧梭在《社會契約論》中預見的“消費者的各種陷阱，大城市的騷亂以及毀滅性的軍費負擔”等等，都已成為當代社會的現實問題。目前，單在法國就有150多位學者在專門研究盧梭的思想。
有說盧梭的政治理論深受柏拉圖的《理想國》的影響。《理想國》的概念，建立於人性善的理念基礎上，柏拉圖筆下的蘇格拉底說，“衹有正直的人才會幸福”，“善的意志”成為他的理想國的基礎。盧梭也相信人性善，他提倡寬容理性，堅定地反對任何政治暴力。同是論述理想國的原則，不同於柏拉圖，盧梭將其理論框架完全建立在“人生而自由”的基礎之上，也就是說“自由意志”。這個基礎就實在多了。很早以前，人們有一個更好的但文言的說法：“天賦人權。”由天賦人權作為第一原理，他所構造的不再衹是理想，而是現代公民社會的基本原則。公民社會中，公民失去了自由人無所不為的自由，而得到公民的政治權利、政治自由。他的《社會契約論》（又譯《民約論》）所要解决的是人權和法律的有機結合。從此，合法性衹能來自人民，成了盧梭的繼承者和背叛者的共同的理念。前者産生了美國革命和民主的建立，後者以人民之名專權屠殺。盧梭，作為“主權在民”的勾畫者，就是在200年後還處於爭論的中心：他的理論到底是在提倡民主自由，還是在提倡極權暴政？
《社會契約論》哲學家盧梭大部頭著作
人權是屬於個體的，法律是屬於國傢的。個體約定而成國傢的合理性，是法律有效性和政權合法性的終極判斷。自由，不是來自法律對個人的保護，而是來自個體對立法的徹底參與。這是切實保障個體自由的先决條件。在這一過程裏，個體利益的“交集”而非“並集”（不完全是數學上的那種）形成公民意志——主權者的意志——一般意志，而這種主權者因為個體的不斷參與，其內容是常新的，其利益與個體利益共榮的。從這一點出發，多數人說了算的約法三章必然成為主權在民的道德的體現方式。
盧梭把政權明白地分成了立法和行政兩個部分，前者屬於社會契約的範疇，而後者不是契約的內容（因此是可變可推翻的）。這個理念對後來民主政治的發展有着不可磨滅的貢獻。在盧梭之前，孟德斯鳩的《論法的精神》對法律的理解更加深刻，惟缺盧梭的“主權在民”的動力。《社會契約論》自始至終衹揚棄了一種體製：專製政府。按盧梭的話，這就是那種蔑視法律把個體的權力高於主權者之上的體製。其他的體製，盧梭僅僅論述了它們合法的自然依據。從直接民主製、貴族代議製到君主立憲製，統治的根據必須是人民主權———其真正表達就是法律。盧梭並進而把任何真正依法而治的政體統稱為共和政體。在盧梭看來，他那個時代的政治社會形態是腐朽的，他要到古希臘時代才能找到合理的回歸。
《社會契約論》是世界政治法律學說史上最重要的經典之一，是震撼世界的1789年法國大革命的號角和福音書。它闡述的許多原則原理不僅在革命之初被載入法國《人權宣言》等重要文獻中，在革命後的長時期裏成為資産階級的政治法律制度的基石。盧梭的思想對後世思想傢們理論的形成有重大影響。
盧梭的政治著作中有許多思想獨特新穎，引人入勝。但是總體說來就是一種追求平等的強烈欲望和一種同樣強烈的感受：現存社會制度的不合理已經達到了令人不能容忍的程度，人生下來本來是自由的，但是無論走到哪裏都要戴上枷鎖。盧梭自己可能並不喜歡暴力行為，但是他無疑激勵了其他人實行暴力革命，逐步改革社會制度。
有人批評盧梭是一個極其神經質的人，是一個大男子主義者，是一個思想不切實際的、糊塗的思想傢，這樣的批評大體上是正確的。但是遠比他的缺點更重要的是他的洞察力和傑出的創造精神所閃現出來的思想火花，兩個多世紀以來，不斷地影響着現代思想。
《社會契約論》-妙語佳句
我看到了另一個世界，我的全部激情都被對真理、對自由、對道德的熱愛窒息掉了。
誰第一個把一塊土地圈起來並想到這是自己的，而且被頭腦簡單的人所相信的話，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：（法國）盧梭（1712-1788年）
類型： 政治理論著作
成書時間：1762年
《社會契約論》-背景搜索
盧梭出生於瑞士日內瓦一個鐘錶匠家庭，從小失去母親，靠別人撫養教育長大。雖然生活條件艱苦，但他發奮圖強，自學成纔。16歲離傢外出流浪，當過學徒、僕役、私人秘書、樂譜抄寫員。在巴黎，他展現了自己的才華，1750年，盧梭以徵文《論科學與藝術》獲頭等奬而出名。得到了許多上流社會貴婦人的愛慕。這些擁金百萬的貴婦為他供應舒適的生活，給他介紹所需要認識的人，盧梭很快就進入了完全不同的生活圈子。
從 1762年起，盧梭由於寫政論文章，與當局發生了嚴重的糾紛。他的一些同事開始疏遠他，大約就在這個時期，他患了明顯的偏執狂癥。雖然有些人對他表示友好，但他卻采取懷疑和敵視的態度，同他們每個人都爭吵過。他一生的最後20年基本上是在悲慘痛苦中度過的，1778年他在法國邁農維爾去世。
推薦閱讀版本：何兆武譯，商務印書館出版。
《社會契約論》-內容精要
《社會契約論》全書共分4捲，第一捲主要論述了人類是怎樣由自然狀態過渡到政治狀態的，契約的根本條件是什麽；第二捲主要討論國傢的立法問題；第三捲論述的是政治法即政府的形成；第四捲在繼續討論政治法的同時闡述了鞏固國傢體製的方法，從古羅馬歷史出發論述了主權者意志實現的某些細節。
“人是生而自由的，但卻無往不在枷鎖之中，自以為是其他一切的主人，反而比其他一切更是奴隸。”《社會契約論》的開篇第一句話就提出了這個振聾發聵的觀點。盧梭的這一論斷是在君主專製制度橫行歐洲的時代，針對英國王權專製論代表人物費爾瑪關於“沒有人是生而自由的”這一絶對君主專製制度賴以依存的理論而提出來的。這本書以反對封建專製、倡言民主共和、主張人民主權為其主題和中心內容，提出了富於革命性的憲政理論。
盧梭認為，自由的人們最初生活在自然狀態，人們的行為受自然法支配。自然法以理性為基礎，賦予人類一係列普遍的、永恆的自然權利，即生存、自由、平等、追求幸福、獲得財産和人身、財産不受侵犯的權利。由於自然狀態存在種種弊端，自由的人們以平等的資格訂立契約，從自然狀態下襬脫出來，尋找出一種結合的形式，使它能以全部共同的力量來衛護和保障每個結合者的人身和財富，並且由於這一結合而使每一個與全體相聯合的個人又衹不過是在服從自己本人，並且仍然像以往一樣地自由。這種結合的形式就是國傢。由於國傢是自由的人們以平等的資格訂立契約産生的，人們衹是把自然權利轉讓給整個社會而並不是奉獻給任何個人，因此人民在國傢中仍是自由的，國傢的主權衹能屬於人民。
然後，盧梭進一步闡述了人民主權的原則：主權是不可轉讓的，因為國傢由主權者構成，衹有主權者才能行使主權；主權是不可分割的，因為代表主權的意志是一個整體；主權是不可代表的，因為 “主權在本質上是由公意所構成的，而意志又是絶不可以代表的；它衹能是同一個意志，或者是另一個意志，而絶不能有什麽中間的東西。因此人民的議員就不是、也不可能是人民的代表，他們衹不過是人民的辦事員罷了；他們並不能做出任何肯定的决定”。同時，主權是絶對的、至高無上和不可侵犯的，因為主權是公意的體現，是國傢的靈魂。基於這樣的理論，盧梭反對君主立憲而堅决主張民主共和。
《社會契約論》還論述了一係列法律基本理論，在其中貫穿着以人民主權為中心內容的資産階級民主主義精神。盧梭指出法律是人民公共意志的體現，是人民自己意志的記錄和全體人民為自己所做的規定。法律的特點在於意志的普遍性和對像的普遍性，前者指法律是人民公意的體現，後者指法律考慮的對像是全體的行為而非個別人。
同時，他闡述了法律與自由的關係：首先，法律與自由是一致的，人民服從法律就是服從自己的意志，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，才能給人們以享受自由權利的安全保障；另一方面，法律可以強迫人們自由。
此外，盧梭還係統地提出了立法理論。他認為要依法治國就要有理想的法律，在製定法律時必須遵循下列原則：立法必須以謀取人民最大幸福為原則；立法權必須由人民掌握；由賢明者具體承擔立法的責任；立法要註意各種自然的社會條件，法律衹不過是保障、遵循和矯正自然的關係而已；既要保持法律的穩定性，又要適時修改、廢除不好的法律。
“人是生而自由平等的，這是天賦的權利”，《社會契約論》中的這一 理論，開創了歐洲及全世界民主平等思想之先河，它的“人權天賦“，主權在民”的新學說嚮“君權神授”的傳統觀念發起了挑戰。它所揭示的“人權自由、權利平等”的原則，至今仍作為西方政治的基礎。
《社會契約論》-專傢點評
盧梭是18世紀法國啓蒙運動傑出的政治思想傢、文學家。他的才思文藻風靡了當時的整個歐洲，並為後人留下了一係列劃時代的巨著。很少有幾個哲學家能帶來盧梭著作那樣的震撼。他的《藝術與科學談》獲法國第戎奬，使他榮獲歐洲哲學大師稱號。他的文學名著《新愛洛伊絲》在世界文學史上有着很高地位，使他躋身於啓蒙時期著名文學家的行列。《社會契約論》又譯作《民約論》是他最為傑出的代表作之一，被譽為“人類解放的第一個呼聲，世界大革命的第一個煽動者”。盧梭是歐洲啓蒙運動中重要的思想傢，與伏爾泰齊名。他的主要作品有《懺悔錄》、《愛彌兒》、《社會契約論》、《新愛洛伊絲》。他的主要思想：天賦人權學說，提出“人民主權”的口號。其思想是法國大革命中雅各賓派的旗幟，對歐美各國的資産階級革命産生了深刻影響。
他的《社會契約論》中的“主權在民”一說，就劃分了一個時代。
《社會契約論》盧梭將野花送給喂奶的母親
《社會契約論》第一次提出了“天賦人權和主權在民的思想”。它剛一問世就遭到了禁止。盧梭本人也被迫流亡到英國。但《社會契約論》所提倡的民主理論卻很快風靡全世界。它引發了震驚世界的法國大革命。法國國傢格言“自由、平等、博愛”便來自《社會契約論》。1789年法國國民代表大會通過的《人權宣言》中“社會的目的是為大衆謀福利的”、“統治權屬於人民”等內容充分體現了《社會契約論》的精神。《社會契約論》還對美國的《獨立宣言》産生了重要影響，從羅伯斯庇爾到列寧都曾用《社會契約論》為自己的政權做解釋。1978年，在紀念盧梭逝世200周年的活動中，專門召開了國際研討會，研究盧梭的思想，出版他的新傳，推出以他為題材的電視劇。他的遺骸被安放在法國的偉人祠內。盧梭在《社會契約論》中預見的“消費者的各種陷阱，大城市的騷亂以及毀滅性的軍費負擔”等等，都已成為當代社會的現實問題。目前，單在法國就有150多位學者在專門研究盧梭的思想。
