Chapter 3 The foundation of meta-rule theory: the original strategy of exchanging lives for resources

Interviewer: Youth Times Published: June 10, 2006 The world likes to look at and understand history from the "official history" written in history, but in your book, you embody the way of thinking of "seeing the world with your own eyes", and you don't like historical issues much. , and have their own unique insights.However, if everyone is used to looking at history from an alternative perspective, wouldn't history become a personal narrative?Will the interpretation of history become divided?Will history have a unified answer?How do you think you can get as close as possible to the truth of history?Do you feel like your perspective is close?

In my opinion, different views of history are like different maps.There are administrative division maps, traffic maps, climate maps, underground pipeline maps, mineral maps, and so on.The map we often hang on the wall is an administrative division map, which is like "official history" or a unified view of history.But we know that the administrative division map is definitely not equal to the local reality.On this map, you can't find places to eat and drink, you can't dig coal and iron, and you can't see the extreme heat and cold. If you use this map to guide your life, you may die.

Going along with this metaphor, I do not look at history with an alternative eye.Mine depicts a map of underground pipelines, a map of trading outlets for life and survival resources.Construction companies and plumbers should have a map of underground plumbing, but ordinary residents may not.Everyone has different needs, so they naturally have their own perspectives, and gradually form their own views on the world and history, which is very natural.Everyone has the same opinion, and they all use a map of administrative divisions, and that is the problem—everyone wants to be an official, enter the government, and who will provide food, clothing, housing and transportation?

However, the fact that there are different maps does not mean that the map can be drawn wrongly, and the mountains can be drawn as hills, and the big rivers can be drawn as canals.The proportional relationship cannot be wrong.In this sense, the map I provided is generally close to the truth.I feel like I'm closer to the truth than the "canon history" map.I have proved in the article "Liu Jin's Undercurrent" that the funds flowing through the "underground tunnel" can rival the "Yangtze River" in terms of quantity.The scale of the social group mentioned as "redundant staff" in the official history even exceeds the bureaucratic group itself.These behemoths hidden in the gloom, social existences with great influence, are far from getting their proper place in the official history, and the proportional relationship depicted in the official history is not as accurate as mine.

Through your eyes, we have seen the "hidden rules" that have been hidden in history except the formal rules, the bloody meta-rules of "the most violent has the final say" and the "law of blood pay"... You want to use yourself efforts to "re-understand Chinese history and reconstruct the interpretation of Chinese history".However, your efforts always make people feel that our history is "grey" and cruel. Is the Chinese history in your eyes really like this?So, does it frustrate you?Compared with other interpretations of Chinese history, what advantages do you think your own interpretation has?Is your "reconstruction" a subversion of the previous description of Chinese history?On what theoretical basis is your explanation based?

I describe the history as I see it, certainly not fully.I didn't describe the wind, flowers, snow and moon. There are already many descriptions by predecessors, so I don't need to add icing on the cake.I paint a history that is obscured.It's not my fault if such historical facts feel cruel.Facing the truth doesn’t make me feel dejected. On the contrary, if we insist on wearing pink glasses, distorting black, ignoring gray, and refusing to face up to the blood that is sprinkled over and over again, it will be depressing—no If you see the truth, you lose the possibility of correctly understanding the world and improving it.

In fact, the Chinese are not unfamiliar with this kind of "bloody" description. Mao Zedong said in his history: "It is rare in the world to smile, and bow to each other on the battlefield. It has flowed all over, and the blood in the suburbs." The difference between me and the predecessors is, It is nothing more than highlighting the logic of the exchange of life and survival resources, publishing the calculations hidden in people's hearts, and leading them into the overall situation analysis.My basic point of view is: the winners of violent competition have the final say. They dominate the world and legislate to determine points. Then, these laws and regulations are gradually deformed and logically deformed in the calculation of interests, triggering another round of violent competition.This interpretation does not overthrow the previous historical narrative, but it has been modified to emphasize the role of violence in history.

In fact, before the appearance of the human species, before the appearance of labor production behavior, various species were desperately competing for survival resources.The logic of exchanging life for survival and reproduction resources is older and more primitive than the logic of labor production and product exchange.I don’t know whether this kind of theoretical system and this kind of view have been established before, but the basic logic of this kind of theory has been repeatedly shown in the historical records of the predecessors. The most violent person has the final say—you once said in your preface that when you put forward this idea, "I felt the constriction of my heart when a needle was stabbed out." I don't know that this "contraction" is what you discovered Is it the excitement of imagining it, or the panic of what you find, or a mixture of mixed emotions?What kind of mentality do you use to face your own assumption?What is the difference between this idea and "survival of the fittest" and the famous statement of the great man "government grows out of the barrel of a gun"?Have you experienced "violence"?Have you ever had the difficulty of being suppressed by "violence" and "doing nothing"?

