[uploadedimage:137400]

　　 # 要真正認識人民本質的人，需要站在君主的位置上，而真正認識君主本質的人則需要站在人民的位置上。—馬基雅維利

　　 從人類歷史進行農業耕種開始，人類就開始生活在馬爾薩斯陷阱的馬爾薩斯世界了。

　　 馬爾薩斯圈閉的概念是資源有限。人口不斷增長，直到增長到足以開始消耗資源為止。在工業革命之前的數千年之中，沒有一個人能擺脫。直到工業革命才擺脫了小農經濟的馬爾薩斯世界，馬爾薩斯陷阱決定了在工業化前的以小農經濟為主的國家是無法接受人口過度增長的。

　　 工業革命創造了一種全球經濟，一種過剩的經濟，在這種經濟中，可以生產比需要更多的商品和服務。自工業革命以來，這種過剩一直呈指數級增長。

　　 當我們回顧過去時才能更好的發現當下的問題，小農經濟的社會世界中技術發展會帶來財富與人口增長，但是，馬爾薩斯世界中無論是英明的統治者還是昏庸的統治者都選擇限制技術發展與普及教育。

　　 關鍵在於，小農經濟主導下的馬爾薩斯世界技術發展並不會改善人口生活水平。在小農經濟的情況下增加更多人口只會創造不穩定。不穩定導致飢荒、死亡和戰爭。

　　 工業革命創造了一種技術爆炸，使人類擺脫了馬爾薩斯陷阱。

　　 如果將古代政權的經濟發展與人口增長制成圖表，排除外部因素與短暫政權（比如外敵入侵與政變）。我們可以發現圖表會顯示成曲线運動。在人口激增的地方，發生了飢荒。經濟發展突飛猛進的地方就發生了戰爭。

　　 戰爭和飢荒一直困擾著世界，直到啟蒙運動。始於18世紀的工業革命創造了足夠的財富，阻止了馬爾薩斯式的增長。

　　 工業革命也創造了現代世界。商品的大規模生產導致了一個消費社會，一個人們用賺來的錢買得比他們需要的更多的社會。

　　 馬爾薩斯世界過去是，現在仍然是一個馬爾薩斯陷阱的世界，人類被困在這里。技術發展是階梯式的，工業化前技術發展會導致不穩定，但在工業化後的世界是相反的，每個國家必須不斷發展科技才能在競賽中保持生存。

　　 如果我們將工業化前後世界的薪水與人口整理成兩份圖表，我們將發現工業前的農業世界薪水是幾乎固定不變而人口顯示出周期性波動的情況。

　　 為什麼這很重要？這意味著人類現在並不一定比過去富裕。

　　 而在工業化世界的圖表則顯示薪水與人口階梯式高速增長，舊世界的圖表顯示了一種更加波動的模式。這可能是由於基於自給自足和緊縮原則的小農經濟的混亂和動蕩。需要回答的問題是，人類在舊世界和新世界的生活方式是否有任何重大差異。舊世界真的是舊世界嗎？還是僅僅是舊世界？你必須看的是後者。在這個問題的上下文中，舊世界只是指前工業化時代。你問的是，與現在的生活方式相比，工業革命前人們的生活方式是否存在實質性的差異。

　　 在回答這個問題時，你會看到過去兩個世紀里發生的歷史過程。

　　 在思考兩個時代的不同之處時，重要的是要從不同的角度來看待這些差異。

　　 工業化後世界的經濟增長與銀行利率波動如果也制成圖表，我們會發現市場經濟呈現出周期性經濟危機。

　　 原因很簡單，如果沒有市場，就不會有波動，因此不會出現經濟危機。

　　 我們在這里看到的是視角的改變。

　　 蘇聯計劃經濟的奇葩在於，它完全可以生產過剩的產品讓民眾不再排隊，但為了防止生產過剩造成的供需矛盾來出現經濟危機，而主動由政府完全控制工業生產，但人民對消費品的需求不可能完全受物質平衡表與計劃報表的左右，必然有很多因素導致計劃之外的需求，這就導致多余的需求就只好等著排隊，等著生產出來才能得到。

　　 擁有完整工業體系的蘇聯根本不是無法讓自己的人民群眾得到充沛的消費品，而是它只是頑固地對抗經濟危機而已。如果它放棄對抗經濟規律而讓民用經濟生產更多的消費品與食品或者像現實的俄羅斯一樣暫時從國際進口消費品與奢侈品，排隊問題會這樣嚴重嗎？