有說盧梭的政治理論深受柏拉圖的《理想國》的影響。《理想國》的概念，建立於人性善的理念基礎上，柏拉圖筆下的蘇格拉底說，“衹有正直的人才會幸福”，“善的意志”成為他的理想國的基礎。盧梭也相信人性善，他提倡寬容理性，堅定地反對任何政治暴力。同是論述理想國的原則，不同於柏拉圖，盧梭將其理論框架完全建立在“人生而自由”的基礎之上，也就是說“自由意志”。這個基礎就實在多了。很早以前，人們有一個更好的但文言的說法：“天賦人權。”由天賦人權作為第一原理，他所構造的不再衹是理想，而是現代公民社會的基本原則。公民社會中，公民失去了自由人無所不為的自由，而得到公民的政治權利、政治自由。他的《社會契約論》（又譯《民約論》）所要解决的是人權和法律的有機結合。從此，合法性衹能來自人民，成了盧梭的繼承者和背叛者的共同的理念。前者産生了美國革命和民主的建立，後者以人民之名專權屠殺。盧梭，作為“主權在民”的勾畫者，就是在200年後還處於爭論的中心：他的理論到底是在提倡民主自由，還是在提倡極權暴政？
《社會契約論》哲學家盧梭大部頭著作
人權是屬於個體的，法律是屬於國傢的。個體約定而成國傢的合理性，是法律有效性和政權合法性的終極判斷。自由，不是來自法律對個人的保護，而是來自個體對立法的徹底參與。這是切實保障個體自由的先决條件。在這一過程裏，個體利益的“交集”而非“並集”（不完全是數學上的那種）形成公民意志——主權者的意志——一般意志，而這種主權者因為個體的不斷參與，其內容是常新的，其利益與個體利益共榮的。從這一點出發，多數人說了算的約法三章必然成為主權在民的道德的體現方式。
盧梭把政權明白地分成了立法和行政兩個部分，前者屬於社會契約的範疇，而後者不是契約的內容（因此是可變可推翻的）。這個理念對後來民主政治的發展有着不可磨滅的貢獻。在盧梭之前，孟德斯鳩的《論法的精神》對法律的理解更加深刻，惟缺盧梭的“主權在民”的動力。《社會契約論》自始至終衹揚棄了一種體製：專製政府。按盧梭的話，這就是那種蔑視法律把個體的權力高於主權者之上的體製。其他的體製，盧梭僅僅論述了它們合法的自然依據。從直接民主製、貴族代議製到君主立憲製，統治的根據必須是人民主權———其真正表達就是法律。盧梭並進而把任何真正依法而治的政體統稱為共和政體。在盧梭看來，他那個時代的政治社會形態是腐朽的，他要到古希臘時代才能找到合理的回歸。
《社會契約論》是世界政治法律學說史上最重要的經典之一，是震撼世界的1789年法國大革命的號角和福音書。它闡述的許多原則原理不僅在革命之初被載入法國《人權宣言》等重要文獻中，在革命後的長時期裏成為資産階級的政治法律制度的基石。盧梭的思想對後世思想傢們理論的形成有重大影響。
盧梭的政治著作中有許多思想獨特新穎，引人入勝。但是總體說來就是一種追求平等的強烈欲望和一種同樣強烈的感受：現存社會制度的不合理已經達到了令人不能容忍的程度，人生下來本來是自由的，但是無論走到哪裏都要戴上枷鎖。盧梭自己可能並不喜歡暴力行為，但是他無疑激勵了其他人實行暴力革命，逐步改革社會制度。
有人批評盧梭是一個極其神經質的人，是一個大男子主義者，是一個思想不切實際的、糊塗的思想傢，這樣的批評大體上是正確的。但是遠比他的缺點更重要的是他的洞察力和傑出的創造精神所閃現出來的思想火花，兩個多世紀以來，不斷地影響着現代思想。
《社會契約論》-妙語佳句
我看到了另一個世界，我的全部激情都被對真理、對自由、對道德的熱愛窒息掉了。
誰第一個把一塊土地圈起來並想到這是自己的，而且被頭腦簡單的人所相信的話，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
我真心接受這一名言——“最少管事的政府是最好的政府”；並希望它能更迅速更徹底地得到執行。執行之後，我也相信，它最終會變成：“一事不管的政府纔是最好的政府”。衹要人們對此有所期待，他們就會得到那樣的政府。充其量政府衹不過是一種權宜之計。但是大多數政府往往不得計，而所有的政府有時都會不得計。人們對常備軍提出的意見很多，也很有份量，值得廣泛宣傳。但它最終也可能會用來反對常備政府。常備軍衹是政府的一個手臂。政府本身是由人民選擇用來執行他們意志的一種模式。但是在人民能夠通過它采取行動之前，它同樣有可能被引入歧途，濫用職權。請看當前的墨西哥戰爭，這是相對少數人把常備政府當工具使用的例子。因為在一開始人民並不同意采取這種手段。
（梭羅的主張有點像是自由主義，並且在結果上傾嚮於無政府主義。讀者按）
目前的美國政府——它實際上是個傳統形式。雖說人選是新的，它卻努力使自己完整地傳送到下一代，而每一刻又都在失去它的完整性。除此之外它又能是什麽呢？它的朝氣和力量抵不上一個活人；因為一個人也能按他的意志使之屈從。對人民自己來說，它是一種木槍。如果他們一本正經地把它當真傢夥用來互相攻擊，它肯定會崩裂。但它的必要性不會因此而減少，因為人民必須要有這樣或那樣的復雜機器，並親耳聆聽它發出運轉噪音，以此來滿足他們有關政府的概念。因此政府便能顯示出人們會多麽容易地置身於強製之下，甚至是自我的強製，目的是為了從中獲益。我們都必須承認這是樁妙事；但政府除了極善於偏離自己職能之外，它可從來沒有促進過任何事業。它沒有使國傢保持自由。它沒有安定西部。它沒有提供教育。所有已取得的成就都是靠美國人民固有的性格而獲得的；而且，要不是政府經常從中阻撓，這成就或許會更大些。如果人們能通過政府這一權宜之計實現互不約束，他們將會非常高興。正如剛纔所說，被統治者最不受約束時，正是統治機構最得計之時。貿易與商業，若沒有與印第安人磨擦所造成的刺激，根本不可能越過立法者們不斷設置的障礙而得以發展。如果我們僅根據政府行動的後果，而不顧及其動機，我們真應當將這批人當作那些在鐵軌上放置障礙物的淘氣鬼一樣加以懲罰。
說實在的，作為一個公民，而不像那些自稱為無政府的人，我並不要求立即廢除政府，而是希望立即能有一個好一點的政府。讓每一個人都說說什麽樣的政府能贏得他的尊敬，這將是建立那種政府的第一步。
（梭羅自己並不認為自己是一個無政府主義者）
當權力一旦落入人民手中，大部分人被允許長久地治理國傢的理由畢竟不僅僅是因為他們代表着真理，也不因為這看來對少數人最公正，而是因為他們在力量上最強大。然而，即使是一個在所有情況下都由多數人統治的政府也不可能基於正義，哪怕是人們通常理解的正義。假設在政府裏不靠多數人，而用良知來判斷是非，多數人衹决定政府該管或不該管的問題，這樣的政府難道不可能實現嗎？難道一個公民永遠應當在特定時刻，或在最低程度上迫使他的良心服從立法者嗎？如果這樣，人們要良心又有何用？我想，我們首先應該是人，其次纔是臣民。僅僅為了公正而培養尊敬法律的習慣是不可取的。我有權承擔的惟一義務就是在任何時候做我認為是正確的事。公司沒有良心，但是由有良心的人們組成的公司是有良心的公司，這樣的說法完全正確。法律絲毫沒有使人變得更公正些；相反，由於尊重法律，甚至是好心人也在日益變成非正義的執行者。你可以看到一個由士兵、上校、上尉、下士、一等兵和軍火搬運工組成的隊伍，以令人羨慕的隊列翻山越嶺，奔赴戰爭；但是由於他們違背了自己的意志、常情和良心，他們的行軍變得異常睏難，人人都感到心驚肉跳；這就是過分尊重法律的一個普通而自然的結果。他們所捲入的是一場可惡的交易，對此他們深信不疑；他們都希望和平。現在他們成了什麽？是人嗎？還是些小型活動堡壘或彈藥庫，在為某些不擇手段的掌權者效勞？請參觀海軍基地，目睹一個水兵，那就是美國政府所能造就的人，或者說這就是它能用巫術把一個人改變成的模樣：他衹是人類的一個影子和回憶，一個被安放在那裏站崗的活人。正如人們所說，這位士兵帶着陪葬物，埋在武器堆裏……
因此這些人並非作為人去為國效勞，而是作為肉體的機器。他們包括常備軍、民兵、監獄看守、警察、地方民團等。在大部分情況下，他們自己的判斷力和道德感沒有發揮任何作用；他們視自己為木材、泥土和石塊；要是能造出木頭人來，也能達到同樣的目的。這種人不會比稻草人或一堆土更能引起人們的尊敬。他們衹具有與馬和狗同等的價值。然而這樣的人卻被普遍視為好公民。其他人，諸如大多數立法者、政客、律師、牧師、官員等，主要用頭腦來為國傢服務。但是，由於他們很少辨別道德是非，而有可能不知不覺地像侍奉上帝一樣為魔鬼服務。也有一些真正稱得上是英雄、愛國者、殉道者或改革傢的人，他們確實用良心為國傢服務，因而往往會抵製國傢的行徑，結果他們通常被國傢當作敵人看待。
一個人今天該怎樣對待美國政府纔合適呢？我說，他不可能與之相聯而不失體面。我一刻也不能承認那個政治組織就是我的政府，因為它也是奴隸的政府。
所有的人都承認革命的權利：那就是當人們無法容忍一個獨裁或無能的政府時，拒絶效忠並抵抗它的權力。但是幾乎所有的人都說現在不是那種情況。他們認為衹有１７７５年大革命纔屬於那種非常時期。要是有人告訴我，這是個壞政府，因為它嚮進入它港口的外國商品徵稅，我完全可能不把這種指控當回事，因為我可以不要這些商品：所有機器都有磨擦，這有可能抵消罪惡。無論如何，要是從中進行煽動便是極大的罪惡。但是當這一磨擦開始毀壞機器，當鎮壓和搶劫已組織起來時，我說，讓我們再也不要這樣的機器了。換句話說，當一個承諾要保護自由的國傢的六分之一人口是奴隸，當一個國傢完全被外國軍隊非法地蹂躪、徵服，並由軍法管製的時候，我想，過不了多久，誠實的人便會起來造反和革命。使得這一責任更為緊迫的事實是：被蹂躪的國傢不是我們自己的，而侵略軍卻是我們的。
