"Power cannot be privately owned, property cannot be publicly owned, otherwise, mankind will enter the door of disaster".
This classic quote comes from the famous work of the British thinker and philosopher John Locke, "A Treatise of Government".
She can be put more simply as: "If power is private and property is public, humanity enters the door of disaster".
In fact, since power is already privately owned, property cannot be publicly owned.
Therefore, it is impossible for the two conditions of "private power and public ownership of property" to appear at the same time.
So, the real meaning of John Locke's sentence is actually that as long as one of the two conditions of "private power" or "public ownership of property" appears, human beings will enter the "door of disaster".
Of course, although this British thinker and philosopher is highly sought after by some people, I have not read any of his masterpieces.
It's just that when debating with others, others confidently brought out his classic quotation to prove themselves right, and the editor didn't know his classic quotation, so the editor was definitely wrong.
However, I don't know, what is the specific context and precondition for he, a British thinker and philosopher, to say this classic quotation?
If there is no specific context and prerequisites, just in terms of his classic quotation itself, then isn't he contradictory?
First of all, it is said that "power cannot be privately owned" (otherwise, mankind will enter the door of disaster), is this in line with the reality of Western society?
In the feudal era of Western society, didn't all countries practice the "hereditary system of the throne"?
So, is the power generated by the "hereditary system of the throne" public? or is it private?
When was power publicly available in Western societies before the bourgeois revolution?
If the power of the "hereditary system of the throne" in the West is not public, but private, then the entire feudal era of Western society has entered the "door of disaster"?
How did the West develop the productive forces of capitalism and its material basis from the disastrous feudal society?
Was it a catastrophe that led to the development of the productive forces and their material base in the feudal era of the West?
Saying that "property cannot be publicly owned" (otherwise, mankind will enter the door of disaster) is even more inconsistent with the reality of Western society.
Are there any public schools in the United States today?
If so, are these public schools publicly owned property?
Are there any public hospitals in the United States today?
If so, are these public hospitals public property?
Is there a national police in the United States now?
If so, is the property of these police agencies public property?
Does the United States have a national army now?
If so, are the armies of these countries public property?
The United States has so much public property, has the United States been brought into the "door of disaster" by these public properties?
So, everything must be dialectic!
Yin and yang are always born together, and both are indispensable!
It's just that, sometimes, a little more yin and a little less yang, and sometimes, a little more yang and a little less yin.
Public and private are always accompanied by each other, and both are indispensable!
It's just that, sometimes, there is more public and less private, and sometimes, there is more private and less public.
Go to the extreme of "extreme yin" and "extreme yang", that is to really enter the "door of disaster".
That is, the extreme "selflessness" and "selflessness" are the real ones that can bring mankind into the "door of disaster".
Here, it is necessary for us to clarify the two relative concepts of "public" and "private".
What is "public" and what is "private"?
In Chinese, the original meaning of "gong" is an honorific title for ancestors, from which the meaning of "public" and "common" is derived.
In other words, the whole that has been handed down from one ancestor is called "gong".
A tribe is a "duke", and a vassal state is a "duke" - which leads to "the world is a duke".
The original meaning of "private" is the "he" owned by a private person, that is, the meaning of property owned by an individual.
Obviously, there is "public" first, and then there is "private", and "private" is derived from "public".
In the primitive and matriarchal society, the communist system is practiced, and there is only "public" and no "private".
It is only in a patriarchal society, or even a slave society, that "private" emerges from "public".
So, when it comes to a patrilineal society or even a slave society, is there only "private" and no "public"?
Does "male" no longer exist? Not really.
"Gong" comes from his ancestors, and his duty is to ensure the inheritance of the ancestors' bloodline.
This duty to ensure the transmission of ancestral bloodlines will only change in the form in which it is completed depending on the state of the environment, and will not disappear fundamentally.
Specifically, from matrilineal societies to patrilineal societies, in matrilineal societies, all the responsibilities of ensuring the inheritance of ancestral blood are done by the tribes.
In patrilineal societies, this responsibility is differentiated, with different social structures performing different duties.
Externally, there are tribes or countries that organize armies to resist foreign aggression and ensure that the inheritance of ancestral bloodlines will not be interrupted by foreign invasion.
Internally, some families take on the responsibility of supporting the elderly and the young, ensuring that the inheritance of the ancestral bloodline will not be interrupted because the elderly and children lack the ability to support themselves.
Therefore, "public" and "private" are relative.
A tribe, relative to the tribe, is the "male", and relative to other tribes of the same clan, she is the "private".
A family, relative to society, is "private", and relative to the various family members within it, she is "public".
Since the "gong" has to assume her duties, she must have power.
This power is public power.
This is because the "public" is composed of several social individuals, and the public power cannot be exercised by all individuals, and the public power can only be exercised by a representative elected by everyone.
Therefore, since public power is exercised by representatives elected by everyone, the effectiveness of this representative's exercise of public power lies in the quality of the representative itself and the mechanism used by everyone to elect the representative, not whether the representative is in the system of "public ownership" or "private ownership."
