Links Between East and West 28 Utopia 东西方的连接28 - 乌托邦

The term “utopia” was coined by English philosopher Sir Thomas Moore in 1516 in his book Utopia. In short, it is an imaginary place where everything, including human nature, is perfect. This concept has a lengthy history, tracing back to the early days of human society. To think about utopia is a “prime political act,” meaning that it is one of the most natural and prioritized political topics. As populations increased and societies expanded from villages to intercontinental empires, humankind has refused to be bounded by the present. There has always been the need to look forward into the future, thinking about and devising more effective governance systems along the way. This essay will evaluate the ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato’s The Republic, the Chinese philosophers Lao Tzu, Tao Yuanming, the French Enlightenment thinker Jacques Rousseau, and the German theorist Karl Marx. Consequently, two main conclusions emerge: a utopia is difficult to achieve, and a utopia is valuable even if civilization cannot realize it.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato was one of the first to systematically write about his beliefs of a utopian state in his book The Republic. Plato effectively argued for an “aristocracy of merit,” rule by the best or wisest. To define the best or wisest, Plato claimed that philosopher kings should rule his utopia, laid out primarily in his famous “allegory of the cave.” The philosophers are the ones who walk out of the caves and see the world outside. But they should return to the cave to lead those attracted by the shadows on the wall to leave it. Alongside this core structure, Plato also innovatively pointed out that well-rounded education should be equal between men and women and, in a rather extreme fashion, that there should be no private property. For the Greek philosopher, the justice of a perfect state lies in the implementation of these arguments and the wisdom of citizens to carry out their respective duties within the state.

In ancient China, the Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu during the Spring and Autumn Period came up with the concept of a “small country with few inhabitants,” writing: “Given a small country with few inhabitants, [...] there might still be weapons of war but no one would drill with them. He could bring it about that the people should have no use for any form of writing save knotted ropes, should be contented with their food, pleased with their clothing, satisfied with their homes, should take pleasure in their rustic tasks. The next place might be so near at hand that one could hear the cocks crowing in it, the dogs barking; but the people would grow old and die without ever having been there.” His description of a utopia is somewhat regressive, valuing virtues over affluence and order of law. Moreover, there is no clear sense of a functioning central government, suggesting that Lao Tzu might be a partial advocate for anarchism. His utopia has only lived in a world of literature and philosophy and is rarely brought under the circumstances of reality.

The Chinese poet Tao Yuanming, living several hundred years after Lao Tzu, proposed his version of a utopia in the poem The Peach Blossom Spring. Tao was disappointed in his political career, deciding to become a hermit who returned to the farmland. In the preface of that poem, Tao depicted an idyllically minuscule utopia for readers, where the inhabitants took no contact with the outside world. They lived in harmony with nature and were inaccessible from the outside. Like Lao Tzu’s utopia, Tao’s version is similarly anarchic, poetic, and regressive. Unlike Lao Tzu’s utopia, Tao’s argument was more based on his thoughts on reality since his inspiration was his political failure.

The European Enlightenment that occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries witnessed the creation and development of political ideas. This blossom of ideas can be primarily attributed to this tumultuous period when clashes between polities and religious ideologies were common. One of the most prominent thinkers of this age on utopia is French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He laid out the framework of his utopia in his masterpiece, The Social Contract. In Rousseau’s state, citizens voluntarily a social contract and submit some of their rights to the “general will,” a collectively held will that “aims at the common good or interest.” The state would protect each individual’s freedom, rights, and well-being. This system resembles what English philosopher John Locke proposed and is a more direct proposition for establishing direct democracy.