　　 就造成了蘇聯能生產以萬為單的坦克、以億為單位的子彈與步槍、以萬為單位的核彈頭，卻無法讓民眾享有充足的消費品。排隊是一個問題，因為生產和供應不夠靈活，無法滿足民用部門的需求。

　　 當蘇聯建設的計劃經濟不是共產主義理論中理想的工人農民參與的計劃經濟而是由政府官僚統一分配的計劃經濟時（理想中的參與型經濟由於由勞動者自我調節生產來滿足必需，但是這需要足夠的民主制度才能做到；我是說勞動者的民主，由勞動者擁有即能在每一個企業與工廠一人一票公平選舉所有管理人員的經濟上的民主，也能在政治上一人一票公平選舉所有行政人員的政治上的民主。遺憾的是，無論是美國與蘇聯都沒有做到。美聯儲董事會成員不可能由銀行員工選舉產生，蘇聯政治局委員也不可能由民眾選舉產生，美國與蘇聯都是假借民主的威權國家。只不過，前者是資產階級專政，後者是官僚階級專政，僅此而已。）

　　 因此，從統制經濟發展而來的蘇聯式指令性計劃經濟必然具有單一性與滯後性。例如，在指令性計劃經濟的產業生產鏈下，在就工廠的設計、生產過程或將在其中工作的人員做出任何決定之前，就已經做出了是否建造新工廠的決定。

　　 更糟的是，生產資料的量化分配已經由負責計劃經濟的人員分配了。例如蘇聯要建設一條食品工廠，先由計劃經濟委員會、食品加工部門、工業部門、建設部門（蘇聯後期把部門職能不斷拆分與擴編，簡直了。）經過不斷研究後選擇土地並建築，但是原材料只會先提供理論上需求的原材料，多余的損耗需求另外的計劃報表申請。如果有足夠的資金，將建造計劃工廠的原型，經濟部門將估算預期生產成本和成品需求，決定是否建造計劃工廠。

　　 而即使食品工廠建成，即使在忽略怠工下的勞動生產率，蘇聯計劃經濟國有企業的生產環境也決定產品單一性與無法創新。市場是一個混亂和不可預測的供求系統，不容易生產單一產品。但蘇聯的計劃經濟下，生產部門只會判斷一種類型產品只需要同一種產品來供需給民眾。（最典型的是可樂；蘇聯在戈爾巴喬夫改革前只引入了百事可樂，百事可樂壟斷了蘇聯市場，在勃列日涅夫時代是無法在蘇聯找到一瓶可口可樂。更不要說，牛仔褲與搖滾唱片了。）

　　 因此，在這種情況下滯後性與短缺的是必然存在的。產品供需不是醫療服務，無論蘇聯生產部門與勞動者如何高速與勤勞也不可能像蘇聯發達的醫療體系下滿足所有公民的車輛、住房與必需品需求。更不可能以與二十世紀的生產力與算力做到即時處理計劃經濟信息傳遞。如果，以之後時代的資源與計算網絡、信息傳播速度來建設一個信息化的計劃經濟也許能解決短缺問題。（蘇聯科學家們所希望建設OGAS系統部分概念在現在二十一世紀的市場經濟得到實現，比如供應鏈系統。但市場經濟終究很難建設出超越特定行業—全國范圍內的自動化經濟系統。因為，這不是一個技術問題，而是會影響到很多事情與很多人的利益。只有願意去觸動利益集團的國家或者說一個有組織力的強力政府決心去做才可以。）

　　 數據化網絡系統對統計計劃系統的優化和簡便的統計方式是很有可能幫助政府管理高度集中與控制的計劃經濟。在日常運算在減少人力的情況下，還能變得更為精確，大幅提高效率與財政預算分配效率。並且勞動者在高強度工作時長下，不可能自主地利用空閒時間學習，來提高思想和培養專業技能與生活愛好。

　　 （這是一個因素，但遠非關鍵因素。蘇聯中央計劃經濟效率低下但穩定。關鍵的錯誤是戈爾巴喬夫同時進行市場和政治改革，從而引發經濟衰退，同時讓蘇維埃加盟國家對此負責，並使以前被壓抑的民族主義情緒得以宣揚。安德羅波夫計劃在前者之前進行後者，但他死得太早了。而且他主張的市場改革是必然失敗的，冷戰社會主義陣營的所有國家都可以進行市場經濟改革，唯獨蘇聯不行。因為只有蘇聯—這個社會主義陣營的領導者才能徹底威脅到美國所主導的經濟體系，美國沒有任何可能不去趁虛而入毀滅蘇聯經濟。）