Because, whether it is a "private ownership" system or a "public ownership" system, their public power is "public" and not "private", so the quality of their public power representation is related to the election mechanism, and has nothing to do with the nature of "private ownership" or "public ownership" of this system.
A quote from Mr. Ji Xianlin, a "tenured professor of Peking University", is widely circulated on the Internet.
It is said that Mr. Ji Xianlin said: "After many years, I woke up and finally discovered a cosmic truth: In the public ownership system, every unit is the world of villains; upright people are always in the minority, and they have no power or power; the eyes of the masses are blind and snobbish, and they will not stand on the side of gentlemen in most cases." A bad guy doesn't change for the better because he doesn't think he's a bad guy. ”
First of all, a "tenured professor of Peking University" uses words like "cosmic truth", which is really in line with his identity.
Probably only a person of his status deserves such a word.
Then, "in the system of public ownership, every unit is the world of the villain; the upright people are always in the minority, and they have no power or power; the masses are blind and snobbish, and they will not side with the gentleman in most cases." A bad guy doesn't change for the better because he doesn't think he's a bad guy. ”
So, is it true that in the "private ownership" system, all the gentlemen are in the world, and the villains are always in the minority, and the eyes of the masses are bright and upright, and they will stand on the side of the gentleman in most cases?
Is it true that the bad guys in the "private ownership" system will change for the better because they know they are the bad guys?
So, Xu Jiayin's "Evergrande" system is a "private ownership" system, is this "private ownership" system a gentleman's world?
Will Xu Jiayin think he is a bad person?
In fact, compared with the "generous family" such as "tenured professors of Peking University", the editor believes that the remarks of some nobodies are more level, more standard, and more challenging.
For example, there is a person named Yuanfu DGmao who said: "Many people may not understand that public ownership means that others are in charge of your wealth, and you have almost no say; Private ownership means that you are in charge of your wealth, and you have the final say on your wealth, except for a few mandatory obligations such as paying taxes. Therefore, people with less wealth generally prefer public ownership, and as long as someone has more wealth than themselves, they will have a advantage to take advantage of. It is not difficult to see that public ownership has the property of leading to widespread poverty, and this has been confirmed by historical experience at home and abroad. ”
There is still some truth in what this former rich DGmao said.
For example, "Public ownership is where someone else controls your wealth, and you have little to no say; Private ownership means that you are in charge of your wealth, and you have the final say on your wealth, except for a few mandatory obligations such as paying taxes. ”
This sentence is to the point.
The question is, are you afraid of the bank? Do you have money in the bank?
"Public ownership" means that someone else is in charge of your wealth, isn't it the same as when you keep your money in the bank?
You entrust someone else to help you complete a mission, the question is, do you entrust the right person?
This is the mechanism of your client, right?
As for "private ownership", it is indeed that you are in charge of your wealth, and it is indeed your wealth that you have the final say.
But how much wealth do you have? How much wealth do you have to say?
"Private ownership" is to make a few people rich.
After a few people get rich, they are relatively above the majority, and they must block the upward channel of the majority of people below, so that it is impossible for most people to get rich.
This has been confirmed by historical experience at home and abroad, hasn't it?
Therefore, it is indeed a fact that people who have less wealth generally like public ownership, and as long as someone has more wealth than themselves, they will have a advantage to take advantage of.
However, this is also the law of group survival.
The population of the Eastern countries has always been larger than that of the Western countries, because the values of the Eastern countries are to advocate the collective, and the values of the Western countries are to advocate the individual, isn't it?
With a large population, not to mention fighting a conventional war, even a nuclear war has advantages, isn't it?
As for saying that "public ownership has the property of leading to widespread poverty, and has been confirmed by historical experience at home and abroad," this is a lack of understanding of philosophy.
"Private ownership" itself was developed on the basis of "public ownership."
Without the "public ownership" of a matrilineal society, how can there be "private ownership" in a patrilineal society?
So, from the "public ownership" of matrilineal societies to the "private ownership" of patrilineal societies, does "public ownership" lead to widespread poverty?
Productive forces are the first driving force for social development, and the core of productive forces lies in production technology.
The development of production technology relies on mental labor, not physical labor.
In the absence of life pressure, mental work is a kind of game work, which is a kind of happy work.
So, it doesn't need the incentives of "public ownership" or "private ownership", as long as there is no pressure in life, anyone likes to do mental work.
It is precisely because "private ownership" puts pressure on some intellectual workers that they are forced to engage in work that they are not interested in in order to make a living, and cannot follow their own interests to carry out mental work.
Therefore, "private ownership" is only suitable for the historical stage in which manual labor is the majority.
Once the development of society has reached a stage where manual labor has been drastically reduced and mental labor has an absolute position, then "private ownership" will inevitably withdraw from the stage of history, and "public ownership" will inevitably return.