However, Rousseau’s thoughts possess some inherent dangers. First, although the social contract is ostensibly voluntary, anyone who refuses to sign it or disagrees must flee the state and cannot participate in any state affairs. This rule casts doubt on the nature of Rousseau’s democracy and the flexibility of his model to coexist with dissent. Second, more importantly, Rousseau’s utopia could indirectly push the governing body into an autocracy under the guise of preserving the rights of the public. One has to submit almost everything to the state and is subordinate to the general will. More specifically, if there is no restriction to the general will, then the government might as well coat every decision to grab power in the interest of the entire state. The democracy under Rousseau’s vision can turn into a deceptive and horrific form of authoritarian rule in this way. Such a kind of state reminds people of the one described in the dystopian fiction The Giver, where the governing body claims to make every decision for the benefit of everyone at the sacrifice of personal freedom and memory.

The German economist and writer Karl Marx is most renowned today for his doctrines of communism. While some doubt his views on the failure of the Soviet Union to implement communism, his opinions of a utopia are worth investigating. The fundamental proposition of Marx is to abolish the boundary between state and civil society and to create a classless society. He partially based this proposition of popular self-rule on his negative observations of 19th-century capitalism. Marx claimed that communism would give real personal freedom. Capitalism bereaves people of their deserved freedom, or “species-being” – the innate human nature to transform the world freely and consciously to meet needs and carry out activities that give fulfillment.

This criticism of capitalism is furthered by his concept of “alienation,” explained in one economic transcript written in 1844. In a capitalist economy back then, workers are “alienated from other human beings,” “their products of labor,” and the “act of labor itself.” These three types of alienation would cause the “activity of working, which is potentially the source of human self-definition and human freedom, [to…degrade] to a necessity of staying alive”. Marx was rather materialistic and teleological in conceptualizing history. To tie his ideas with history, he argued that eventually, communism would prevail over capitalism.

His utopia is not flawless. His view of history as if it would almost end at some spot is untrue. One system could flourish for an extended period, but it would usually get uprooted by another one. There is no apparent reason to believe any political system would be the solution to this historical cycle.

Additionally, his idea of popular self-rule is disturbing. A government without restricting force within is inherently a breeding ground for totalitarianism. Marx’s state would find it difficult to contain political conflict and the creation of a weak state. History shows that even coalition governments do not sometimes work, as in the case of Weimar Germany, because there is no powerful center to direct political work, and factions can mobilize a large number of civilians in ways of confrontation. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that Marx’s self-rule would play out in the long term.

Based on the case studies above, it is safe to say that a utopia is difficult to achieve. Though people have longed to realize a utopia, the concept of a built utopia is disturbing. Most importantly, social progress occurs thanks to the natural imperfection of human nature. Although wrong decisions historically cost the human race a lot, they were eventually the driving force behind social structure and international relations improvement. For example, without the outbreak of the disastrous World War II, it could be difficult to devise a scheme that would have been capable of holding peace for the past 70 years. It would be virtually impossible to realize any significant social change in a utopic, perfect state. The stagnancy of society is unnerving. There would be no more history, a major innovation, or even memory. It is a world of black and white.

If utopias cannot be met in the near term and the concept of reaching a utopia is discomforting, why have people still produced systems of thought on this topic? A utopia is a mirror that one can use to reflect the vital problems present in real polities and societies. For instance, The Republic can show some of the inherent fragilities within the various Greek states. The democratic utopia Rousseau created can readily reflect the high levels of social stress between the different hierarchies of French societies during the 18th century. Today, leaders can still find the thinking of utopia useful to diagnose the symptoms of political structures and social patterns. The utopic visions of a clean planet, peaceful international relations, and the concept of an “Earth village” reflect real issues and guide real action. They can still be the cornerstones of social progress.

WORKS CITED

“Definition: Alienation.” Purdue.edu, 2022, cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/marxism/terms/alienation.html#:~:text=Definition%3A%20Alienation,of%20his%2Fher%20own%20labor..

“Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Merriam-Webster.com, 2022, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia.

“Social Contract | Definition, Examples, Hobbes, Locke, & Rousseau | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2022, www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract.