　　 沒有完美的經濟體制，市場經濟與計劃經濟只是運行不同的方式。計劃經濟沒有經濟危機但是用效率與創新換取了穩定，效率低下、建設中資源浪費嚴重、一般情況下企業沒有創新動力。市場經濟通過企業良性競爭來保證經濟增長與技術創新，但是卻有周期性經濟危機，就與馬爾薩斯世界的人口數量相似。考慮到1987年美國股災與2008年金融危機，2021年之後幾年應該會產生第三次經濟危機。

　　 終究沒有完美的事物，一切都必須改革。

　　 階級是具有不同於社會中其他群體的內在傾向和利益的群體，是這些群體之間根本對立的基礎。例如，使工資和福利最大化符合勞動者的最大化利益，而以犧牲工資和福利為代價實現利潤最大化符合資本家的最大化利益，這就導致了資本主義社會內部的矛盾。

　　 整個社會資源與財富向富有者流動，富有者能得到良好與免費的服務。全體社會所有人討論方向不是人類的未來發展與社會建設、知識，而是個人財富。無論是富有者與勞動者都被消費資本壓榨，富有者需要不斷保持社會地位與經濟能力，如果富有者失去了盈利的可能就會被所有人拋棄。而勞動者則被剝削與壓迫。

　　 任何政治制度、法律體系，最終都是要由具體的人去運行的。因此在自由市場下，財富只會越來越聚集於社會階層上流，這是市場經濟的自然規律，不以人為意志所轉移的。

　　 在社會階層博弈過程中，經濟高速增長時，勞動者與精英階層才能達成社會共識來延續或者說隱藏社會矛盾。但當經濟增長停滯的時候，一切社會矛盾顯現與加劇的時候，互相殘殺帶來的收益遠比合作共贏更有利…

　　 當金融利用活動貸款給勞動者消費，從而把經濟危機推遲到勞動者違約的時候；科技革命的作用是保證經濟高速增長，讓勞動者工資在經濟發展中漲長的保證償還的能力，把經濟危機的時間點不斷往後延續。就算這個構型被一度長期穩定運行，人類的邊際消費和科技階梯式發展的速度都不允許無窮的經濟增長，經濟危機仍然要以工人還不起錢這種次貸危機的形式到來。

　　 許多被稱為“修正主義”的國家在經濟形態上更加呈現出“官僚壟斷資本主義”的特征，即執政黨黨員往往在獲得職位時也會獲得更多的薪資、房產等待遇；同時，他們也會成立大大小小的公司進行商業活動或直接擔任所謂國營企業董事長等高層職務。這與真正的馬克思主義或者說社會主義有關系嗎？

　　 不，這是市場資本主義。

　　 世界歷史終將被宏大的敘事、激發人類行動和想象力的偉大思想所打斷。

　　 [newpage]

　　 [uploadedimage:137400]

　　 Since the beginning of human history for agricultural farming, human beings have been living in the Malthusian world of Malthusian traps.

　　 The concept of a Malthusian trap is that there is a resource that is limited. The population grows until it grows large enough that it begins to consume the resource. None could escape for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that the Malthusian world of smallholder economies was freed from the Malthusian trap that dictated that pre-industrial countries with predominantly smallholder economies could not accept excessive population growth.

　　 The Industrial Revolution allowed for the creation of a global economy, one of excess, where more goods and services could be produced than what was needed. This excess has been growing exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.

　　 In the world of smallholder societies, technological development would have brought wealth and population growth, but in the Malthusian world, both the wise and the foolish rulers chose to restrict technological development and universal education.

　　 The point is that technological development in a Malthusian world dominated by a smallholder economy does not improve the standard of living of the population. Adding more people to a small farming economy would only create instability. Instability leads to famine, death, and war.

　　 The Industrial Revolution created a technological explosion that has allowed humanity to escape the Malthusian trap.

　　 If we graph the economic development and population growth of ancient regimes, excluding external factors and transient regimes (e.g. foreign invasion and coup d\u0027état). We can find that the graphs will show as curved movements. Where there was a spike in population, a famine occurred. Where there was a spike in economic development, a war occurred.

　　 The warring and famine plagued the world until the Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution, which began in the 1700s, created enough wealth to halt the Malthusian growth.

　　 The Industrial Revolution also created the modern world. The mass production of goods led to a consumer society, a society where people buy more than what they need with the money they earn.

　　 Malthusian world was and continues to be a world of Malthusian traps where human beings are trapped. Technological development is laddered, pre-industrial technological development leads to instability, but in the post-industrial world it is the opposite, each country has to keep developing technology to stay in the race for survival.