Mainly excitement.I felt that I had suddenly figured it out, that the root of my thought had been rooted, and the world in front of me suddenly became clear. For example, in a game of chess, I recognized different players, knew the rules of playing chess, and was also familiar with certain formulas.However, I don't know how the rules were formed, did they fall from the sky, were they negotiated, or typed?I don't believe in sayings such as natural human rights, and I don't believe that pies can fall from the sky.I also don't believe that equal consultation among people occurs naturally, without guarantee conditions.If it's easy to kill and rob, why bother producing swaps?Once the relationship between violent competition and the establishment of rules is understood, the establishment of rules, whether formal or unspoken, becomes an endogenous and spontaneous result, and there is no need to look for external explanations.The identity and level of each chess player are also determined by the rules set by the winner.Therefore, the history of this chess game and the ins and outs of the game itself can all be explained clearly.

"Government grows out of the barrel of a gun" is very close to what I call "meta-rules".However, "meta-rules" talks about the relationship between violence and rule-making, while "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" talks about the relationship between violence and the seizure of power, and they are superficially different.Going a step further, there are overlaps, what does power mean?legislation?judicial?administrative?If legislation can be included, then who has the final say on legislation?The people have the final say?The emperor has the final say?Confucius has the final say?Marx has the final say?What I mean is: the controllers of violent groups have the final say.If the emperor is the controller, the emperor has the final say.If the people can control violent groups, the people can have the final say.Whether Confucius can have the final say depends to a large extent on the final controller.If the emperor is the controller, he will abandon Confucianism. For example, the Yuan Dynasty ranked Confucian scholars as the ninth child, and Confucianism has nothing to do.Although this choice may affect reign lifespan.