“乌托邦 "一词是英国哲学家托马斯-摩尔爵士于1516年在其著作《乌托邦》中提出的。简而言之，乌托邦是一个想象中的地方，那里的一切，包括人性，都是完美的。这个概念有很长的历史，甚至可追溯到人类社会的早期。如果认为思考乌托邦是一种 "首要的政治行为"，那就意味着它是政治中最自然和最优先的话题之一。随着人口的增加，人类社会从村庄扩张到了洲际帝国。人类一直拒绝被束缚，人们总是需要展望未来，在此过程中思考并设计出更有效的治理体系。这篇文章将简述希腊哲学家柏拉图的《理想国》、中国哲学家老子、陶渊明、法国启蒙思想家雅克-卢梭和德国思想家卡尔-马克思的思想，并从中得出两个主要的结论：一、从世俗的角度来看，乌托邦很难实现；二、即使不能实现，乌托邦也仍有价值。

古希腊哲学家柏拉图在《理想国》一书中系统地写下了他对乌托邦的思考。柏拉图有效地论证了 "Aristocracy of merit"，即由最优秀或最智慧的人统治国家。为了定义最优秀或最智慧的人，柏拉图声称他的乌托邦应该由哲人王来统治，这正是他著名的 "洞穴寓言 "。哲学家们是走出洞穴，看到外面世界的人。但他们有义务重新返回洞穴，带领那些被墙上的影子困住的人离开洞穴。除了这个核心政治结构，柏拉图还创新性地指出，全面的教育应该是男女平等的，而且以一种相对极端的方式指出，不应该有私有财产。在这位希腊哲学家看来，一个完美国家的公正性在于对这些论点的执行，以及公民在国家内履行各自职责的智慧。

在古代的东方，中国春秋时期的道家、哲学家老子提出了 "小国寡民 "的概念，他写道：“小国寡民。使有什伯之器而不用；使民重死而不远徙。虽有舟舆，无所乘之；虽有甲兵，无所陈之。使民复结绳而用之。甘其食，美其服，安其居，乐其俗。邻国相望，鸡犬之声相闻，民至老死，不相往来。”他对乌托邦的描述是相当世外桃源的，重视美德而不是财富或法律的秩序。此外，他的设想中没有明确的中央政府运作，这表明老子可能是无政府主义的倡导者。他的乌托邦只能存在于文学和哲学的世界里，很难被带到现实的环境下。

生活在老子之后几百年的中国诗人陶渊明，在《桃花源记》一文中提出了他的乌托邦。陶渊明对他的政治生涯感到失望，决定退隐田居。在文章的序言中，陶渊明为读者描绘了一个田园牧歌式的微型乌托邦，其中的居民不与外界接触，他们与自然和谐相处，从外部世界是无法进入的。与老子的乌托邦一样，陶渊明的版本同样是无政府主义的、诗意的和隐退的。但与老子的乌托邦不同，陶渊明的论点更多基于他对现实的思考，因为他的乌托邦的灵感是他的仕途失败。

发生在17和18世纪的欧洲启蒙运动见证了政治思想的产生和发展。这主要归因于这一时期欧洲发生的动荡历史，当时政体和宗教意识形态之间的冲突很常见。这个时代关于乌托邦问题最杰出的思想家之一是法国哲学家让-雅克-卢梭。他在其代表作《社会契约论》中阐述了他的乌托邦框架。在卢梭的国家里，公民自愿签订社会契约，并将他们的一些个人权利提交给 "总体意志"，即 "以共同的利益为目标 "的集体意志。反过来，国家将保护每个人的自由、权利和福祉。这种制度类似于英国哲学家约翰-洛克提出的制度，是建立直接民主的一个更直接主张。

