In the history of China for thousands of years, there are many factors, such as clique culture, friend-or-foe camp, class struggle and so on. , leading to personal position is very important for personal interests and group loyalty. For scholars, this position-oriented behavior rule also makes "no position" and "cognition overwhelming value" completely incredible. As a result, personal interests, group loyalty and value concern have been preserved, but this nation has become a "giant baby" in cognitive rationality. Truth and the exploration of truth are often distorted and disgusted by political sense of smell, and truth without value tendency and taste cannot be regarded as truth.
The situation in Nie Shubin at the end of 20 16 is really clear. On the right, after the case was rehabilitated, he still clung to the issue of procedural justice, because the fact is that the principle of presumption of innocence and never suspecting crime means that the implementation of this principle can protect the innocent and is more important than encouraging crime. But the truth on the left is equally sufficient: under the realistic institutional culture, the presumption of innocence and the absence of doubt will only encourage crime, and more innocent people will not be protected. This is the contradiction between the so-called "leap of justice and Pandora's box".
However, the right deviation makes more sense: in the case of Nie Shubin, why did the destruction and restoration of the rule of law coincide with the rise and fall of some * * *? Justice and order are in a dilemma except whether the principle of rule of law can be adhered to. Isn't the institutional impact of impulsive political achievements on the rule of law a bigger problem? Also, can you quickly and severely control the chaos? Does the severity of punishment alone really encourage crime? Can we only talk about social justice, social trust and social assistance?
Similarly, the left is more reasonable: it is said that your ideal American model is not short of social justice, social trust and social assistance, but isn't the United States full of racial opposition, class contradictions and religious disputes? There may be a Nordic model, but isn't the Nordic model with unique culture still called "a welfare state that rewards laziness and punishes diligence" by some Americans? In India, which is more comparable to China, procedural justice is not only more expensive, but also corrupt because of the cultural operation of the procedure. Can this really be ignored?
It can be seen that the truth of rights is: public rights should be limited, and procedures are effective before certainty, otherwise justice will always be afterwards; The truth on the left is: it is useless to admit death, and the overall result is true, otherwise the overall interests will only be dragged away by the program. This is the confrontation between procedural thinking and outcome-related thinking: procedural thinking thinks that the unfavorable outcome correlation is accidental, while outcome-related thinking thinks that the unfavorable procedural correlation is inevitable (the recent case is that an Afghan refugee raped and killed a female college student in Germany, and the student's father happened to be a high-ranking human rights official in the European Union). Facing the truth of both sides, it may seem simplistic to say that "twenty years old is heartless and forty years old is brainless". In fact, the thoughts of both the left and the right will play a role in reality in the form of public opinion, but the institutional logic of the "Political and Legal Committee" (China model is limited to any one-party system) is still the leading force in contemporary China reality.
Of course, the Nie Shubin case is only an incident. In contemporary China, there are more or less three-dimensional choices of events, policies, specific systems and fundamental systems, which are called "four-level choices of events-policies-systems-systems". Obviously, the view on the right can quickly rise from events to the institutional level (in reality, events are often institutional decisions), while the view on the left is more inclined to specific events and their overall results (in reality, institutions often contain cultural flexibility when they play a decisive role).
The question is: One's attitude towards specific events, policies and systems may be left or right, but what position may one take on China's fundamental system (limited to one-party system or multi-party democracy)?
The core point of this paper is: the era of black-and-white position on the basic political system of contemporary China has passed; The reality of China people's diversity and multi-nationality has influenced their thinking of drawing lines and choosing sides in the inner circle culture, the camp of the enemy and ourselves, class struggle and so on. In this way, the position on the basic political system of contemporary China is not only to support and oppose the China model (here, only political ideas are considered, but also to support the China model (leftist position), oppose the China model (rightist position), sit on the fence and wait and see, not sure whether to support or oppose the China model (unknown position), and clearly neither support nor oppose the China model (no position).
People have a good understanding of the left and right positions, and it is not difficult to understand the position of sitting on the wall without knowing it (for example, ordinary people who have not read many books or don't care about politics at all), but it may be difficult or even impossible to understand without a position. It should be noted here that the middle school generally refers to those who sit on the fence and don't know their own position, rather than those who clearly have no position; The middle faction can be won over by the left and right factions, but there is no position to win over. No place, not a middle school. How can a scholar, an intellectual and a scholar have no position on the basic political system of contemporary China? Personally, I want to make it clear that there are five reasons ("five reasons for not being left or right").
