陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由,毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! 陈凯博客 Kai Chen Blog: www.blogspot.com 陈凯电邮 Kai Chen Email: elecshadow@aol.com 陈凯电话 Kai Chen Telephone: 661-367-7556
#1

个人自由在中国近现代的缺席 Liu Xiaobo On Individual Freedom

in 陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由,毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:19 pm
by fountainheadkc • 1.369 Posts



陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

个人自由在中国近现代的缺席

Liu Xiaobo: On Individual Freedom
[/size]

刘晓波

作者题记:在根本的意义上,现代化首先不是民族和经济的振兴的奇迹,而更是人的解放的奇迹,是人从无权利、无自由的生存状态中解放出来的奇迹----成为自由的个人。

按照西方自由主义的观点,在世俗价值的排序中,个人自由是道德之首善,既是最基本的善,也是最高的善。因为,绝大多数其他道德善的存亡,如涉及个人品质的爱意、独立、诚信、宽容、创造力等道德善,涉及社会公益的公正、平等、多元、发展等道德善,端赖自由之有无。而凡是在世俗价值的排序中拒绝自由优先的理论,无论是什么主义,也无论是西方东方,皆无法为善政提供道义基础。服膺于自由价值优先的政治制度安排,应以保障和扩展个人自由为首要目标,国家、政府、法治、秩序、福利等公共目标,不过是实现个人自由的手段而已。人类政治制度演进史证明,无自由,也就无平等、无公正、无善法、无多元,也谈不上社会的长治久安。

自由优先的理由在于:

1,自由具有确立人的尊严的本体价值,人性之善使自由成为可能,人性之恶使自由成为必要。是否拥有个人自由乃衡量人之为人的首要标准。有自由乃人的生存,也是目的性生存;无自由乃动物性生存,也是工具性生存。

2,既有道义合法性又有社会效率的政治制度,必然是以保障和扩展个人自由为宗旨的制度;个人自由是政治安排的道义之本,政治安排是实现个人自由的工具。所以,自由制度必定是法治宪政制度,通过宪法确立的权利清单、三权分立的制衡和言论及新闻自由,可以最大限度地保障基本人权和约束公权力滥用。

3,自由具有最大限度增进个人及其社会福利的工具价值。自由制度以尊重个人的尊严和独立为特征,它将筹划个人生活的选择权交给个人,也为社会竞争提供了平等的法治环境,可以最大限度地激发个人的首创精神,使社会获得生生不已的活力,而每个人的创造力和个人福利的增加,社会整体的效率和福利也必然随之提高。

4,自由创造出公正、平等、多元、宽容的社会环境,使整个社会在法治的轨道上运行,使权力可以和平更迭,利益冲突可以和平解决,价值歧义可以和平辩论且和平共存,从而达到社会的基本共识和长治久安,有助于效率提高和社会进步。

西方现代化的价值支撑是自由主义,是西方社会的自发演化和启蒙时代的内在自觉的结果。它源于西方三大传统的综合,即古希腊的城邦自由民,古罗马的自然法和市民观,中世纪基督教的神赋平等权利,三者是你中有我、我中有你,你我中都有他,共同构成近现代世俗自由主义的理论源头及经验积累;西方近现代自由主义以私产权为基础、以人的解放为目的,最响亮、最醒目的口号就是个人自由或人是目的。在私有制及其市场经济、民主宪政及其法治至上、宗教宽容及其思想言论自由的实践的底层,是个人主义、自然人权、平等自由的道义原则。

自由主义是最适合于人性且最善待人性的普世性价值观,所以,发源于西方的自由主义价值观才会逐渐由西方向整个世界传播,变成《联合国宪章》及其两大人权公约的道义基础;自由主义的制度安排也才会越来越变成世界各国共同追求的目。