當然，一個人沒有責任一定要致力於糾正某種謬誤，哪怕是最不公正的謬誤。他仍可以適當地從事其他事情。但他起碼有責任同這謬誤一刀兩斷。既然他不再拿它當回正事，他就應該基本上終止對它的支持。要是我致力於其他追求和思索，我首先至少得保證我沒有騎在別人肩上。我必須先從他身上爬下來，好讓他也能進行他自己的思索。請看這社會是多麽地不和諧。我曾聽到城裏有些市民說：“我希望他們命令我前去鎮壓奴隸起義，或開赴墨西哥；——看我是否會去。”但正是這些人，他們每人都直接而忠誠地，起碼是間接地通過出錢，提供了一個替身。拒絶參加一場非正義戰爭的士兵受到人們的贊美。可這些贊美者中的某些人並沒有拒絶擁護那個發動這場戰爭的非正義政府。這些人的行為和權威正是士兵們所蔑視和不屑一顧的。在他們看來，似乎國傢在犯罪時也有追悔之意，因而要專雇一人來鞭笞自己，但又沒有後悔到要停止片刻犯罪的程度。因此在秩序和公民政府的名義下，我們最後都被迫對我們自己的卑劣行徑表示敬意和支持。人們在犯罪的首次臉紅之後學會了滿不在乎。不道德似乎也變成了非道德。這種適應在我們的生活裏並非完全沒有必要。
……如果你被鄰居騙走一元錢，你不可能僅僅滿足於知道自己受騙，或對別人說自己受騙，或要求他如數償還。你會立即采取有力步驟獲得全部退賠，並設法保證自己不再受騙。出於原則的行動，——出於正義感並加以履行的行動，——能夠改變事物及其關係。這種行動基本上是革命的，它同以前任何事物截然不同。它不僅分離了政府與教會，也分離了家庭；是的，它還分離個人，將他身上的惡魔從神聖的部分中分離出去。
非正義的法律的確存在。我們究竟是滿足於服從它們，還是應當一邊努力修改、一邊服從它們直至我們成功，或者幹脆超越它們？在目前這種政府統治下的人們通常認為他們應該等待，直至他們說服了多數人來修改法律。他們認為，如果他們抵抗，這種糾正方法將比罪惡的現狀更壞。但造成這種無可補救局面的責任應當歸咎於政府本身。它使之越改越壞。它為什麽不能事先預計到改革並為之提供方便？它為什麽不愛護少數明智的人？它為何在還沒有受到傷害時就嚎叫着抵抗？它為何不鼓勵公民們及時指出它的錯誤，並讓他們主動地幹好事情？它為何總是把基督釘在十字架上，將哥白尼和路德革出教門，並宣判華盛頓和富蘭剋林為叛逆？
有人會認為，政府對於那些故意而切實冒犯它權威的人往往是熟視無睹的。要不然，它怎麽沒有為此規定過明確、恰當和相應的懲罰？一個沒有財産的人衹要有一回拒絶嚮州政府交納９個先令，他就會被送進監獄，關押他的時間不受我所知道的任何法律限製，僅僅由把他送進去的那夥人任意决定。但是，如果他從州裏偷了９０倍於９先令的錢，他很快就能逍遙法外。
如果這樣的不公正是政府機器必要磨擦的一部分，那就讓它去，讓它去吧。可能它會自己磨掉這些不平——當然，這機器到時也會完蛋。如果這種非正義有它專用的彈簧，滑輪，繩子，或麯柄，你可能認為改造它並不一定就是壞事。但是如果它的本性就要求你對另一人施虐，那麽我要說，請犯法吧。用你的生命來反磨擦，好讓這機器停止運轉。在任何情況下，我必須保證自己不參與我所譴責的罪過。
至於說要執行州政府提出的消除罪惡的方法，我不知道有這種方法。它們費時太久，一個人的生命有限。我有其他事要做。我來到這世界的主要目的不是要將它建成生活的樂園，而是在此地生活，無論它好還是壞。一個人不必樣樣事都去做，而衹需做一些事。正因為他不能樣樣事都做，他就不應該將一些事做錯。假如州長或州議會沒有義務嚮我請願，我也沒有義務嚮他們請願。如果他們聽不到我的請願，我該怎麽辦？在目前情況下，州政府對此並沒想出任何辦法。真正的罪過在於它的憲法本身。這聽來可能過於嚴厲、固執或不通情達理。但惟有這種精神纔是我們對待憲治的態度，它含有最大程度的善意和最深刻的思考。這也是所有事物嚮好的方面轉化的規律，就像人在同疾病的生死搏鬥中會全身痙攣一樣。
我毫不猶豫地敬告那些自稱為廢奴論者的人，他們必須立即真正地收回無論在個人和財産方面對馬薩諸塞州政府的支持，不要等到他們形成多數後再在他們中間執行正義。我認為，衹要有上帝站在他們那一邊就夠了，不必等待其他。再說，任何比他鄰居更勇敢的人都可以形成一個多數。
我每年僅有一次機會通過收稅官直接面對面地和美國政府，或它的代表——州政府打交道。這是像我這種處境的人必然和它打交道的惟一方式。這個政府十分清楚地要求我承認它。而我為了要在這種情況下應付它，並表達對它微乎其微的滿意和愛戴，我的最簡單、最有效、並在目前形勢下最有必要的方式就是否認它。我的鄰居，收稅官，正是我要對付的人，——因為畢竟我並不跟羊皮紙文件，而是要跟人爭論，——他已自願當了政府的代理人……
在一個不公道地關押人的政府的統治下，一個正義者的真正歸宿也是監獄。今天，馬薩諸塞提供給那些較自由和有點朝氣的人的合適地方就是她的監獄，州政府按自己的法令將他們驅逐出去或監禁起來，因為這些人已經按照他們的原則把自己放逐出去了。在監獄裏，在那些逃亡的奴隸、保釋的墨西哥戰俘和前來投訴種族迫害的印第安人中間，他們找到了歸宿。在那個與世隔絶，但更自由、更誠實的場所，州政府關押的不是贊成它，而是反對它的人，——那是一個蓄奴州裏的自由人可以問心無愧地生活的惟一地方。如果有人認為，自由人的影響在監獄裏會消失，他們的聲音再也不能刺痛官員們的耳朵，他們在大墻之內也不再是敵人，那就錯了。他們不知道真理要比謬誤強大許多倍，也不知道親身經歷過一些非正義的人能夠多麽雄辯而有效地同非正義作鬥爭。投上你的整個選票吧，不單單是一張小紙條，而是你的全部影響。少數服從多數則軟弱無力；它甚至還算不上少數。但如果盡全力抵製，它將勢不可擋。一旦讓州政府來選擇出路：要麽把所有正義者都關進監獄，要麽放棄戰爭和奴隸製，我想它是會毫不遲疑的。要是今年有一千人拒交稅款，那還算不上是暴力流血的手段。我們若交了稅，則使州政府有能力實行暴力，造成無辜流血。事實上這就是和平革命的定義，要是任何這種革命是可能的話。假如那位收稅官或任何其他政府官員問我，正如有人已問過的：“那麽我該怎麽辦呢？”我的回答是：“如果你真要幹點事，就請辭職吧。”當臣民拒絶效忠，官員辭去職務，那麽這場革命就成功了。就算這種作法可能會引起流血吧。當人們的良心受到創傷時，這難道不也是一種流血嗎？由於這種創傷，一個人將失去他真正的勇氣和不朽的氣質。他會如此流血不止，直至精神上的死亡。現在我看到這種無形的血正在流淌。
幾年前，州政府曾以教會的名義要求我支付一筆錢以供養一個牧師，他的傳道我父親聽過，而我從來未聽過。“付錢吧，”它說，“要不然就進監獄。”我就是不付。但不幸的是另一個人覺得應該付。我不明白為什麽教師要付稅給牧師，而不是牧師付給教師。我不是州立學校的教師，但我靠自願捐款為生。我不明白為什麽學校就不能像教會那樣，在州的支持下，提出自己的稅單。然而，在當選議員們的要求下，我屈尊寫下了這樣的聲明：“謹以此言為證，我，亨利·大衛·梭羅，不希望被認為是任何我沒有加入的聯合團體的一員。”我把這聲明交給了鎮公所的文書，他還保留着。雖然州政府當時說過，它必須堅持它原先的决定，但聽說我不希望被認為是那個教堂的成員，打那以來，它一直沒對我提出類似要求。我願意一一簽字，以表示與我從未簽字認可的一切社會團體斷絶關係。可惜我不知道這些團體的名稱，也不知道該到何處去尋一份完整的名單。
我有六年沒交人頭稅了。就為這我曾進監獄住了一晚。當我在那裏站着思考，面對那二三英尺厚的堅實石墻、一英尺厚的木鐵門和透光的鐵柵欄時，我禁不住強烈地感到這監獄把我僅當作一個血肉之軀關進來是何等愚蠢。我懷疑它最後是否會斷定這就是它對付我的最好方法，而從沒想到要以某種方式來叫我做點事。我在想，雖然我和我的街坊鄰里們之間隔了一堵石墻，但他們要達到像我一樣自由，還有一堵更難攀越、更難打破的墻。我一刻也沒感到被監禁，那墻似乎是石塊和泥灰的巨大浪費。我似乎感到，全體市民中，衹有我一人付了稅。他們完全不知該怎樣對待我，他們的言行缺乏教養。無論他們對我進行威脅或贊揚，總是錯看了我的本意。因為他們認為，我的主要願望是站到石墻的另一邊。看到他們在我沉思時如何勤奮地鎖門，我衹好付之一笑。我的思緒不必開門，不必設障，又跟他們出去了，而這纔是真正的危險。因為他們已無法理解我，他們便决定懲罰我的肉體；就像一群頑童，當他們無法接近他們所痛恨的人時，便虐待他的狗。我感到州政府智能低下，它就像拿着銀湯匙的孤獨女人一樣膽小。它敵友不分。我對它剩下的一點尊敬已經蕩然無存，我真為它遺憾。
由此看來，州政府從未有意識地正視過一個人的心靈，無論是從理智還是道義的角度。它衹看到一個人的肉體和感官。它並不具備高級智能，也不見得誠實，衹是在物質上強大罷了。我不是生來就受強製的人。我要按自己的方式呼吸空氣。讓我們看看誰最強大。民衆有什麽力量？他們衹能強迫我，而我要服從比我更高的法規。他們強迫我成為像他們一樣的人。我沒聽說有人應當服從多數人的強迫而以這種或那種方式生活。那樣算是什麽樣的生活？當政府命令我說“交錢還是交命”時，我為什麽要匆忙地把我的錢給它？它可能睏難重重，不知如何是好；然而我怎麽可能幫助它？它必須像我這樣自己幫助自己。為此哭鼻子不值得。社會這部機器是否成功運轉我不負責任，我不是工程師的兒子。我發現，當一粒橡子和一粒慄子並排落地後，沒有哪個停下來謙讓另一個。兩者都按它們自己的規律，盡最大的能力去發芽、生長、變得茂盛。可能直至一個超越並毀滅另一個。一株植物如不能按自己本性生長則死亡；一個人也同樣如此。
我不想與任何人或國傢爭吵。我不想無故挑剔，找出細微差別，也不想標榜自己高鄰居一等。可以說，我甚至是要尋找一個藉口來遵守國傢法令。遵守國傢法令我是再高興不過了。但在這一問題上，我確實有理由懷疑自己。每年當收稅官到來時，我總要審查一下國傢和州政府的法令和態度，以及人民的情緒，以便找到一個遵守的前提。我相信州政府很快就會使我放棄所有這些作法，然後，我將變成一個和我的同胞相似的愛國者。從放低了的角度看，憲法雖然有許多缺陷，它仍不失為一部很好的憲法。法律和法庭令人尊敬。甚至本州政府和美國政府在許多方面也是相當令人欽佩而又罕見的機構，令人感恩不盡，許多人對此已作出描述。但是從略高一點的角度看，它們正如我已描述過的那樣。要是換成最高的角度，有誰說得出它們是什麽，或它們還真值得一看或一想？
然而政府與我沒有多大關係，我將盡量不去想它。甚至在這個世界裏，我在政府統治下生活的時刻不多。要是一個人思考自由，幻想自由，想象自由，不存在的事物從不會很久地被他看作是存在之物，那麽，不明智的統治者和改革傢的阻礙對他也起不了多大作用。