　　 If we organize the salaries and population of the pre and post industrial world into two charts, we will find that salaries in the pre-industrial agricultural world were almost constant while the population showed cyclical fluctuations.

　　 Why is this important? It means that human beings are not necessarily better off now than in the past. Whereas the graphs in the industrialized world show a stepwise and rapid increase in salaries and population, the graphs of the older world show a more fluctuating pattern. This could be due to the chaotic and turbulent nature of a smallholder economy that was based on the principles of self-sufficiency and austerity.

　　 The question that needs to be answered is whether or not there are any significant differences between the way human beings in the old world and the new world lived.

　　 Is the old world really old world or is it just old? It is the latter that you have to look at.

　　 In the context of this question, old world just means pre-industrial. By that, you are asking if there were substantial differences in the way that people lived before the industrial revolution compared to the way that people live now.

　　 In answering this question, you are looking at the historical process that has occurred over the past two centuries.

　　 When thinking about how two eras differ, it is important to look at the differences in perspective.

　　 If economic growth and bank interest rate fluctuations in the post-industrial world were also charted, we would find that market economies exhibit cyclical economic crises.

　　 The reason for this is simple, if there were no markets, there would be no fluctuations, and thus no economic crises.

　　 What we are looking at here is a change in perspective.

　　 The oddity of the Soviet planned economy is that it is perfectly capable of producing excess products so that the people no longer stand in line, but in order to prevent the contradiction between supply and demand caused by overproduction to come to an economic crisis, and the initiative of the government to completely control industrial production, but the people\u0027s demand for consumer goods can not be completely subject to the material balance sheet and planning statements, there are bound to be many factors that lead to demand outside the plan, which leads to excess demand will have to waiting in line and waiting for production to be available.

　　 It was not that the Soviet Union, with its complete industrial system, was unable to provide its people with an abundance of consumer goods, but that it was simply stubbornly fighting the economic crisis. If it had given up fighting the economic laws and let the civilian economy produce more consumer goods and food or temporarily imported consumer goods and luxuries from the international market as Russia did in reality, would the queuing problem have been so severe?

　　 It caused the Soviet Union to be able to produce tanks by the tens of thousands, bullets and rifles by the billions, and nuclear warheads by the tens of thousands, but to be unable to let the population enjoy sufficient consumer goods. The queuing was a problem because the production and supply was not flexible enough to respond to the demands of the civilian sector.

　　 When the planned economy built in the Soviet Union was not a planned economy with the participation of workers and peasants, as was the ideal in communist theory, but a planned economy with uniform distribution by government bureaucrats (the ideal participatory economy would have been met by the self-regulation of production by workers, but this would have required sufficient democracy to do so; I am talking about the democracy of workers, i.e., the democracy of workers having the ability to elect fairly, one person, one vote, in each enterprise and factory I mean the democracy of the worker, the economic democracy of the worker who can fairly elect all managers in every enterprise and factory, one person, one vote, and the political democracy of the worker who can fairly elect all executives in politics, one person, one vote. Unfortunately, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union has done so. It was impossible for the members of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve to be elected by the employees of the banks, and it was impossible for the members of the Politburo of the Soviet Union to be elected by the people; both the United States and the Soviet Union were authoritarian states pretending to be democratic. (Only, the former was a bourgeois dictatorship and the latter was a bureaucratic dictatorship, that\u0027s all.)

　　 Thus, the Soviet-style command-planned economy that developed from the unitary economy was necessarily homogeneous and lagging. For example, under the industrial production chain of the command-planned economy, the decision on whether or not to build a new factory was made long before any decisions were made regarding the design of the factory, the process to be used in its production, or the people who would work in it. If sufficient funding is available, a prototype of the planned factory will be constructed, and the economic department will estimate the expected cost of production and the demand for the finished good, deciding whether or not to build the planned factory.

　　 And even if the food factory was built, even if labor productivity under the neglect of slack, the production environment of the state-owned enterprises of the Soviet planned economy dictated product homogeneity and the inability to innovate. The market was a chaotic and unpredictable system of supply and demand, one that did not easily lend itself to the production of a single product. But under the planned economy of the Soviet Union, the production sector would judge that only one type of product was needed to supply the population with the same type of product. (The most typical example is Coke; the Soviet Union introduced only Pepsi before Gorbachev\u0027s reforms, and Pepsi monopolized the Soviet market, so it was impossible to find a bottle of Coca-Cola in the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era. (Not to mention, jeans and rock records.)