中国的现代化源于回应西方的挑战,中国自由主义当然也来自西方。在中国近现代历史上,自由主义也曾一度与民族主义、社会主义一起,构成中国社会的三大思潮。然而,中国的自由主义者基本忽视了个人自由及其本体价值,而只着眼于自由对富国强兵的工具价值;不是着眼于保障个人权利和限制政府权力,而是着重强调自由的民族主义价值,即个人自由对国家的独立和进步的价值。于是,西方自由主义的个人本位被中国自由主义置换成国家本位。

洋务派的技术改良之路,维新派的政制改造之路、五四派的文化更新之路,其首要目标,都不是为了解放人、改变国人的奴隶地位,而是为了应付外敌、保住华夏帝国的中心地位。从器物救国到立宪救国再到文化救国、科学救国、教育救国、甚至五四启蒙的民主救国,也是极不彻底的。表面上是科学与民主,而实质上却是民族复兴与国家至上,进而是独裁复兴和极权至上。科学救国论和民主救国论之间,抑或教育救国论和实业救国论之间,在工具的意义上,没有区别。科学、教育、实业也好,民主、自由也罢,实质上都与救人无关而仅仅与救国有关;一切改革措施的出发点都不是人的解放,特别是解放专制下的每个中国人,而是保住传统、振兴国家。所以,当科学和民主遭遇挫折后,大多数启蒙者都背离了自由主义的现代化,或回归帝制传统,或追随共产苏联。

五四新文化运动高倡的科学与民主及其个性解放,无一不带有强烈的中国特色国家至上的工具论色彩。所以,五四新文化运动的启蒙精神,才会先被民族主义的五四运动所代替,之后被军阀混战所淹没,继而被抗日战争所吞噬,最后在国共内战后被民族主义和社会主义所取代,自由主义在毛泽东极权下完全灭绝。

无论从传统的角度还是从现实的角度,自由主义在中国的悲剧性命运都是必然的。因为这悲剧既源于外在环境的险恶,也来自内在信念的蒙昧:皇权本位的传统和大济苍生的宏愿聚焦于民族主义的目标,使中国式自由主义从一开始就误入歧途:中国的现代化启蒙,从一开始就走上与西方启蒙完全相反的路线,国家或民族是目的而个人是工具,人是实现国家主义目标的手段。换言之,中国式启蒙从来没有把个人自由这一自由主义的本体价值放在价值排序的优先位置,也从来没有本体论意义上的自由主义理论。

中国近现代自由主义的主流,排斥新教的英美传统而喜欢卢梭式的法国传统,进而排斥私有产权而提倡天下为公,排斥法治主义而寻找开明君主,排斥宗教特别是基督教而钟情于无神论。那些可以勉强地称之为自由主义者的中国启蒙者们,近代的严复、梁启超也好,现代的张东荪、储安平也罢,在人的解放和国家富强之间,在个人自由与民族独立之间,他们的优先的终极的公共关怀,一直不在前者而在后者。是的,他们强调过个体价值和个人自由,但归根结底,如果不服从于国家富强和民族独立的大目标,那么,自由便等同于一盘散沙,个人自由就与自私自利无异,非但变得一钱不值,甚而会变成有碍国家富强和民族独立的负价值。换言之,在中国近现代的自由主义者看来,争取个人自由的最大意义,就在于促进国家富强和民族独立的工具性价值。

在现实政治层面,被尊为国父的孙中山却是个反自由主义者,他论及自由观念和中国现状时,居然发出荒谬的断言:个人有自由,则团体无自由,自由这个名词,如果用到个人,就成一片散沙,万不可再用到个人上去,个人不可太过自由,国家要得完全自由。到了国家能够行动自由,中国便是强盛的国家。要这样做去便要大家牺牲自由。(《孙中山全集》第9卷,中华书局1986年版P295297页。)他所组建的政党也奉行领袖及其组织至上的专制原则,他主持起草的《中华革命党总章》规定凡进本党者,必须以牺牲一己之身命、自由、权利,而图革命之成功为条件,立约宣誓,永远遵守。(同上书P98页)正是孙中山的反自由主义思想及其实践,在推翻了皇权独裁的帝制之后,创建了民国时期的以党治国的党国体制。