我知道大多數人與我想的不一樣。但是那些專門以研究這一類問題為職業的人也很少令我滿意。由於政治傢和立法者們完全處於這一機構之內，他們决不可能清楚而客觀地觀察它。他們常說要推進社會，但他們捨此就沒有立足之處。他們可能有一定的經驗和見識，毫無疑問，也可能想出了一些有獨創性的甚至是有用的制度，對此我們誠摯地感謝他們。但他們所有的智慧和效用都很有限。他們經常會忘記這世界並不是由政策和權宜之計所統治。丹尼爾·韋伯斯特從未調查過政府，因此，他也無權談論它。對那些不考慮徹底改革現行政府的議員們來說，他的話就是智慧。而在思想傢，那些一直在參與立法的思想傢眼裏，他從未正視過這一問題。據我瞭解，有些人通過對這一問題的寧靜和明智的思考，不久將會揭示，韋伯斯特的思考範圍和坦蕩胸懷都是有限的。
但是與大多數改革者的平庸職業相比，與那些更為平庸而普通的政客的智慧與口才相比，韋伯斯特的話幾乎是惟一有理智，有價值的話。我們為有他而感謝上帝。相比而言，他總是堅強有力，有獨創性，尤其是講究實際的。然而他的本質不是智慧，而是謹慎。律師的真理不是真理，衹不過是協調，或協調的權宜之計。真理的自身永遠是和諧的，它不是用來揭示那些可能與錯誤行為相一致的正義。韋伯斯特被稱為“憲法的捍衛者”完全當之無愧。他對憲法衹有捍衛，而從未真正攻擊過。他不是領袖，而是隨從。他的領袖是１７８７年起草憲法的人。“我從未作出努力，”他說，“從未建議作出努力，從未支持過努力，也從未打算支持那些企圖打擾原定安排的努力。正是由於憲法的安排，各州組成了目前這個聯邦。”在考慮憲法對奴隸製的默認問題時，他甚至說，“既然這是早先契約的一部分，——那就讓它存在下去。”儘管他精明過人，才能超群，還是無法將一件事從它的純政治關係中分離出來，把它看作是絶對要用才智來處理的事，——比如：在當今美國，就奴隸製這一問題，一個人到底應該幹些什麽。可是韋伯斯特衹能或是被迫絶望地作出下列回答，同時還聲明他是作為一個私下的朋友已把話說絶了， ——他這麽說話，還能有什麽新的和個人的社會責任的準則可談？“方法，”他說，“以及那些蓄奴州的政府應該按什麽形式來調整這一制度，必須由他們自己考慮，他們必須對他們的選民，對有關適度、人性和正義的普遍常規及上帝本身負責。在其他地方形成，從某種人類感情中産生，或由其他原因組成的社團都與此毫不相幹。他們從未得到過我的鼓勵，將來也永遠不會得到。”
那些不知真理有更純潔的源泉的人，那些不再沿真理的小溪往高處追尋的人，他們很聰明地守在聖經和憲法旁邊，必恭必敬地掬水解渴。而那些看到水是從哪兒匯入這些湖泊的人們卻再次整裝出發，繼續他們探尋真理源頭的歷程。
在美國沒有出現過立法天才。這種人在世界史上亦屬罕見。演說傢、政治傢和雄辯者成千上萬，但是有能力解决當前棘手問題的發言人卻尚未開口說話。我們喜歡雄辯衹是因為它是一門技術，而不太考慮它可能表達的真理或激起某種英雄主義。我們的立法者們尚未懂得自由貿易和自由、聯盟、公正對一個國傢所具有的相對價值。他們沒有天資或才能解决諸如稅收、金融、商業、生産和農業等世俗政務。要是我們完全聽憑國會裏廢話連篇的立法者們的指導，而他們的指導又得不到人民及時與合理的糾正，要不了多久，美國在世界上的地位便會喪失。《新約全書》問世已有一千八百年，雖然我可能沒有資格說下面的話，但是具有足夠智慧和實際能力以《新約》精神來指導立法科學的人又在哪裏？
政府的權威，甚至是我願順從的權威，——因為我樂於服從那些懂得比我多、幹得比我好的人，甚至在許多事情上服從那些懂得和幹得都不如我的人，——仍然是不夠純潔的。嚴格說來，它必須得到被統治者的承認和同意。衹要我沒讓步，它對我個人和財産就沒有純粹的權利。從絶對君主製到有限君主製，再從有限君主製到民主製的進程就是通嚮真正尊重個人的進程。我們所知道的民主製是否就是政府可能做的最後改進？難道就不能再邁進一步，承認並組織人權？州政府必須將個人作為一種更高和獨立的力量而加以承認，並予以相應對待，因為政府所有的權力和權威都來自於這一力量。在此之前，决不會有真正自由和文明的州。我自鳴得意的是，我最後還是設想了一個州，這個州能公正對待所有的人，彬彬有禮地將個人視為鄰居。即便有些人離群索居，衹要他們不搗亂，也不聽命於人，而是完成作為鄰居和同胞的所有義務，州政府仍能處之泰然，任其自由。一個州如能結出這種果實，並忍耐到瓜熟蒂落的時刻，那將為我所設想的，另一個更完善、更壯麗的州鋪平道路，儘管這個州至今任何地方都還看不到。
摘自《美國的歷史文獻》 趙一凡 編
三聯書店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.
（梭羅的主張有點像是自由主義，並且在結果上傾嚮於無政府主義。讀者按）
目前的美國政府——它實際上是個傳統形式。雖說人選是新的，它卻努力使自己完整地傳送到下一代，而每一刻又都在失去它的完整性。除此之外它又能是什麽呢？它的朝氣和力量抵不上一個活人；因為一個人也能按他的意志使之屈從。對人民自己來說，它是一種木槍。如果他們一本正經地把它當真傢夥用來互相攻擊，它肯定會崩裂。但它的必要性不會因此而減少，因為人民必須要有這樣或那樣的復雜機器，並親耳聆聽它發出運轉噪音，以此來滿足他們有關政府的概念。因此政府便能顯示出人們會多麽容易地置身於強製之下，甚至是自我的強製，目的是為了從中獲益。我們都必須承認這是樁妙事；但政府除了極善於偏離自己職能之外，它可從來沒有促進過任何事業。它沒有使國傢保持自由。它沒有安定西部。它沒有提供教育。所有已取得的成就都是靠美國人民固有的性格而獲得的；而且，要不是政府經常從中阻撓，這成就或許會更大些。如果人們能通過政府這一權宜之計實現互不約束，他們將會非常高興。正如剛纔所說，被統治者最不受約束時，正是統治機構最得計之時。貿易與商業，若沒有與印第安人磨擦所造成的刺激，根本不可能越過立法者們不斷設置的障礙而得以發展。如果我們僅根據政府行動的後果，而不顧及其動機，我們真應當將這批人當作那些在鐵軌上放置障礙物的淘氣鬼一樣加以懲罰。
說實在的，作為一個公民，而不像那些自稱為無政府的人，我並不要求立即廢除政府，而是希望立即能有一個好一點的政府。讓每一個人都說說什麽樣的政府能贏得他的尊敬，這將是建立那種政府的第一步。
（梭羅自己並不認為自己是一個無政府主義者）
當權力一旦落入人民手中，大部分人被允許長久地治理國傢的理由畢竟不僅僅是因為他們代表着真理，也不因為這看來對少數人最公正，而是因為他們在力量上最強大。然而，即使是一個在所有情況下都由多數人統治的政府也不可能基於正義，哪怕是人們通常理解的正義。假設在政府裏不靠多數人，而用良知來判斷是非，多數人衹决定政府該管或不該管的問題，這樣的政府難道不可能實現嗎？難道一個公民永遠應當在特定時刻，或在最低程度上迫使他的良心服從立法者嗎？如果這樣，人們要良心又有何用？我想，我們首先應該是人，其次纔是臣民。僅僅為了公正而培養尊敬法律的習慣是不可取的。我有權承擔的惟一義務就是在任何時候做我認為是正確的事。公司沒有良心，但是由有良心的人們組成的公司是有良心的公司，這樣的說法完全正確。法律絲毫沒有使人變得更公正些；相反，由於尊重法律，甚至是好心人也在日益變成非正義的執行者。你可以看到一個由士兵、上校、上尉、下士、一等兵和軍火搬運工組成的隊伍，以令人羨慕的隊列翻山越嶺，奔赴戰爭；但是由於他們違背了自己的意志、常情和良心，他們的行軍變得異常睏難，人人都感到心驚肉跳；這就是過分尊重法律的一個普通而自然的結果。他們所捲入的是一場可惡的交易，對此他們深信不疑；他們都希望和平。現在他們成了什麽？是人嗎？還是些小型活動堡壘或彈藥庫，在為某些不擇手段的掌權者效勞？請參觀海軍基地，目睹一個水兵，那就是美國政府所能造就的人，或者說這就是它能用巫術把一個人改變成的模樣：他衹是人類的一個影子和回憶，一個被安放在那裏站崗的活人。正如人們所說，這位士兵帶着陪葬物，埋在武器堆裏……
因此這些人並非作為人去為國效勞，而是作為肉體的機器。他們包括常備軍、民兵、監獄看守、警察、地方民團等。在大部分情況下，他們自己的判斷力和道德感沒有發揮任何作用；他們視自己為木材、泥土和石塊；要是能造出木頭人來，也能達到同樣的目的。這種人不會比稻草人或一堆土更能引起人們的尊敬。他們衹具有與馬和狗同等的價值。然而這樣的人卻被普遍視為好公民。其他人，諸如大多數立法者、政客、律師、牧師、官員等，主要用頭腦來為國傢服務。但是，由於他們很少辨別道德是非，而有可能不知不覺地像侍奉上帝一樣為魔鬼服務。也有一些真正稱得上是英雄、愛國者、殉道者或改革傢的人，他們確實用良心為國傢服務，因而往往會抵製國傢的行徑，結果他們通常被國傢當作敵人看待。
一個人今天該怎樣對待美國政府纔合適呢？我說，他不可能與之相聯而不失體面。我一刻也不能承認那個政治組織就是我的政府，因為它也是奴隸的政府。
所有的人都承認革命的權利：那就是當人們無法容忍一個獨裁或無能的政府時，拒絶效忠並抵抗它的權力。但是幾乎所有的人都說現在不是那種情況。他們認為衹有１７７５年大革命纔屬於那種非常時期。要是有人告訴我，這是個壞政府，因為它嚮進入它港口的外國商品徵稅，我完全可能不把這種指控當回事，因為我可以不要這些商品：所有機器都有磨擦，這有可能抵消罪惡。無論如何，要是從中進行煽動便是極大的罪惡。但是當這一磨擦開始毀壞機器，當鎮壓和搶劫已組織起來時，我說，讓我們再也不要這樣的機器了。換句話說，當一個承諾要保護自由的國傢的六分之一人口是奴隸，當一個國傢完全被外國軍隊非法地蹂躪、徵服，並由軍法管製的時候，我想，過不了多久，誠實的人便會起來造反和革命。使得這一責任更為緊迫的事實是：被蹂躪的國傢不是我們自己的，而侵略軍卻是我們的。
