【縛雞之見】
Thanks to WP for sharing this colloquium.
The discussion, amid the colossal shift of China, from the track of open policy
to an unknown path, is valuable. The
people on Taiwan, who are used to think in a Chinese way, tend to consider Xi’s
shift as are a back of Chinese nationalism.
It is in a way, but not all.
Socialism is a religion, or more precisely a cult, which promised a brave new
world, the meaning of the individuals and the target of the society are far
there, while prohibits followers to think the possibility that everyday life be
the meaning itself.
By the way, the “athlete Xu Yinsheng’s advice on playing ping pong” in the
abstract below refers to "always with the consciousness of enemy in
heart" and "all means nothing if not fatherland" It limits any of the freedom of individuals,
which is different from what we are used to.
感謝WP分享這次座談會的內容。
座談會的討論，在中國巨大的轉變中，從開放政策的軌道走向未知的道路，對於我們這些習慣了中國式思維的臺灣人來說，往往認為習近平的轉變是回到了中國的民族主義，這是很有價值的。
從某種程度上說，是這樣，但不是全部。
社會主義是一種宗教，或者更準確的說是一種邪教，它許諾了一個勇敢的新世界，個人的意義和社會的目標都遠在那裡，而禁止追隨者去思考日常生活是意義本身的可能性。
順便說一句，下面摘要中的「運動員徐寅生對打乒乓球的建議」指的是「心中永遠有敵人的意識」，「如果不是祖國，一切都沒有意義」，它限制了個人的任何自由，這與我們的習慣不同。中文由DeepL.com翻译/Taimocracy修改
Situating
the Everyday in the Mao Era: Beyond the “Actually Existing” Paradigm Institute of
East Asian Studies, UC Berkely 20210409
Speaker: Laurence
Coderre, Assistant Professor, College of Arts and Science, NYU
在毛澤東時代的日常定位：超越「真實存在」的典範
許多學者抓住「真實存在」的概念來區分：20世紀社會主義作為一種理想化、平等化的政治項目，與自詡為共產主義的黨國體制未能實現其所承諾的社會主義之間，有著明顯的差距。「真實存在的社會主義」最早是由東德思想家Rudolf Bahro提出的，將「真實存在的社會主義」與「社會主義本身的承諾」分離，用Raymond Williams的話說，這是為了重振革命的「可能性」意識。然而，「真實存在的」典範非但沒有為重新思考社會主義提供一個跳板，反而經常被貶低為集權官僚制度的描述詞，誤導性地認為社會主義本身的目標和宗旨可以--或許應該--完全從史學史的等式中剔除。
Given the manifest gap in the twentieth century between socialism as an
idealized, egalitarian political project and the failures of self-described
communist party-states to bring about that which was promised, many scholars
have seized on the notion of the “actually existing” to disentangle the two. First coined by the East German thinker Rudolf
Bahro, the disambiguation of “actually existing socialism” from the promise of
socialism per se was meant to reinvigorate a sense of revolutionary
“possibility,” in Raymond Williams’s words. And yet, rather than offer a springboard for
thinking socialism anew, the “actually existing” paradigm has too often been
relegated to a descriptor of centralized bureaucratic regimes in a way that
misleadingly suggests that the goal and tenets of socialism per se can—and
perhaps should—be taken out of the historiographical equation altogether.
正如講者在本次演講中所論述的，在依賴「真實存在」的架構中，逸失的是對所謂「社會主義」的承諾--它本身就是一個移動的目標--和個人的活生生的歷史經驗，也就是日常的歷史經驗之間的關係的有力理解。準確地說，我們如何從A到B（再回到A）？她提出了依賴於本土概念的另類方法。本講座就毛澤東的中國如何做到這一點提供了三個案例研究：關注知識傳播過程（政治經濟學家鄧稼先？的作品）、模式的鍛造（運動員徐寅生打乒乓球的建議）和物質文化（裝飾瓷器）。
As the speaker argues in this talk, what is missing in the reliance on
the “actually existing” framework is a robust understanding of the relationship
between the promise of something called “socialism”—itself a moving target—and
the lived historical experiences of individuals, that is, of the everyday. How, precisely, do we get from A to B (and
back again)? She posits an alternative
approach relying on a notion of the vernacular. This talk offers three case studies as to how
this might be done with regard to Mao’s China: by focusing on processes of
knowledge dissemination (the work of political economist Deng Kesheng), the
forging of models (athlete Xu Yinsheng’s advice on playing ping pong), and
material culture (decorative porcelains).
中文由DeepL.com翻译/Taimocracy修改
〉〉〉「真實存在的社會主義」與「社會主義本身的承諾」〈〈〈
回覆刪除真不知道要怎麼子說啦；什麼例子不好舉，舉毛澤東時代！？無言。
因為習近平師法毛澤東
刪除所以，毛澤東時代會發生的事情，預計也會在習近平時代變本加厲的發生。
嘴巴畫出的糊爛 vs.實際壓制的人民權利———即以實際壓制的人民權利，來推託嘴巴的糊爛
*不就是邪教的基本特徵？*