不错,五四时期,个性主义思潮盛行一时,但并没有明确人的解放的首要意义,个性主义、民主、自由的诉求服务于国家富强,而不是服务于个人自由的实现。中国启蒙最响亮的口号是强国,最优先的目标是民族复兴,并没有摆脱中国传统的核心:皇权高于一切、群体高于个体,民族或国家高于人,而个人在五四启蒙中仅仅是实现集体主义目标的工具。在国家主义优先的启蒙中,即便偶尔会高倡立人口号,至多也是工具意义上立人,立人是实现国家或民族强盛这一优先目的的手段。所以,中国启蒙运动中的个性主义和民主主义,一方面因失去了解放人的目标支撑而变成虚幻的装饰,另一方面成为民族振兴的工具或手段。

没有人的解放的启蒙,绝非谋求长治久安之略,而只能是应对突发危机的权宜之计。

甚至可以说,中国现代历史上没有出现过一位真正的自由主义者,就连在中国现代自由主义领军人物胡适那里,自由主义仍然是残缺的。如果认真追究胡适的理论,他也只能算半吊子自由主义者。比如,胡适在价值上坚守个人权利,但他在现实政治上寻求好人政府,在经济上更是排斥资本主义的私有制和自由经济,而向往社会主义公有制和管制经济。

即便在胡适的最自由主义色彩的言论中,个人自由仍然带有工具论的色彩,即个人自由是国家独立和进步的工具。比如,胡适最著名的自由主义箴言是:争取你个人的自由,就是争取国家的自由。因为,一个真正的开明进步的国家,不是一群奴才造成的,是要有独立个性,有自由思考的人造成的。

首先,自由国家不等于国家自由,人们通常所说的自由国家,主要是指以保障个人自由为立国之本的政治制度,即把自由落实为组成国家的每一个体的制度,而不是指摆脱殖民统治而获得独立的国家自由。而胡适却混淆了自由国家和国家自由,进而混淆了国家自由与国家独立,把国家独立表述为国家自由。其实在主权的意义上,国家不存在自由与不自由的问题,而只存在独立与不独立的问题。特别是被殖民的国家,不能将争取国家独立置换成争取国家自由。在此意义上,国家自由是虚幻的,甚至就是自由主义理论中的假问题。

其次,主权独立的国家未必就是自由国家,而殖民地统治未必就没有自由。比如香港,回归前是英国殖民地,但并不妨碍港人拥有除普选权之外的所有自由权利;而香港回归后是中国特别行政区,可以称之为获得了主权上的独立,但港人在港英政府时期拥有的诸项自由权利开始缩水,以至于,如果不是港人采取街头政治方式进行激烈的反弹,体现北京政权的独裁意志的23条立法可能早已通过,港人的自由就将被蚕食掉大半,甚至在某些方面,也将象大陆人一样生活在恶法投下的恐怖阴影之下。

所以,毛泽东时代的许多大陆人,宁愿冒着巨大的人身风险,也要潜逃到殖民地香港,而不愿留在主权独立的大陆中国;1997年香港回归大陆前,大量港人宁愿移民到欧洲和北美等西方国家,而不愿留在终于摆脱殖民统治的香港。

第三,在胡适的这段箴言中,潜含着一种价值选择与功利选择的悖论,即从工具论的视角来看待个人自由与国家自由之间的关系:个人自由固然需要尊重,但在价值排序上,国家自由高于个人自由。个人自由及其独立个性或自由思考是手段,国家自由或国家的开明进步是目的,争取个人自由也就变成争取国家自由的工具。

我们也可以这样反问胡适先生:如果争取不到国家自由(如1997年以前在港英政府治理下的香港),或达不成一个真正的开明进步的国家,那么,争取你个人的自由和做一个有独立个性,有自由思考的人,还会有价值吗?当个人自由之因没能结出国家自由之果,个人自由的价值,不说分文不值,起码也要大打折扣。