當然，一個人沒有責任一定要致力於糾正某種謬誤，哪怕是最不公正的謬誤。他仍可以適當地從事其他事情。但他起碼有責任同這謬誤一刀兩斷。既然他不再拿它當回正事，他就應該基本上終止對它的支持。要是我致力於其他追求和思索，我首先至少得保證我沒有騎在別人肩上。我必須先從他身上爬下來，好讓他也能進行他自己的思索。請看這社會是多麽地不和諧。我曾聽到城裏有些市民說：“我希望他們命令我前去鎮壓奴隸起義，或開赴墨西哥；——看我是否會去。”但正是這些人，他們每人都直接而忠誠地，起碼是間接地通過出錢，提供了一個替身。拒絶參加一場非正義戰爭的士兵受到人們的贊美。可這些贊美者中的某些人並沒有拒絶擁護那個發動這場戰爭的非正義政府。這些人的行為和權威正是士兵們所蔑視和不屑一顧的。在他們看來，似乎國傢在犯罪時也有追悔之意，因而要專雇一人來鞭笞自己，但又沒有後悔到要停止片刻犯罪的程度。因此在秩序和公民政府的名義下，我們最後都被迫對我們自己的卑劣行徑表示敬意和支持。人們在犯罪的首次臉紅之後學會了滿不在乎。不道德似乎也變成了非道德。這種適應在我們的生活裏並非完全沒有必要。
……如果你被鄰居騙走一元錢，你不可能僅僅滿足於知道自己受騙，或對別人說自己受騙，或要求他如數償還。你會立即采取有力步驟獲得全部退賠，並設法保證自己不再受騙。出於原則的行動，——出於正義感並加以履行的行動，——能夠改變事物及其關係。這種行動基本上是革命的，它同以前任何事物截然不同。它不僅分離了政府與教會，也分離了家庭；是的，它還分離個人，將他身上的惡魔從神聖的部分中分離出去。
非正義的法律的確存在。我們究竟是滿足於服從它們，還是應當一邊努力修改、一邊服從它們直至我們成功，或者幹脆超越它們？在目前這種政府統治下的人們通常認為他們應該等待，直至他們說服了多數人來修改法律。他們認為，如果他們抵抗，這種糾正方法將比罪惡的現狀更壞。但造成這種無可補救局面的責任應當歸咎於政府本身。它使之越改越壞。它為什麽不能事先預計到改革並為之提供方便？它為什麽不愛護少數明智的人？它為何在還沒有受到傷害時就嚎叫着抵抗？它為何不鼓勵公民們及時指出它的錯誤，並讓他們主動地幹好事情？它為何總是把基督釘在十字架上，將哥白尼和路德革出教門，並宣判華盛頓和富蘭剋林為叛逆？
有人會認為，政府對於那些故意而切實冒犯它權威的人往往是熟視無睹的。要不然，它怎麽沒有為此規定過明確、恰當和相應的懲罰？一個沒有財産的人衹要有一回拒絶嚮州政府交納９個先令，他就會被送進監獄，關押他的時間不受我所知道的任何法律限製，僅僅由把他送進去的那夥人任意决定。但是，如果他從州裏偷了９０倍於９先令的錢，他很快就能逍遙法外。
如果這樣的不公正是政府機器必要磨擦的一部分，那就讓它去，讓它去吧。可能它會自己磨掉這些不平——當然，這機器到時也會完蛋。如果這種非正義有它專用的彈簧，滑輪，繩子，或麯柄，你可能認為改造它並不一定就是壞事。但是如果它的本性就要求你對另一人施虐，那麽我要說，請犯法吧。用你的生命來反磨擦，好讓這機器停止運轉。在任何情況下，我必須保證自己不參與我所譴責的罪過。
至於說要執行州政府提出的消除罪惡的方法，我不知道有這種方法。它們費時太久，一個人的生命有限。我有其他事要做。我來到這世界的主要目的不是要將它建成生活的樂園，而是在此地生活，無論它好還是壞。一個人不必樣樣事都去做，而衹需做一些事。正因為他不能樣樣事都做，他就不應該將一些事做錯。假如州長或州議會沒有義務嚮我請願，我也沒有義務嚮他們請願。如果他們聽不到我的請願，我該怎麽辦？在目前情況下，州政府對此並沒想出任何辦法。真正的罪過在於它的憲法本身。這聽來可能過於嚴厲、固執或不通情達理。但惟有這種精神纔是我們對待憲治的態度，它含有最大程度的善意和最深刻的思考。這也是所有事物嚮好的方面轉化的規律，就像人在同疾病的生死搏鬥中會全身痙攣一樣。
我毫不猶豫地敬告那些自稱為廢奴論者的人，他們必須立即真正地收回無論在個人和財産方面對馬薩諸塞州政府的支持，不要等到他們形成多數後再在他們中間執行正義。我認為，衹要有上帝站在他們那一邊就夠了，不必等待其他。再說，任何比他鄰居更勇敢的人都可以形成一個多數。
我每年僅有一次機會通過收稅官直接面對面地和美國政府，或它的代表——州政府打交道。這是像我這種處境的人必然和它打交道的惟一方式。這個政府十分清楚地要求我承認它。而我為了要在這種情況下應付它，並表達對它微乎其微的滿意和愛戴，我的最簡單、最有效、並在目前形勢下最有必要的方式就是否認它。我的鄰居，收稅官，正是我要對付的人，——因為畢竟我並不跟羊皮紙文件，而是要跟人爭論，——他已自願當了政府的代理人……
在一個不公道地關押人的政府的統治下，一個正義者的真正歸宿也是監獄。今天，馬薩諸塞提供給那些較自由和有點朝氣的人的合適地方就是她的監獄，州政府按自己的法令將他們驅逐出去或監禁起來，因為這些人已經按照他們的原則把自己放逐出去了。在監獄裏，在那些逃亡的奴隸、保釋的墨西哥戰俘和前來投訴種族迫害的印第安人中間，他們找到了歸宿。在那個與世隔絶，但更自由、更誠實的場所，州政府關押的不是贊成它，而是反對它的人，——那是一個蓄奴州裏的自由人可以問心無愧地生活的惟一地方。如果有人認為，自由人的影響在監獄裏會消失，他們的聲音再也不能刺痛官員們的耳朵，他們在大墻之內也不再是敵人，那就錯了。他們不知道真理要比謬誤強大許多倍，也不知道親身經歷過一些非正義的人能夠多麽雄辯而有效地同非正義作鬥爭。投上你的整個選票吧，不單單是一張小紙條，而是你的全部影響。少數服從多數則軟弱無力；它甚至還算不上少數。但如果盡全力抵製，它將勢不可擋。一旦讓州政府來選擇出路：要麽把所有正義者都關進監獄，要麽放棄戰爭和奴隸製，我想它是會毫不遲疑的。要是今年有一千人拒交稅款，那還算不上是暴力流血的手段。我們若交了稅，則使州政府有能力實行暴力，造成無辜流血。事實上這就是和平革命的定義，要是任何這種革命是可能的話。假如那位收稅官或任何其他政府官員問我，正如有人已問過的：“那麽我該怎麽辦呢？”我的回答是：“如果你真要幹點事，就請辭職吧。”當臣民拒絶效忠，官員辭去職務，那麽這場革命就成功了。就算這種作法可能會引起流血吧。當人們的良心受到創傷時，這難道不也是一種流血嗎？由於這種創傷，一個人將失去他真正的勇氣和不朽的氣質。他會如此流血不止，直至精神上的死亡。現在我看到這種無形的血正在流淌。
幾年前，州政府曾以教會的名義要求我支付一筆錢以供養一個牧師，他的傳道我父親聽過，而我從來未聽過。“付錢吧，”它說，“要不然就進監獄。”我就是不付。但不幸的是另一個人覺得應該付。我不明白為什麽教師要付稅給牧師，而不是牧師付給教師。我不是州立學校的教師，但我靠自願捐款為生。我不明白為什麽學校就不能像教會那樣，在州的支持下，提出自己的稅單。然而，在當選議員們的要求下，我屈尊寫下了這樣的聲明：“謹以此言為證，我，亨利·大衛·梭羅，不希望被認為是任何我沒有加入的聯合團體的一員。”我把這聲明交給了鎮公所的文書，他還保留着。雖然州政府當時說過，它必須堅持它原先的决定，但聽說我不希望被認為是那個教堂的成員，打那以來，它一直沒對我提出類似要求。我願意一一簽字，以表示與我從未簽字認可的一切社會團體斷絶關係。可惜我不知道這些團體的名稱，也不知道該到何處去尋一份完整的名單。
我有六年沒交人頭稅了。就為這我曾進監獄住了一晚。當我在那裏站着思考，面對那二三英尺厚的堅實石墻、一英尺厚的木鐵門和透光的鐵柵欄時，我禁不住強烈地感到這監獄把我僅當作一個血肉之軀關進來是何等愚蠢。我懷疑它最後是否會斷定這就是它對付我的最好方法，而從沒想到要以某種方式來叫我做點事。我在想，雖然我和我的街坊鄰里們之間隔了一堵石墻，但他們要達到像我一樣自由，還有一堵更難攀越、更難打破的墻。我一刻也沒感到被監禁，那墻似乎是石塊和泥灰的巨大浪費。我似乎感到，全體市民中，衹有我一人付了稅。他們完全不知該怎樣對待我，他們的言行缺乏教養。無論他們對我進行威脅或贊揚，總是錯看了我的本意。因為他們認為，我的主要願望是站到石墻的另一邊。看到他們在我沉思時如何勤奮地鎖門，我衹好付之一笑。我的思緒不必開門，不必設障，又跟他們出去了，而這纔是真正的危險。因為他們已無法理解我，他們便决定懲罰我的肉體；就像一群頑童，當他們無法接近他們所痛恨的人時，便虐待他的狗。我感到州政府智能低下，它就像拿着銀湯匙的孤獨女人一樣膽小。它敵友不分。我對它剩下的一點尊敬已經蕩然無存，我真為它遺憾。
由此看來，州政府從未有意識地正視過一個人的心靈，無論是從理智還是道義的角度。它衹看到一個人的肉體和感官。它並不具備高級智能，也不見得誠實，衹是在物質上強大罷了。我不是生來就受強製的人。我要按自己的方式呼吸空氣。讓我們看看誰最強大。民衆有什麽力量？他們衹能強迫我，而我要服從比我更高的法規。他們強迫我成為像他們一樣的人。我沒聽說有人應當服從多數人的強迫而以這種或那種方式生活。那樣算是什麽樣的生活？當政府命令我說“交錢還是交命”時，我為什麽要匆忙地把我的錢給它？它可能睏難重重，不知如何是好；然而我怎麽可能幫助它？它必須像我這樣自己幫助自己。為此哭鼻子不值得。社會這部機器是否成功運轉我不負責任，我不是工程師的兒子。我發現，當一粒橡子和一粒慄子並排落地後，沒有哪個停下來謙讓另一個。兩者都按它們自己的規律，盡最大的能力去發芽、生長、變得茂盛。可能直至一個超越並毀滅另一個。一株植物如不能按自己本性生長則死亡；一個人也同樣如此。
我不想與任何人或國傢爭吵。我不想無故挑剔，找出細微差別，也不想標榜自己高鄰居一等。可以說，我甚至是要尋找一個藉口來遵守國傢法令。遵守國傢法令我是再高興不過了。但在這一問題上，我確實有理由懷疑自己。每年當收稅官到來時，我總要審查一下國傢和州政府的法令和態度，以及人民的情緒，以便找到一個遵守的前提。我相信州政府很快就會使我放棄所有這些作法，然後，我將變成一個和我的同胞相似的愛國者。從放低了的角度看，憲法雖然有許多缺陷，它仍不失為一部很好的憲法。法律和法庭令人尊敬。甚至本州政府和美國政府在許多方面也是相當令人欽佩而又罕見的機構，令人感恩不盡，許多人對此已作出描述。但是從略高一點的角度看，它們正如我已描述過的那樣。要是換成最高的角度，有誰說得出它們是什麽，或它們還真值得一看或一想？