然而，卢梭的思想拥有一些内在的危险。首先，尽管社会契约表面上是自愿的，但任何拒绝签署契约或不同意的人都必须逃离国家，不能参与任何国家事务。这就使人不禁质疑卢梭式民主的性质以及国家的灵活性。其次，更重要的是，卢梭的乌托邦可能在维护公众权利的幌子下，间接地将管理机构推向专制。一个普通人几乎要把所有的意志都提交给国家，并服从于总体意志。更具体地说，如果对总体意志没有限制，那么政府不妨把每一个谋夺极权的决定都画上国家利益的伪装。如果卢梭的设想能否付诸实施，民主制度就可能会变成一种欺骗性的、可怕的专制统治形式。这样的国家让人们想起了反乌托邦小说《记忆传授人》中描述的国家，在那里，统治机构声称为每个人的利益做出每一个决定，实际却牺牲了个人自由与记忆。

德国思想家卡尔-马克思今天因其共产主义学说而著名。虽然有些人因为苏联的失败而对他的思想持怀疑态度，但他对乌托邦的看法却值得研究。马克思的关键主张是废除国家和公民社会之间的界限，创造一个无阶级的社会。他的这一民众自治的命题部分基于他对19世纪资本主义的负面观察。马克思声称，共产主义将给予真正的个人自由（资本主义剥夺了人们应得的自由）或 "类存在"--自由和有意识地改造世界以满足人类需求的先天特性。

他的 "异化 "概念进一步推动了对资本主义的批评，他在1844年写的一份经济学手稿录中解释了这一概念。资本主义经济对工人 "与其他人类"，"他们的劳动产品 "和 "劳动行为本身"的关系进行异化。这三种类型的异化将导致 "工作活动，它有可能是人类自我定义和人类自由的来源，[......退化]为生存的需要"。马克思在构思历史时是相当唯物主义和目的论的。为了将他的思想与历史联系起来，他认为共产主义最终会超越资本主义。

马克思的乌托邦并非完美无缺。他对历史的看法，好像它几乎会在某个地方结束，这在一定程度上是不真实的。同时，一种制度可以兴盛很长一段时间，但它通常会被另一种制度连根拔起，人类政治的最终解决方案似乎仍然没有明确而令人信服的答案。

此外，他关于民众自治的想法也令人不安。一个内部没有任何约束性力量的政府，本质上是极权主义的温床。马克思的国家很难阻挡政治冲突和“羸弱”政府的产生。历史表明，即便是多党派同时平等执政的联合政府有时也不奏效，如魏玛德国，因为没有强大的政治中枢来指导政治工作，各派别可以动员大量的平民进行党争。因此，一个人很难相信所谓的自我统治会长期发挥稳定。

根据上述案例研究，从世俗的角度来看，乌托邦很难实现。尽管人们一直渴望实现乌托邦，但建成乌托邦的概念在一定程度上令人不安。最重要的是，社会进步的发生得益于人性的自然不完美。尽管错误的决定在历史上让人类付出了很大的代价，但它们最终成为了构建社会结构和改善国际关系的推动力。例如，第二次世界大战的爆发给世界带来了灾难，但同时也督促人们设计出来一个能够维持过去70年和平的方案。在一个乌托邦式的完美状态下，几乎不可能实现任何重大的社会变革。社会的停滞不前是令人不安的，不会再有历史、重大创新，甚至不会有记忆，这是一个黑与白的世界。

如果乌托邦不能在短期内实现，而且达到乌托邦的概念本身也让人感到不适，那么为什么人们仍然产生了关于这个话题的思想体系？乌托邦是一面镜子，可以用来反映现实政体和社会中存在的重要问题。例如，《理想国》可以显示出希腊各种政体中的一些内在的脆弱性。卢梭创造的民主乌托邦可以轻易地反映出18世纪法国社会不同等级之间的高度社会压力。今天，领导人仍然可以发现乌托邦思维对于诊断政治结构和社会模式的症状很有帮助。一颗干净的星球、和平的国际关系和 "地球村 "等乌托邦概念、愿景反映着现实的问题，指导着现实的行动，最终成为社会进步的基石。