这样的自由主义,甚至至今还是中国自由主义的主流。随着中国国力军力的大幅度提升,中国自由主义再次遭遇大国崛起的民族主义思潮的严峻挑战,国人在摆脱了政治衡量一切的教条之后,又陷入了以爱国来衡量一切的新教条之中。振兴中华的神圣性使人们在道德上对爱国敬若神明,民族性仍然是紧箍咒,甚至就是唯我独尊的权威和打压西化论的棍子。也就是说,在振兴民族和人的解放之间的抉择上,不仅民主是中华民族的伟大复兴的工具,即便自由和人权,也如同GDP一样,是振兴中华的工具。

追求现代化就必须向西方学习,这是所有落后国家的现象而并非中国所独有。已经实现现代化的国家为后起国家提供了示范和经验:现代化的目标具有普世价值,即以保障和扩展个人自由为目标的市场经济、宪政民主、法治秩序和多元社会,追求现代化的中国也不能例外。在此意义上,所谓全盘西化不过是走向普世价值,确立人是目的而国家或民族是手段的信念,也就是追求人的生活。

所以,中国自由主义必须强调:在根本的意义上,发源于西方的现代化让人活得是人,而中国新旧传统使人活得不是人,是人与不是人(人与奴隶)之间没法调和、互补。所以,选择现代化首先不是任何民族的选择而是个人的选择。想过人的生活,获得人的权利,就必须抛弃非人化的新旧传统而选择人化的现代化。或者说,在追求人的解放和祖国强大之间,人权是第一位的,一个把所有人都变成奴隶、变成零的国家,即便在主权上是独立的,但决不是自由的。绝不能蛮不讲理或愚昧无知地要求一个人去爱把他变成非人的祖国。

能说清的是具有普世意义的现代化,说不清的是具有中国特色的现代化。对于正处于社会转型的关键阶段的中国来说,中国改革的目标十分明确,是自明真理,根本不用论证、讨论。应该制定一系列可行性的改革措施,使我们不断地接近现代化这一明确的普世目标。而所谓具有民族特色的现代化,就等于在现代化中注入大量的中国新旧传统帝制旧传统和毛泽东新传统其结果只能使本来清晰明确的改革目标变得模糊不清。

除非改革的方向由维护独裁政权和权贵利益逐渐向旨在扩展国人的自由权利转化,除非越演越烈的民族主义和国家主义逐步接受以保障个人自由和限制政府权力为核心的自由主义驯化,否则的话,中国未来的远景必然是:继续重复百年转型过程中的个人自由工具化和国家权力目的化的本末倒置。所以,当代中国的自由主义应该致力于破除民族主义或国家主义的迷信而高扬人的解放之信念。

2006年7月10日于北京家中(首发《观察》2006年7月12日)
(个人自由在中国近现代的缺席 全文完博讯www.peacehall.com)

Scroll up

#2

RE: 个人自由在中国近现代的缺席 Liu Xiaobo On Individual Freedom

in 陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由,毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:21 pm
by fountainheadkc • 1.369 Posts



陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Liu Xiaobo in court: Guilty only of 'fulfilling
my social responsibility as a Chinese citizen'

刘晓波在被判后的自我声明


The following is an abridged statement by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Liu Xiaobo, co-author of the Charter 08 campaign for constitutional reform, given in his trial on Dec. 23, 2009. In February, the result of his appeal against an 11-year jail sentence for subversion was announced the court upheld the verdict.

--------------------------------------------

June 1989 was the major turning point in my 50 years on life's road. Before that, I was a member of the first group of students to take the newly restored college entrance examinations following the Cultural Revolution; my career was a smooth ride, from undergraduate to grad student and through to PhD. After graduation I stayed on as a lecturer at Beijing Normal University.

On the podium, I was a popular teacher, well received by students. I was also a public intellectual: in the 1980s I published articles and books that created an impact. I was frequently invited to speak in different places, and invited to go abroad to Europe and the U.S. as a visiting scholar. What I required of myself was to live with honesty, responsibility and dignity both as a person and in my writing.

