{
  "format": "arthurs-review-publication-proof/v1",
  "createdAt": "2026-07-13T15:41:25.249Z",
  "publicUrl": "https://blog.leesaitool.com/society/relc-from-textbook",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-09T14:18:30.815Z",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-11T10:33:02.773Z",
  "article": {
    "titleZh": "“衰微的民族”--解药是什么？",
    "titleEn": "The 'Declining Nation' — What's the Cure?",
    "slug": "relc-from-textbook",
    "category": "society",
    "excerptZh": "不要想把奴隶时代的价值观套用到工业化时代上。 ",
    "excerptEn": "Don't you dare try to apply slave-era values to the age of industrialization.",
    "seoDescription": "",
    "bodyZh": "革命来源于对现实的不满，我的文章当然也不能脱离对现实的反思。这篇文章自然是关于我们语文课上，课文里边有一篇关于闻一多先生的文章。以及当时的文人墨客中思想界中 一个普遍的心态。\n\n先展示具体的文章：“他正向古代典籍钻探，有如向地壳寻求宝藏，仰之弥高，越高攀得越起劲。他想吃尽、消化尽我们中华民族几千年的文化史。英勇的目光一直远射到有史以前，他要给我们衰微的民族开一剂救济的文化药方。”\n\n这样的想法在当时的中国文化界其实并不少见，无论是著名物理学家**杨振宁**的父亲，还是早年的**鲁迅**，都想要通过复兴某一些特定的传统文化的方式，来拯救中华民族所谓衰微的精神。\n但是，正如**中国共产党**能在那个年代救中华民族于水火之中一样，我们分析中国共产党产生前的一段时间的文人墨客、知识分子以及他们的方向，也要使用马克思主义的历史唯物主义的方式进行剖析。\n\n毛泽东同志指出，正确的思想不是从天上掉下来的，是在**实践中、在斗争**中产生的。自然而然，不符合时代的、错误的、迂腐的思想，也是在特定的物质条件中生产出来的。我这里要指出这一个主要观点的三项错误\n\n**第一项错误** 是夸大了古代文化的效用。这些文人墨客研究的领域，要不然集中在**百家争鸣时期，要不然集中在后来的市民文学**。这两者都有明显的缺陷。1910 年至 20 年之间，中国已经初步迈入工业化，已经成为了半殖民地半封建社会。而一个社会进入工业化以后，其主流思想、物质基础和文化都会造成极大的改变。无论是英国还是美国，还是欧洲传统列强，都可以证明这一点。要是在进入工业化以后，为了应对社会带来的极大冲击和殖民主义带来的民族危机，尝试复兴在**奴隶时代**通行的思想，那便是错误的估计了现代化发展的方向。（科普：春秋战国时期是奴隶制时期，很多人连牲口都不如）市民文学也有它很大的局限性。列宁早就质疑了工人阶级组织起来的**严谨性、先进性和统一性**。这些特质是在革命当中必不可少，在社会变革当中是必须的。列宁的路线虽然带来了不少弊病，但是刚刚提到的三个属性要是没有，弊病只会不减反增。要是拿当时的平民的文学和主流文化作为指导未来的方向，那必然是要错过极好的机会。\n\n**第二项错误** 是，在殖民者入侵的时期迷失方向，**急于**和所谓的西方文化脱钩。有一些知识分子看到来自西方的文化，极为恐惧，产生了身份的迷失。为了尽快摆脱这种属性，有些人着急忙慌、手足无措，在焦急当中看到了传统文化，于是就**一把抓来，挪作己用**。也不管酸甜苦辣，一把吃下。这种心态就导致了有些人转头就把仁义礼智信等等全部归到中国传统文化，并且一并的把一些等级制度也一起拉了进去，顺便还把差序格局等等农业社会的**残余**推进到了工业社会。大部分情况下，生产力决定生产关系。同样的，大规模的生产力变革也会动摇上层建筑的价值观。自然的就可以推导出，在同样的生产力变革情况下，上层建筑的价值观会大致相似。也自然可以推导出，某一些价值是工业社会或者农业社会必然产生的，而不是中国特色的，更**不是**西方特色的。一些人一定要明白，什么什么特色的，不一定有好处。比如说，西欧处于农业文明时期的时候，也极为强调集体主义、某种牺牲以及服从。中国来到工业化，现代化时期了以后，也照样原子化，强调个人的精神独立。可以证明，这跟东方或者西方关系不大，而是跟生产方式关系大。请大家摒弃狭隘的民族主义，拥抱宽广的**国际主义**和有普世性的生产方式、有普世性的价值（可不是那些人权之类的，联合国上挂的）\n\n**最后一点** 较为简单，那就是大家要意识到，这些知识分子很多处于统治阶级，很多处于上层阶级。对于他们来说，宣传让下层人团结、服从、牺牲、顺从，那肯定是对他们只有好处没有坏处。比较清醒的如鲁迅，在晚年也意识到了，靠文学改变人，那是空想。他早年弃医从文，认为写文章可以救中国人的灵魂，后来发现其实也救不了。比较糊涂的有胡适，带了一点自己的资产阶级的幻觉，认为可以靠改良主义、渐进式改良拯救马上要亡国的中国。这些其实都不是分析问题的好方式。分析问题只有从**实践着手、从生产力**着手、从一个时代的具体特征着手、从案例着手，才能够清晰地看到时代的本质、清晰地了解拯救的方案。",
    "bodyEn": "Revolution comes from dissatisfaction with reality, and my writing is no different. This piece is about a text we read in Chinese class — an article about Wen Yiduo. And about a widespread mentality among intellectuals and literary figures of that era.\n\nLet me start with the actual passage: \"He was delving into ancient classics, as if seeking treasure from the earth's crust. The higher he looked up, the more eager he was to climb. He wanted to devour, to digest the entire cultural history of the Chinese nation over thousands of years. His heroic gaze projected far back into prehistoric times — he wanted to prescribe a cultural remedy for our declining nation.\"\n\nThis kind of thinking was actually not uncommon in China's cultural circles at the time. Both the father of the famous physicist Yang Zhenning and Lu Xun in his earlier years wanted to save the so-called declining spirit of the Chinese nation by reviving certain specific strands of traditional culture.\n\nBut just as the Communist Party rescued the Chinese nation from crisis in those years, when we analyze the intellectuals and literary figures of the period before the Party's rise — and the direction they took — we have to use the Marxist method of historical materialism to dissect it.\n\nComrade Mao Zedong pointed out that correct ideas don't fall from the sky — they are produced in practice, in struggle. By the same logic, ideas that are out of step with the era, that are wrong, that are decadent — those too are produced under specific material conditions. Here I want to flag three core errors in this line of thinking.\n\n**First error: overestimating the usefulness of ancient culture.