The first is the reason of personal cognition. The reason for personal cognition is that I know all the meanings of left position and right position, whether it is general knowledge or theoretical cognition; Whether out of persuasion or supplement, no left or right faction can provide me with more knowledge about the position. Common sense and theoretical cognition mentioned here include knowledge about the history and changes of any one-party system, multi-party democracy and any other political system (such as monarchy and dictatorship). To put it simply, I study the political system, and most left and right factions can't know more than I do.
The second reason is personal influence. Personal influence's reason is that an ordinary scholar has almost no influence on the basic political system and its changes; Self-righteous intellectuals like to exaggerate their role in society, but even if they can really have a little impact on specific events, policies and systems, their role in a basic political system is still negligible; Therefore, as an ordinary scholar, the problem is not to think that you can be influential until you are influential, but to fundamentally determine that this influence is an illusion. The change of the basic political system is determined by the instinctive concept of institutional culture, not by the individual ideals of scholars; As an ordinary scholar, my main task is to "know for cognition" rather than "know for value". Within the scope of my research, I can't even have any influence on the academic circles I contact in terms of research topics and conclusions. Obviously, neither more nor less for me, but much less for me; My personal research results are probably insignificant to the academic circles I can relate to. What is the significance of my personal position on China's basic political system?
The third reason is the quality of personal research. The reason for the quality of personal research is that a scholar's position on the basic political system will inevitably affect or even determine the quality of his research; The so-called ass determines the head, that is, material interests and spiritual interests can determine a scholar's research direction, logic and conclusion; A scholar can't take a stand on specific issues and institutional issues, but he may not necessarily bring this position into his own research; Without a support, it may not be recognized, but he can see more than a study with a support. Therefore, "cognition for cognition" is a research strategy, rather than denying "cognition for value". It is realistic and narrow for value rationality to overwhelm cognitive rationality, and it is thankless and closer to truth for cognitive rationality to overwhelm value rationality.
The fourth is the cause of social well-being. The reason of social well-being means that both the left and the right are very sure of their positions and influence, which is helpful to improve the long-term and overall well-being of China society; But in my opinion, there are too many uncertainties between the result justice of the left and the procedural justice of the right, which leads me to disagree with the left or the right in the basic political system. I may be inclined to the right at the institutional level, but multi-party democracy not only has institutional dilemmas in such aspects as "tragedy of political commons", "intergenerational justice", "defect of demanding the rule of law" and "unequal value of equality and freedom", but also has cultural dilemmas in the following two aspects: the self-confrontation between ideal consciousness and cultural subconscious in the process of institutional change, and the anti-institutional belief of democracy in cultural operation (class contradiction, regional contradiction, religious confrontation, even if race is put aside) Similarly, the order, unified and stable dividends and overall social benefits valued by the left also contain too many process risks and process distortions, and their uncertainties are at least as great. The long-term overall advantages and disadvantages of the two are not "inseparable", but simply uncertain, and the confidence certainty of the left and right factions is only a mirage.
The fifth reason is human nature. The reason of human nature is the most important one of the "five reasons for not being left or right" in the basic political system of contemporary China. The specific content of this reason is: human efforts to pursue and realize the best political system will never get rid of utopian fantasies; Even if the multi-party democracy is the "worst" system, its specific cultural operation is uncertain relative to the specific political and cultural game scene. Even if the one-party system gets rid of the turmoil of family system and lifelong system, the inertia risk of monarch standard and official standard still exists; The worst system exists (the totalitarian system of Hitler and Stalin), the best system does not exist, and the second best system is only a cultural and subjective relative; Even if there is an optimal system, it has always been an optimal system relative to a specific culture and subject, and there is no objective optimal system independent of the interests of any subject.
In short, event justice is possible, but institutional justice does not exist; The best system has always been a means for fanatics to incite and attract brain powder and realize material and spiritual interests; The defects of human nature are so great that any political system that can restrict the defects of human nature is incredible, and any preaching that sees human hope from the ideal of the system is a kind of self-deception; The institutional ideal has never been realized, but it is just fabricated by some people to make their lives more meaningful. It is absolutely impossible for human beings to eliminate the suffering brought by the overall institutional culture, and eliminating the disadvantages of the overall institutional culture is the root of all forms of utopianism; We should care about the specific sufferings of specific people, not those that can only be eliminated after the transformation of the overall institutional culture. We should not regard the problems of wealth and power as problems that can be solved by transforming the overall institutional culture. Regardless of the ideology of the left or the right, "long-term holism" is just a decent scam.