　　 Therefore, in this case lags and shortages are bound to exist. Product supply and demand are not medical services, and no matter how fast and hard-working the Soviet production sector and laborers are, it is impossible to meet the needs of all citizens for vehicles, housing, and necessities in the same way that the Soviet Union\u0027s developed medical system did. It was also impossible to deal with the planned economic information transfer instantly with the same productivity and arithmetic power as in the 20th century. If, with the resources and computing networks and speed of information dissemination of the later era, the construction of an information-based planned economy might be able to solve the shortage problem. (Soviet scientists hope to build OGAS system part of the concept in the twenty-first century market economy is now realized, such as the supply chain system. But in the end, it is difficult to build an automated economic system beyond a specific industry - nationwide. Because, it is not a technical problem, but will affect many things and many people\u0027s interests. (Only a country willing to touch interest groups or a strong government with organizational power determined to do so can do so.)

　　 The optimization of statistical planning systems and the simplification of statistical methods by data-based network systems are likely to help governments manage highly centralized and controlled planned economies. Daily calculations can be made more accurate with less manpower, and the efficiency and budget allocation can be greatly improved. And workers are not likely to use their free time to study on their own to improve their thinking and develop professional skills and life hobbies under the intense working hours.

　　 (This is a factor, but far from a critical one. The Soviet centrally planned economy was inefficient but stable. The key mistake was for Gorbachev to undertake both market and political reforms, thus triggering a recession while holding the Soviet union states accountable for it and allowing previously repressed nationalist sentiments to be asserted. Andropov planned to carry out the latter before the former, but he died too soon. Moreover, the market reforms he advocated were bound to fail; all the countries of the Cold War socialist camp could carry out market economy reforms, but only the Soviet Union could not. (Because only the Soviet Union - the leader of the socialist camp - could completely threaten the economic system dominated by the U.S. There was no possibility that the U.S. would not take advantage of the situation and destroy the Soviet economy.)

　　 There is no perfect economic system, market economy and planned economy are just different ways of functioning. A planned economy has no economic crisis but uses efficiency and innovation in exchange for stability, inefficiency, waste of resources in construction, and in general no incentive for companies to innovate. A market economy ensures economic growth and technological innovation through healthy competition among firms, but has periodic economic crises, similar to the population size of the Malthusian world. Considering the 1987 U.S. stock market crash and the 2008 financial crisis, a third economic crisis should occur in the years after 2021.

　　 After all, there is no perfection and everything must be reformed.

　　 Classes are groups with intrinsic tendencies and interests different from those of other groups in society, and are the basis for fundamental antagonisms between these groups. For example, maximizing wages and benefits is in the maximized interests of workers, while maximizing profits at the expense of wages and benefits is in the maximized interests of capitalists, which leads to contradictions within capitalist society.

　　 The entire society flows resources and wealth to the rich, and the rich get good and free services. All society discusses not the future development of mankind and the construction of society and knowledge, but individual wealth. Both the rich and the workers are squeezed by the consumer capital. The rich need to maintain their social status and economic capacity constantly, and if the rich lose the possibility of profitability they will be abandoned by everyone. The laborer, on the other hand, is exploited and oppressed.

　　 Any political system, any legal system, is ultimately run by specific people. Therefore, under the free market, wealth will only be gathered more and more in the upper social class, which is the natural law of the market economy and is not transferred by human will.

　　 In the process of social class game, when the economy grows at a high rate, the workers and elites can reach a social consensus to perpetuate or hide the social conflicts. But when economic growth is stagnant and all social contradictions are revealed and intensified, the gains from killing each other are far more beneficial than the win-win cooperation...

　　 When finance uses activities to lend to workers for consumption, thus postponing the economic crisis until the workers default; the role of the technological revolution is to ensure high economic growth, so that workers\u0027 wages rise long in economic development to ensure the ability to repay, continuing the point of economic crisis further and further back in time. Even if this configuration was once stable for a long time, the marginal consumption of human beings and the speed of technological ladder development do not allow endless economic growth, the economic crisis will still come in the form of workers can not pay back the subprime mortgage crisis.

　　 Many countries called \"revisionist\" are characterized by a more \"bureaucratic monopoly capitalism\" in their economic form, i.e., members of the ruling party often receive more salary, real estate, etc., when they get a position; at the same time, they also set up large and small companies for business activities or directly hold a position of At the same time, they also set up large and small companies to carry out business activities or directly hold top positions such as chairman of so-called state-run enterprises. Does this have anything to do with true Marxism or socialism?

　　 No, it\u0027s market capitalism.

　　 The history of the world is punctuated by grand narratives, great ideas that have galvanized human action and imagination.