** These intellectuals focused their research either on the Hundred Schools of Thought period or on later vernacular literature. Both have obvious problems. Between 1910 and 1920, China had already begun its industrialization and had become a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. Once a society enters industrialization, its dominant ideology, material base, and culture all undergo massive transformation. Britain, the United States, the traditional European powers — they all prove this point. If, after entering the industrial age, you try to revive ideas that were current in the **slave era** to deal with the enormous shock of modernization and the national crisis brought by colonialism, you are fundamentally misjudging the direction of modern development. (Quick note: the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods were slave societies — many people back then were treated worse than livestock.) Vernacular literature has its own serious limitations too. Lenin long ago questioned whether the working class, once organized, could achieve the discipline, advancedness, and unity needed for revolution. These three qualities are indispensable in revolution and in social transformation. Lenin's line brought plenty of problems, sure, but without those three qualities, the problems only get worse, not better. If you take the literature of the common people and the dominant culture of that era as the blueprint for the future, you're guaranteed to miss a tremendous opportunity.\n\n**Second error: losing your bearings during colonial invasion and rushing to cut ties with so-called Western culture.** Some intellectuals saw Western culture coming in and were terrified — they lost their sense of identity. To shake it off as fast as possible, they panicked, flailed around, and in their anxiety latched onto traditional culture, **grabbed at it and repurposed it for themselves**. They swallowed it whole without caring whether it was bitter or sweet. This mentality led some people to lump ren, yi, li, zhi, xin and the rest into \"Chinese traditional culture\" wholesale, and to drag in hierarchies and the differential hierarchy model of agrarian society along with them, pushing these **residuals** of agricultural society into the industrial age. In most cases, productive forces determine relations of production. Likewise, large-scale transformations in productive forces shake the values of the superstructure. From that you can naturally deduce that under the same transformation in productive forces, the values of the superstructure will end up roughly similar. And from that you can naturally deduce that certain values are inevitable products of industrial or agricultural society — they aren't Chinese-specific, and they're certainly **not** Western-specific. Some people need to understand: just because something is branded as having a certain \"characteristic\" doesn't mean it's good. For example, during the agricultural civilization period, Western Europe also heavily emphasized collectivism, a certain spirit of sacrifice, and obedience. When China entered industrialization and modernization, it naturally became atomized and emphasized individual spiritual independence. This proves the point — it has nothing to do with East versus West, and everything to do with the mode of production. Ditch your narrow nationalism. Embrace broad **internationalism** and a universal mode of production, universal values (and I don't mean that human rights stuff they hang at the UN).\n\n**The last point** is simpler: everyone should realize that many of these intellectuals belonged to the ruling class, many to the upper class. For them, preaching unity, obedience, sacrifice, and submission to the lower classes — that's obviously all upside for them with zero downside. The more clearheaded ones, like Lu Xun, realized in their later years that changing people through literature was a fantasy. He abandoned medicine for literature in his youth, believing that writing could save the souls of the Chinese people — and later discovered it actually couldn't. The more muddled ones, like Hu Shi, carried a bit of their own bourgeois delusion, thinking that gradualism and piecemeal reform could save a China on the verge of collapse. None of these are good ways to analyze a problem. The only way to analyze a problem is to start from **practice, from productive forces, from the concrete characteristics of a given era, from concrete cases** — only then can you clearly see the nature of the era and clearly identify the real solution.",
    "coverImagePath": "uploads/2026/05/ad266596-c17c-49f8-aa39-17fd68cffc1c.webp",
    "tags": []
  }
}