然而政府與我沒有多大關係，我將盡量不去想它。甚至在這個世界裏，我在政府統治下生活的時刻不多。要是一個人思考自由，幻想自由，想象自由，不存在的事物從不會很久地被他看作是存在之物，那麽，不明智的統治者和改革傢的阻礙對他也起不了多大作用。
我知道大多數人與我想的不一樣。但是那些專門以研究這一類問題為職業的人也很少令我滿意。由於政治傢和立法者們完全處於這一機構之內，他們决不可能清楚而客觀地觀察它。他們常說要推進社會，但他們捨此就沒有立足之處。他們可能有一定的經驗和見識，毫無疑問，也可能想出了一些有獨創性的甚至是有用的制度，對此我們誠摯地感謝他們。但他們所有的智慧和效用都很有限。他們經常會忘記這世界並不是由政策和權宜之計所統治。丹尼爾·韋伯斯特從未調查過政府，因此，他也無權談論它。對那些不考慮徹底改革現行政府的議員們來說，他的話就是智慧。而在思想傢，那些一直在參與立法的思想傢眼裏，他從未正視過這一問題。據我瞭解，有些人通過對這一問題的寧靜和明智的思考，不久將會揭示，韋伯斯特的思考範圍和坦蕩胸懷都是有限的。
但是與大多數改革者的平庸職業相比，與那些更為平庸而普通的政客的智慧與口才相比，韋伯斯特的話幾乎是惟一有理智，有價值的話。我們為有他而感謝上帝。相比而言，他總是堅強有力，有獨創性，尤其是講究實際的。然而他的本質不是智慧，而是謹慎。律師的真理不是真理，衹不過是協調，或協調的權宜之計。真理的自身永遠是和諧的，它不是用來揭示那些可能與錯誤行為相一致的正義。韋伯斯特被稱為“憲法的捍衛者”完全當之無愧。他對憲法衹有捍衛，而從未真正攻擊過。他不是領袖，而是隨從。他的領袖是１７８７年起草憲法的人。“我從未作出努力，”他說，“從未建議作出努力，從未支持過努力，也從未打算支持那些企圖打擾原定安排的努力。正是由於憲法的安排，各州組成了目前這個聯邦。”在考慮憲法對奴隸製的默認問題時，他甚至說，“既然這是早先契約的一部分，——那就讓它存在下去。”儘管他精明過人，才能超群，還是無法將一件事從它的純政治關係中分離出來，把它看作是絶對要用才智來處理的事，——比如：在當今美國，就奴隸製這一問題，一個人到底應該幹些什麽。可是韋伯斯特衹能或是被迫絶望地作出下列回答，同時還聲明他是作為一個私下的朋友已把話說絶了， ——他這麽說話，還能有什麽新的和個人的社會責任的準則可談？“方法，”他說，“以及那些蓄奴州的政府應該按什麽形式來調整這一制度，必須由他們自己考慮，他們必須對他們的選民，對有關適度、人性和正義的普遍常規及上帝本身負責。在其他地方形成，從某種人類感情中産生，或由其他原因組成的社團都與此毫不相幹。他們從未得到過我的鼓勵，將來也永遠不會得到。”
那些不知真理有更純潔的源泉的人，那些不再沿真理的小溪往高處追尋的人，他們很聰明地守在聖經和憲法旁邊，必恭必敬地掬水解渴。而那些看到水是從哪兒匯入這些湖泊的人們卻再次整裝出發，繼續他們探尋真理源頭的歷程。
在美國沒有出現過立法天才。這種人在世界史上亦屬罕見。演說傢、政治傢和雄辯者成千上萬，但是有能力解决當前棘手問題的發言人卻尚未開口說話。我們喜歡雄辯衹是因為它是一門技術，而不太考慮它可能表達的真理或激起某種英雄主義。我們的立法者們尚未懂得自由貿易和自由、聯盟、公正對一個國傢所具有的相對價值。他們沒有天資或才能解决諸如稅收、金融、商業、生産和農業等世俗政務。要是我們完全聽憑國會裏廢話連篇的立法者們的指導，而他們的指導又得不到人民及時與合理的糾正，要不了多久，美國在世界上的地位便會喪失。《新約全書》問世已有一千八百年，雖然我可能沒有資格說下面的話，但是具有足夠智慧和實際能力以《新約》精神來指導立法科學的人又在哪裏？
政府的權威，甚至是我願順從的權威，——因為我樂於服從那些懂得比我多、幹得比我好的人，甚至在許多事情上服從那些懂得和幹得都不如我的人，——仍然是不夠純潔的。嚴格說來，它必須得到被統治者的承認和同意。衹要我沒讓步，它對我個人和財産就沒有純粹的權利。從絶對君主製到有限君主製，再從有限君主製到民主製的進程就是通嚮真正尊重個人的進程。我們所知道的民主製是否就是政府可能做的最後改進？難道就不能再邁進一步，承認並組織人權？州政府必須將個人作為一種更高和獨立的力量而加以承認，並予以相應對待，因為政府所有的權力和權威都來自於這一力量。在此之前，决不會有真正自由和文明的州。我自鳴得意的是，我最後還是設想了一個州，這個州能公正對待所有的人，彬彬有禮地將個人視為鄰居。即便有些人離群索居，衹要他們不搗亂，也不聽命於人，而是完成作為鄰居和同胞的所有義務，州政府仍能處之泰然，任其自由。一個州如能結出這種果實，並忍耐到瓜熟蒂落的時刻，那將為我所設想的，另一個更完善、更壯麗的州鋪平道路，儘管這個州至今任何地方都還看不到。
摘自《美國的歷史文獻》 趙一凡 編
三聯書店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.
本書為你描繪了從信息社會轉變到夢想社會的成功藍圖，並指出工作場所、市場環境以及休閑娛樂等方面將發生的變化。本書謹獻給每一位有志從商的人——第一個希望瞭解未來市場走嚮的人；當市場、消費者和員工們都躍入夢想社會時，每一個不想獨自滯留在信息社會的人。這本書適合每一位心係未來、憧憬21世紀生活的人閱讀。
本書第1章介紹了夢想社會的邏輯。公司如果不采用這種新型邏輯就會坐失即將出現的巨大市場增長機會。事實上，夢想社會已經像冰山一樣悄然來臨，雖沉着徐緩，卻勢不可擋。如果不順勢而為，恐怕要被冰山碾平。第2章探討了市場輪廓、講述故事以及六種已經初具雛形的情感市場，提出了一種有助於啓發戰略性思維的全新邏輯，並佐以豐富生動的事例，希望諸來如飲甘泉。第3章論述的是公司及其員工——未來的公司，其使命、遠景和戰略。公司被看做一個部落，充滿形形色色的儀式，有自己的傳奇逸聞。第4章涉及消費者和公司員工的傢居休閑時光。在這一部分，我們想像未來的人們怎樣打發休閑時光，並探討工作和業餘時間的關係。第5章放眼全球，探討了發達國傢之間的關係、逐漸成型的全球中産階級以及發展中國傢的情況，還描述了占10億多人口的富裕消費者以及另外40億暫時處於落後水平的人們。
哥本哈根未來研究院是享譽全球的未來學研究聖殿，一直以犀利敏銳、振聾發聵的預測而獨樹一幟，本書所描述的“夢想社會”則是其中最具有震撼性的傑出預言之一。
在信息社會端倪初現之後不久，天才的未來學家就在思考按踵而來的社會形態。作者宣稱：信息時代已經日薄西山，人類的發展在歷經漁獵文明、農業文明、工業文明和目前以計算機為標志的信息時代之後，即將跨入第五種社會形態：夢想社會。
即將來臨的夢想社會，是一種完全新型的社會，其中的企業、社團和個人都憑藉自己的故事揚名立業，而不再僅僅依賴於數據和信息。夢想社會並非癡人狂想，它在許多企業己初露崢嶸——未來産品必須打動人們的心靈，而不僅僅是說服人們的頭腦。當前正是為産品和服務賦予情感價值的大好時機。本書提供了一套啓發戰略性思維的全新邏輯，有助於理解未來的企業和市場，是未來社會不可或缺的嚮導。
前言
1.未來主義與夢想社會的實現 2.故事和故事講述者的市場（一）
2.故事和故事講述者的市場(二） 3.從苦不堪言到樂趣十足
4.愛意融融的家庭公司和新型休閑時光 5.全球商業故事
致谢
本書第1章介紹了夢想社會的邏輯。公司如果不采用這種新型邏輯就會坐失即將出現的巨大市場增長機會。事實上，夢想社會已經像冰山一樣悄然來臨，雖沉着徐緩，卻勢不可擋。如果不順勢而為，恐怕要被冰山碾平。第2章探討了市場輪廓、講述故事以及六種已經初具雛形的情感市場，提出了一種有助於啓發戰略性思維的全新邏輯，並佐以豐富生動的事例，希望諸來如飲甘泉。第3章論述的是公司及其員工——未來的公司，其使命、遠景和戰略。公司被看做一個部落，充滿形形色色的儀式，有自己的傳奇逸聞。第4章涉及消費者和公司員工的傢居休閑時光。在這一部分，我們想像未來的人們怎樣打發休閑時光，並探討工作和業餘時間的關係。第5章放眼全球，探討了發達國傢之間的關係、逐漸成型的全球中産階級以及發展中國傢的情況，還描述了占10億多人口的富裕消費者以及另外40億暫時處於落後水平的人們。
哥本哈根未來研究院是享譽全球的未來學研究聖殿，一直以犀利敏銳、振聾發聵的預測而獨樹一幟，本書所描述的“夢想社會”則是其中最具有震撼性的傑出預言之一。
在信息社會端倪初現之後不久，天才的未來學家就在思考按踵而來的社會形態。作者宣稱：信息時代已經日薄西山，人類的發展在歷經漁獵文明、農業文明、工業文明和目前以計算機為標志的信息時代之後，即將跨入第五種社會形態：夢想社會。
即將來臨的夢想社會，是一種完全新型的社會，其中的企業、社團和個人都憑藉自己的故事揚名立業，而不再僅僅依賴於數據和信息。夢想社會並非癡人狂想，它在許多企業己初露崢嶸——未來産品必須打動人們的心靈，而不僅僅是說服人們的頭腦。當前正是為産品和服務賦予情感價值的大好時機。本書提供了一套啓發戰略性思維的全新邏輯，有助於理解未來的企業和市場，是未來社會不可或缺的嚮導。
前言
1.未來主義與夢想社會的實現 2.故事和故事講述者的市場（一）
2.故事和故事講述者的市場(二） 3.從苦不堪言到樂趣十足
4.愛意融融的家庭公司和新型休閑時光 5.全球商業故事
致谢
一個由於瘋狂而被紀念的時代．
一個染滿最單純的年輕人的血的時代．
一個毛澤東思想紅旗插滿全世界的時代．
六十年代，世界上不僅僅有我們，還有法國紅衛兵，日本學生聯合會和垮掉的一代．
記憶的死亡遠比時間的流逝更可怕．在父輩的陰影下成長的我們，終於會有一天去仰視或俯視這無法替代的十年．
beatles去了u.s.s.r，我們回到六十年代．
一個染滿最單純的年輕人的血的時代．
一個毛澤東思想紅旗插滿全世界的時代．
六十年代，世界上不僅僅有我們，還有法國紅衛兵，日本學生聯合會和垮掉的一代．
記憶的死亡遠比時間的流逝更可怕．在父輩的陰影下成長的我們，終於會有一天去仰視或俯視這無法替代的十年．
beatles去了u.s.s.r，我們回到六十年代．
一鳴驚人
作者：賴洪毅
前言
上篇 人的名聲與成名
一 人為何要追求名聲.