Subsequently, because I had returned from the U.S. to take part in the 1989 movement, I was imprisoned for "counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement to crime", losing the platform I loved; I was never again allowed to publish or speak in public in China. Simply for expressing divergent political views and taking part in a peaceful and democratic movement, a teacher lost his podium, a writer lost the right to publish, and a public intellectual lost the chance to speak publicly. This was a sad thing, both for myself as an individual, and, after three decades of reform and opening, for China.

Thinking about it, my most dramatic experiences after 4 June 1989 have all been linked with the courts; the two opportunities I had to speak in public have been provided by trials held in the people's intermediate court in Beijing, one in January 1991 and one now. Although the charges on each occasion were different, they were in essence the same, both crimes of expression.

Twenty years on, the innocent souls of 4 June are yet to rest in peace, and I, who had been drawn into the path of dissidence by the passions of 4 June, after leaving the Qincheng prison in 1991 lost the right to speak openly in my own country, and could only do so through overseas media, and hence was monitored for many years; placed under surveillance (May 1995 January 1996); educated through labour (October 1996 October 1999), and now once again am thrust into the dock by enemies in the regime.

But I still want to tell the regime that deprives me of my freedom, I stand by the belief I expressed 20 years ago in my hunger strike declaration I have no enemies, and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested and interrogated me, the prosecutors who prosecuted me, or the judges who sentence me, are my enemies. While I'm unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities. This includes the prosecution at present: I was aware of your respect and sincerity in your interrogation of me on 3 December.

For hatred is corrosive of a person's wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation's spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and block a nation's progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love.

I firmly believe that China's political progress will never stop, and I'm full of optimistic expectations of freedom coming to China in the future, because no force can block the human desire for freedom. China will eventually become a country of the rule of law in which human rights are supreme. I'm also looking forward to such progress being reflected in the trial of this case, and look forward to the full court's just verdict one that can stand the test of history.

Ask me what has been my most fortunate experience of the past two decades, and I'd say it was gaining the selfless love of my wife, Liu Xia. She cannot be present in the courtroom today, but I still want to tell you, my sweetheart, that I'm confident that your love for me will be as always. Over the years, in my non-free life, our love has contained bitterness imposed by the external environment, but is boundless in afterthought. I am sentenced to a visible prison while you are waiting in an invisible one.

Your love is sunlight that transcends prison walls and bars, stroking every inch of my skin, warming my every cell, letting me maintain my inner calm, magnanimous and bright, so that every minute in prison is full of meaning. But my love for you is full of guilt and regret, sometimes heavy enough to hobble my steps. I am a hard stone in the wilderness, putting up with the pummeling of raging storms, and too cold for anyone to dare touch. But my love is hard, sharp, and can penetrate any obstacles. Even if I am crushed into powder, I will embrace you with the ashes.

Given your love, my sweetheart, I would face my forthcoming trial calmly, with no regrets about my choice and looking forward to tomorrow optimistically. I look forward to my country being a land of free expression, where all citizens' speeches are treated the same; where different values, ideas, beliefs, political views ... both compete with each other and coexist peacefully; where, majority and minority opinions will be given equal guarantees, in particular, political views different from those in power will be fully respected and protected; where all political views will be spread in the sunlight for the people to choose; [where] all citizens will be able to express their political views without fear, and will never be politically persecuted for voicing dissent.

I hope to be the last victim of China's endless literary inquisition, and that after this no one else will ever be jailed for their speech.

Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth. To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity and to suppress the truth.

I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a Chinese citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints.


-----------------------------------------

This statement was translated from the Chinese by Professor David Kelly of the China Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.

Scroll up

陈凯博客 Kai Chen Blog: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com 陈凯电邮 Kai Chen Email: elecshadow@aol.com 陈凯电话 Kai Chen Telephone: 661-367-7556
Visitors
0 Members and 5 Guests are online.

We welcome our newest member: ancientgroundhog
Board Statistics
The forum has 894 topics and 1428 posts.