（一）名聲――種人生觀；（二）追求名聲有何好處；（三）為什麽
要追求名聲
二 一個人如何成名
（一）成名的三階段；（二）如何立志和樹立崇拜偶象；（三）如何
模仿崇拜偶像；（四）如何趕超名人和成名；（五）導致成名的一
些因素
三 論各大領域的成名方法
（一）政治；（二）宗教創立和改革；（三）思想和社會科學；（四）
自然科學；（五）發明；（六）軍事；（七）文學；（八）音樂；（九）繪
畫；（十）電影；（十一）富翁和企業傢；（十二）宇航和探險；（十
三）體育；（十四）通俗文學；（十五）流行音樂；（十六）名人配偶
或情侶；（十七）獵奇。
四 人的名聲的大小、好壞
（一）名聲的實質；（二）名氣大小的衡量；（三）什麽樣的人最有
名氣；（四）决定名氣大小的十個因素；（五）影響名聲好壞的因
素；（六）名人的等級
五 擴大和傳播名聲的方法
（一）按自己的特點塑造出獨特的形象；（二）起名須知；（三）大
辦慈善事業，設奬或基金會，設立組織機構、興建學校，並以自
己名字命名；（四）爭取以自己的名字命名一種理論，觀點、思
想、發現、發明、計量單位、自然景物、自然現象和事物、節日、
機構、學校、組織、團體、派別等；（五）寫一本深受歡迎的自傳；
（六）建立紀念性建築；（七）製造各種神奇有趣的傳說、軼事，
在民間廣泛流傳，以提高自己的名望；（八）以專製或強埠手段
傳播名聲；（九）功成身退；（十）永不自滿，不斷創新，不斷取得
新成就
六 人應當如何生活
（一）時間與事業；（二）註意健康；（三）對待金錢；（四）如何擇
偶；（五（如何應酬社交活動；（六）家庭關係
七 女性與成名
（一）女性的才能；（二）女性成名要剋服的障礙；（三）女性成名
應具備的素質；（四）女性成名可選取的辦法
八 名人産主的歷史趨勢
九 有關成名名聲的誓言、警句
下篇 各大文明、民族和國傢的名人
一 令人驚嘆的猶太民族
（一）猶太偉人與名人；（二）猶太人追求成功的動力；（三）猶太
人在精神文化領域偉人輩出的原因；（四）猶太人在商業上的
成功
二 亙古綿延的中華文明
（一）在世界上最負盛名的十位中國人：（二）其它負有國際盛
名的中國人；（三）幾位大政治傢的未來地位；（四）中國文明的
衰落，面臨的難題，中國將來的偉人
三 崇尚永恆與非暴力的印度人
（一）文明、哲學與社會；（二）偉大政治傢的搖籃；（三）大宗教
祖師爺哲學家的故鄉；（四）東方文學藝術的王國；（五）科學界
四 團结靈巧的日本人
（一）日本人――勇於變革與善於學習的民族；（二）集體主義
的日本人；（三）無能為力的單個日本人；（四）日本近現代化成
功的原因；（五）著名的日本人
五 中世紀最幸運的阿拉伯人
（一）政教人物；（二）阿拉伯文化的黃金時代出現的原因；
（三）文學成功的原因與傑出的文豪；（四）科學與學術的新紀
元
六 輝煌的希臘文明和希臘化文明
（一）希臘文明；（二）希臘化文明
七 金戈鐵馬的羅馬文明
八 歐洲中世紀的經院文化
（一）中世紀早期的西歐文明；（二）拜占庭文明及其名人
九 歐具近現代文明的先驅英國人
（一）英國的中世紀政治傢和社會活動傢；（二）英國文化、民族
性格與近現代政治傢；（三）英國對人類的偉大貢獻與科學文
化名人
十 歐洲文化的老大哥法國人
（一）法國人的文化自負情結；（二）著名的政治活動傢和法國
興衰史；（三）法國的科技偉人；（四）法國的思想傢、社會科學
傢；（五）文學、藝術傢
十一 令人敬畏的德國人
（一）德意志的民族政治文化和政治宗教名人；（二）德國民
族性格與經濟成就；（三）德國民族性格與文化學術名人
十二 文藝復興的搖籃意大利
（一）意大利的歷史和民族性格；（二）中世紀的意大利人；
（三）文藝復興時代；（四）文藝復興後意大利的興衰史；
（五）文藝復興後意大利著名的科技文化人物
十三 特珠的歐洲大國俄蘇
（一）俄蘇的突出特點；（二）俄蘇的政治名人錄；（三）俄蘇的
科技界名人；（四）俄蘇的思想哲學成就；（五）俄蘇的科學
傢；（六）俄蘇的文學藝術
十四 全能霸主美國人
（一）歷史最獨特的國傢與全能的霸主；（二）歷史與政治活
動傢、軍事傢；（三）美利堅民族性格；（四）美國人在科學與
研究上取得成功的原因；（五）美國的思想界與人文科學界；
（六）自然科學界名人榜；（七）文藝界巨匠
十五 其它文明、民族和地區
作者：賴洪毅
前言
上篇 人的名聲與成名
一 人為何要追求名聲.
（一）名聲――種人生觀；（二）追求名聲有何好處；（三）為什麽
要追求名聲
二 一個人如何成名
（一）成名的三階段；（二）如何立志和樹立崇拜偶象；（三）如何
模仿崇拜偶像；（四）如何趕超名人和成名；（五）導致成名的一
些因素
三 論各大領域的成名方法
（一）政治；（二）宗教創立和改革；（三）思想和社會科學；（四）
自然科學；（五）發明；（六）軍事；（七）文學；（八）音樂；（九）繪
畫；（十）電影；（十一）富翁和企業傢；（十二）宇航和探險；（十
三）體育；（十四）通俗文學；（十五）流行音樂；（十六）名人配偶
或情侶；（十七）獵奇。
四 人的名聲的大小、好壞
（一）名聲的實質；（二）名氣大小的衡量；（三）什麽樣的人最有
名氣；（四）决定名氣大小的十個因素；（五）影響名聲好壞的因
素；（六）名人的等級
五 擴大和傳播名聲的方法
（一）按自己的特點塑造出獨特的形象；（二）起名須知；（三）大
辦慈善事業，設奬或基金會，設立組織機構、興建學校，並以自
己名字命名；（四）爭取以自己的名字命名一種理論，觀點、思
想、發現、發明、計量單位、自然景物、自然現象和事物、節日、
機構、學校、組織、團體、派別等；（五）寫一本深受歡迎的自傳；
（六）建立紀念性建築；（七）製造各種神奇有趣的傳說、軼事，
在民間廣泛流傳，以提高自己的名望；（八）以專製或強埠手段
傳播名聲；（九）功成身退；（十）永不自滿，不斷創新，不斷取得
新成就
六 人應當如何生活
（一）時間與事業；（二）註意健康；（三）對待金錢；（四）如何擇
偶；（五（如何應酬社交活動；（六）家庭關係
七 女性與成名
（一）女性的才能；（二）女性成名要剋服的障礙；（三）女性成名
應具備的素質；（四）女性成名可選取的辦法
八 名人産主的歷史趨勢
九 有關成名名聲的誓言、警句
下篇 各大文明、民族和國傢的名人
一 令人驚嘆的猶太民族
（一）猶太偉人與名人；（二）猶太人追求成功的動力；（三）猶太
人在精神文化領域偉人輩出的原因；（四）猶太人在商業上的
成功
二 亙古綿延的中華文明
（一）在世界上最負盛名的十位中國人：（二）其它負有國際盛
名的中國人；（三）幾位大政治傢的未來地位；（四）中國文明的
衰落，面臨的難題，中國將來的偉人
三 崇尚永恆與非暴力的印度人
（一）文明、哲學與社會；（二）偉大政治傢的搖籃；（三）大宗教
祖師爺哲學家的故鄉；（四）東方文學藝術的王國；（五）科學界
四 團结靈巧的日本人
（一）日本人――勇於變革與善於學習的民族；（二）集體主義
的日本人；（三）無能為力的單個日本人；（四）日本近現代化成
功的原因；（五）著名的日本人
五 中世紀最幸運的阿拉伯人
（一）政教人物；（二）阿拉伯文化的黃金時代出現的原因；
（三）文學成功的原因與傑出的文豪；（四）科學與學術的新紀
元
六 輝煌的希臘文明和希臘化文明
（一）希臘文明；（二）希臘化文明
七 金戈鐵馬的羅馬文明
八 歐洲中世紀的經院文化
（一）中世紀早期的西歐文明；（二）拜占庭文明及其名人
九 歐具近現代文明的先驅英國人
（一）英國的中世紀政治傢和社會活動傢；（二）英國文化、民族
性格與近現代政治傢；（三）英國對人類的偉大貢獻與科學文
化名人
十 歐洲文化的老大哥法國人
（一）法國人的文化自負情結；（二）著名的政治活動傢和法國
興衰史；（三）法國的科技偉人；（四）法國的思想傢、社會科學
傢；（五）文學、藝術傢
十一 令人敬畏的德國人
（一）德意志的民族政治文化和政治宗教名人；（二）德國民
族性格與經濟成就；（三）德國民族性格與文化學術名人
十二 文藝復興的搖籃意大利
（一）意大利的歷史和民族性格；（二）中世紀的意大利人；
（三）文藝復興時代；（四）文藝復興後意大利的興衰史；
（五）文藝復興後意大利著名的科技文化人物
十三 特珠的歐洲大國俄蘇
（一）俄蘇的突出特點；（二）俄蘇的政治名人錄；（三）俄蘇的
科技界名人；（四）俄蘇的思想哲學成就；（五）俄蘇的科學
傢；（六）俄蘇的文學藝術
十四 全能霸主美國人
（一）歷史最獨特的國傢與全能的霸主；（二）歷史與政治活
動傢、軍事傢；（三）美利堅民族性格；（四）美國人在科學與
研究上取得成功的原因；（五）美國的思想界與人文科學界；
（六）自然科學界名人榜；（七）文藝界巨匠
十五 其它文明、民族和地區
富人並不光榮，窮人並不可恥。現代人不完全以物質標準去評判一個人的價值，而且人的生活方式豐富多彩，並非富人就是快樂的，窮人就很痛苦，人生的幸福很多時候與窮富無關。
多窮纔是窮人？多富纔是富人？有沒有一個具體的量化標準？
探討窮富問題，很多時候衹是一種心理分析，在同樣的社會環境中，你，為什麽是窮人呢？或者，為什麽感覺自己是個窮人？誰都可以問問自己。我？為什麽是窮人？誰還在為食物操心，誰就是窮人。生活對富人來說纔是生活，對窮人來說衹是生存。
你是富人嗎？你是窮人嗎？你不是窮人嗎？
你可知道，你為什麽是窮人？是什麽造成了你的窮？窮給你和你身邊的人帶來了什麽？窮人的前途在哪裏？窮人怎樣才能變成富人？富到什麽程度纔算夠？人生怎樣纔算幸福？
不用再苦苦的追問自己，該暢銷新作由學者古古撰寫，關註並分析了這些問題。文字簡練、優美，筆鋒犀利，可讀性強。
多窮纔是窮人？多富纔是富人？有沒有一個具體的量化標準？
探討窮富問題，很多時候衹是一種心理分析，在同樣的社會環境中，你，為什麽是窮人呢？或者，為什麽感覺自己是個窮人？誰都可以問問自己。我？為什麽是窮人？誰還在為食物操心，誰就是窮人。生活對富人來說纔是生活，對窮人來說衹是生存。
你是富人嗎？你是窮人嗎？你不是窮人嗎？
你可知道，你為什麽是窮人？是什麽造成了你的窮？窮給你和你身邊的人帶來了什麽？窮人的前途在哪裏？窮人怎樣才能變成富人？富到什麽程度纔算夠？人生怎樣纔算幸福？
不用再苦苦的追問自己，該暢銷新作由學者古古撰寫，關註並分析了這些問題。文字簡練、優美，筆鋒犀利，可讀性強。
本書是孫中山關於三民主義的論著。
三民主義包括民族主義、民權主義和民生主義。民族主義要求中國民族解放，各民族平等，反對帝國主義的殖民政策；民權主義要求主權在民，建立法製國傢，人民擁有政權，政府衹擁有治權，實行立法、司法、行政、考試、監察五權分立；民生主義要求平均地權，耕者有其田，節制資本，讓普通民衆都吃得飽穿得暖有事做，“民生主義就是社會主義，就是共産主義，就是大同世界”。
三民主義包括民族主義、民權主義和民生主義。民族主義要求中國民族解放，各民族平等，反對帝國主義的殖民政策；民權主義要求主權在民，建立法製國傢，人民擁有政權，政府衹擁有治權，實行立法、司法、行政、考試、監察五權分立；民生主義要求平均地權，耕者有其田，節制資本，讓普通民衆都吃得飽穿得暖有事做，“民生主義就是社會主義，就是共産主義，就是大同世界”。
經濟與社會:在制度約束和個人利益之間博弈
《經濟與社會》全書兩捲。1921～1922年出版。英文本由多位韋伯研究專傢合作翻譯，並加有長篇導言和註釋，於1968年出版。韋伯在書中全面而係統地表述了他的社會學觀點和對現代文明本質的見解。首先對社會學的定義、對象、方法以及一些基本範疇和概念作了詳細闡釋，統稱為社會學的基礎。然後分別又互有交叉地闡發了他的經濟社會學、法律社會學、政治社會學和宗教社會學思想。韋伯在書中廣泛地援引世界歷史資料，把發生在不同時代、不同文明和不同社會中的經濟形式、法律形式、統治形式和宗教形式納入他獨特的概念體係，分門別類地作出類型化比較研究和係統化因果分析。
《經濟與社會》全書兩捲。1921～1922年出版。英文本由多位韋伯研究專傢合作翻譯，並加有長篇導言和註釋，於1968年出版。韋伯在書中全面而係統地表述了他的社會學觀點和對現代文明本質的見解。首先對社會學的定義、對象、方法以及一些基本範疇和概念作了詳細闡釋，統稱為社會學的基礎。然後分別又互有交叉地闡發了他的經濟社會學、法律社會學、政治社會學和宗教社會學思想。韋伯在書中廣泛地援引世界歷史資料，把發生在不同時代、不同文明和不同社會中的經濟形式、法律形式、統治形式和宗教形式納入他獨特的概念體係，分門別類地作出類型化比較研究和係統化因果分析。
入世修行——馬剋斯·偉伯脫魔世界理性集
1918年，剛剛逃離人禍的歐洲人，又攤上了天災：一場史無前例的流行性感冒席捲了大陸。死於這場瘟疫的人數，據說超過了前4年戰爭中死亡人數的總和。我們不幸的作者趕上了這場瘟疫的餘威，1920年夏初，韋伯病倒了，持續高燒不退，一周後，轉為肺炎，醫生束手無策，如同今天面對一位癌癥晚期病人一樣。6月14日，星期一，黃昏，經過痛苦地掙紮，韋伯溘然長逝了。那間房子在慕尼黑英國公園旁邊的湖街3號，今天改成了16號。他去時，外面下着雷雨，道道閃電劃破昏暗，照亮了他的歸程。親人把他送回海德堡，讓他安息在心愛的山水之間。慕尼黑大學的學生們，永遠失去了一位睿智的良師。他原來答應下學期為他們開社會主義課，卻匆匆去了……
1918年，剛剛逃離人禍的歐洲人，又攤上了天災：一場史無前例的流行性感冒席捲了大陸。死於這場瘟疫的人數，據說超過了前4年戰爭中死亡人數的總和。我們不幸的作者趕上了這場瘟疫的餘威，1920年夏初，韋伯病倒了，持續高燒不退，一周後，轉為肺炎，醫生束手無策，如同今天面對一位癌癥晚期病人一樣。6月14日，星期一，黃昏，經過痛苦地掙紮，韋伯溘然長逝了。那間房子在慕尼黑英國公園旁邊的湖街3號，今天改成了16號。他去時，外面下着雷雨，道道閃電劃破昏暗，照亮了他的歸程。親人把他送回海德堡，讓他安息在心愛的山水之間。慕尼黑大學的學生們，永遠失去了一位睿智的良師。他原來答應下學期為他們開社會主義課，卻匆匆去了……
在《新教倫理與資本主義精神》一書中，韋伯主要考察了１６世紀宗教改革以後的基督教新教的宗教倫理與現代資本主義的親和關係。在韋伯看來，“資本主義”不僅僅是一個經濟學和政治學的範疇，而且還是一個社會學和文化學的範疇。他把“資本主義”當作一種整體性的文明來理解，認為它是１８世紀以來在歐洲科學、技術、政治、經濟、法律、藝術、宗教中占主導地位的理性主義精神發展的結果，是現代西方文明的本質體現。在這樣一種文明中，依靠勤勉、刻苦、利用健全的會計制度和精心盤算，把資本投入生産和流通過程，從而獲取預期的利潤，所有這一切構成了一個經濟合理性的觀念。這種合理性觀念還表現在社會的其它領域，形成為一種帶有普遍性的社會精神氣質或社會心態，彌漫於近代歐洲，這就是韋伯所說的“資本主義精神”。它作為近代歐洲所獨具的價值體係，驅動着人們按照合理化原則進行社會行動，最終導致了資本主義的産生。
在韋伯看來，資本主義精神的産生是與新教倫理分不開的。新教加爾文教派所信奉的“預定論”認為，上帝所要救贖的並非全部世人，而衹是其中的“選民”。誰將要成為“選民”而得到救贖或誰將被棄絶，都是上帝預先確定了的，個人的行為對於解救自己無能為力。從表面上看，“預定論”的邏輯結果必然導致宿命論。但在韋伯看來，“預定論”認為個人對於改變自己的命運無能為力，這就在新教徒的內心深處産生了強烈的緊張和焦慮，教徒衹能以世俗職業上的成就來確定上帝對自己的恩寵並以此證明上帝的存在。於是創造出自成了一種神聖的天職，世俗經濟行為的成功不是為了創造可供於享受和揮霍的財富，而是為了證實上帝對自己的恩寵。從而，“預定論”的宗教倫理就導致了勤勉刻苦，把創造財富視為一樁嚴肅事業的資本主義精神。這就是韋伯在本書中的主要論點。
韋伯這種以精神、思想的因素來解釋歷史進程的方法，固然視角新穎而富於啓發性，但在根本上是他的唯心史觀的反映。
【作者簡介】馬剋斯·韋伯(1846-1920)，德國著名社會學家，本世紀西方最有影響的社會科學家之一，現代文化比較研究的先驅人物。他一生致力於考察“世界各宗教的經濟倫理”，亦即試圖從比較的角度，去探討世界各主要民族的精神文化氣質與該民族的社會經濟發展之間的內在關係。1920年正式出版的《新教倫理與資本主義精神》是韋伯最負盛名的代表作，三聯書店1987年出版了於曉等人的中譯本。
導論
上篇 問題
第一章 宗教派別和社會分層
第二章 資本主義精神
第三章 路德的“職業”概念（本書的研究任務）
下篇 禁欲主義新教諸分支的實踐倫理觀
第四章 世俗禁欲主義的宗教基礎
第五章 禁欲主義與資本主義精神
在韋伯看來，資本主義精神的産生是與新教倫理分不開的。新教加爾文教派所信奉的“預定論”認為，上帝所要救贖的並非全部世人，而衹是其中的“選民”。誰將要成為“選民”而得到救贖或誰將被棄絶，都是上帝預先確定了的，個人的行為對於解救自己無能為力。從表面上看，“預定論”的邏輯結果必然導致宿命論。但在韋伯看來，“預定論”認為個人對於改變自己的命運無能為力，這就在新教徒的內心深處産生了強烈的緊張和焦慮，教徒衹能以世俗職業上的成就來確定上帝對自己的恩寵並以此證明上帝的存在。於是創造出自成了一種神聖的天職，世俗經濟行為的成功不是為了創造可供於享受和揮霍的財富，而是為了證實上帝對自己的恩寵。從而，“預定論”的宗教倫理就導致了勤勉刻苦，把創造財富視為一樁嚴肅事業的資本主義精神。這就是韋伯在本書中的主要論點。
韋伯這種以精神、思想的因素來解釋歷史進程的方法，固然視角新穎而富於啓發性，但在根本上是他的唯心史觀的反映。
【作者簡介】馬剋斯·韋伯(1846-1920)，德國著名社會學家，本世紀西方最有影響的社會科學家之一，現代文化比較研究的先驅人物。他一生致力於考察“世界各宗教的經濟倫理”，亦即試圖從比較的角度，去探討世界各主要民族的精神文化氣質與該民族的社會經濟發展之間的內在關係。1920年正式出版的《新教倫理與資本主義精神》是韋伯最負盛名的代表作，三聯書店1987年出版了於曉等人的中譯本。
導論
上篇 問題
第一章 宗教派別和社會分層
第二章 資本主義精神
第三章 路德的“職業”概念（本書的研究任務）
下篇 禁欲主義新教諸分支的實踐倫理觀
第四章 世俗禁欲主義的宗教基礎
第五章 禁欲主義與資本主義精神