In addition, "Government grows out of the barrel of a gun" is based on historical materialism and refers to what happened in the field of superstructure.But I feel that when explaining Chinese history, the distinction between the superstructure and the economic base is often entangled.The royal aristocracy conquered the world, became the ultimate owners of land, mountains and rivers, and minerals. The government even directly came forward to operate industry and commerce. Is this group a member of the production relationship or a member of the superstructure? "Meta-rules" do not place themselves in the realm of the superstructure. The story told by the "meta-rule" is more fundamental than the story in the field of superstructure. It is rooted in the species survival strategy of human beings to obtain survival resources through various life activities. This is a survival strategy that is older than production labor itself, and Directly involved in the changes of production relations and production methods. In my own life experience, there is no shortage of violent or unreasonable experiences.I was a production team leader when I jumped into the queue. I received many petitioners when I worked in the group industry department of the "Farmers Daily", and I also investigated and interviewed many incidents involving the dark side. I've seen a lot of bullying, and I see how unreasonable people are in general—as long as there's profit in being unreasonable and there's no retribution. With and, you say you have seen through history.But can you recognize the realities of your life?On some issues, such as "hidden rules", is reality "in line with history"?What's your attitude towards the unhealthy reality—are you also cynical?It is said that your current life is relatively ordinary, reading books, writing things, editing magazines, "working at sunrise and resting at sunset". I wonder if this kind of life is suspected of "escaping" from the complicated social reality?However, now that you are indulging in history reading and writing history, do you also want to have a certain degree of guiding significance for reality, like "taking history as a mirror"? I dare not say that I have seen through the overall history. I may have drawn a generally good map, but the panorama and reality of history are far from being clearly depicted by a map.For an epidemiologist, an administrative map may be useless, saying nothing, let alone telling the truth. Awareness of real life, knowledge of history is helpful.By reading history, we can see what is temporary, what is long-term, recurring, and what is the reason for recurring.Unspoken rules are recurring, in line with history.The recurring reason is that the injured party lacks the ability to counteract, and even has no way to file a complaint.Those with the legal right to harm can borrow public power for personal gain, and individuals can gain benefits at no personal cost, with little risk.In a situation where victims have no right to supervise and countermeasures, this kind of behavior is difficult to control, so it intensifies. As a result, publicly announced public regulations are deformed and quietly replaced by unspoken rules. I have no intention of escaping from this reality.Even if you want to escape, you can't escape, and you will often get bloody when you bump into each other.After hitting a wall, describe this invisible wall, explain the ins and outs of this wall clearly, and use history as a mirror. This is intervention in reality.When people see such a wall in real life, their walking route will naturally change, and real life will also change accordingly.In this sense, the intensity of my involvement in real life is unprecedented in my life course. As someone said, it broke the myth of "life is priceless".When being "kidnapped", a person's life has a price, and the "ticket" price depends on the party's ability to pay and willingness to pay.But we still have to say that life is priceless, because life is only once for human beings.How do you switch between "life is priceless" and "life is priceless"?How do you evaluate your own "life"?For "life", how do you weigh and achieve "calculation of benefits and risks"? Life is priceless is the valuation of people's own life.Everyone thinks that their life is extremely precious, and they will not sell it for any amount of money.This idea certainly makes sense.People are dead, what is the use of money?But, I have to say, this feeling is a popular illusion. First of all, you feel that your life is priceless, but others may not feel the same way.For example, hospitals may not think so.The units and insurance companies that pay for your medicine, the government, and even your relatives and friends may not think so.It’s okay to spend 10,000 yuan on medical expenses, but what about the 1 million yuan that will ruin your relatives and friends?What about the 100 million that shut down the unit?What about the 10 billion that bankrupted the insurance company?What about the pensions of the people across the country that brought down the government?There is always a number, right?Also, builders, car manufacturers, vegetable farmers, don't think your life or anyone else's life is priceless.Otherwise, they should greatly improve the earthquake resistance level of houses, the safety factor of car design, reduce the pesticide residues in vegetables and fruits, and so on. Secondly, you yourself say that life is priceless, but you may not actually mean it. Otherwise, you should always buy expensive green vegetables, buy houses with high earthquake resistance, avoid all high-risk occupations, and go down to dig coal and there will be no one at all. dry.In fact, there is a price to be paid to maintain survival and life safety. The resources needed for food, clothing, housing and transportation are regular costs. Sometimes it is unavoidable to take risks in mining coal, otherwise, you will not be able to earn money for building houses and getting married.If you don't pay the money, will someone else pay it for you?That means oppressing others, which is also risky. Once one realizes the dependence and exchange relationship of life on resources for survival and development, and realizes that the resources needed for the existence of life are not in unlimited supply, nor do they fall from the sky, the illusion of priceless life will become difficult to maintain.The price of life can be calculated. For example, for my own life, I bought serious illness insurance, which is worth 100,000 yuan.If I have a serious illness and need an organ replacement, I can afford it within 100,000 yuan. If it is far beyond my ability to pay, for example, it takes 10 million yuan to be saved, then I will honestly admit that I cannot afford it. My life is not worth ten million.Of course I hope it is worth 10 million, but this is not a question of hope, but a question of ability to pay.It's not that I don't want my life, but that I can't afford this life.If I don't accept this reality, whose pension or living money should I squeeze out?Who let me occupy it? The prevalence of unspoken rules in history, as well as the truth of "cannibalism" revealed in the novel, inevitably makes people suspect that history will go to a "point of no return" in this environment where some or individuals benefit but the whole is necrotic.But until now, history has continued vigorously.What do you think ensures the longevity of history?Is it human conscience, or the birth and perfection of a good system?However, Marx said that productive forces determine the relations of production.So, does this kind of good system "have the final say" on productivity, or does the most violent person "have the final say"? Chinese history has not been "always" vibrant.What we see is a cycle again and again, from rise to collapse, seeing him rise up, see him entertain guests, see his building collapse.The key to the mechanism causing this cycle is the asymmetry between individual interests and overall interests.Individuals benefit but the whole suffers, costs can be passed on, free possession can be obtained, and power can be exploited for personal gain.Good people will not be rewarded well, and evil people will not be rewarded badly, so there are fewer and fewer good people and more and more wicked people. Does the most violent have the final say, or productivity?From the perspective of direct decision-making, of course, the most violent has the final say.The question is, how did the status of the most violent come about?If the slavery is excessive, such as the tyranny of the Qin Dynasty, harsh punishments and harsh laws, excessive search of the people and conscripting labor, making the people miserable, not only the logistics supply problem, the army morale problem, the opponents and potential enemies are all over the world, the most violent position It is difficult to maintain.In this sense, productivity has a major impact on the formation of institutions, indirectly affecting the making or revision of rules by influencing the costs and benefits of rulers and their decisions. You were a farmer when you were young, and you were also a farmer's "official"—the deputy secretary of the brigade in the People's Commune.However, it is this special life experience of learning from Dazhai but failing to make you think about problems in history.I am very interested in your "origin". At the moment when the "three rural issues" are concerned and need to be solved, what do you think about the rural and peasant issues?Is there any difference in your eyes between the farmers' problems in the people's communes before and the farmers' problems now?In your opinion, what efforts are needed to solve the farmers' problems? The problem of peasants in the period of the People's Commune was mainly the problem of peasants not working.More work is not more rewarding, so I slowed down.Today's farmers' problems are mainly the problem of farmers not being able to find work. It is difficult to find a job that pays more for more work outside. No matter how much work is put into the farmland, it is difficult to earn more. Although it cannot be said that there is no way out for agriculture itself, the way out for agriculture is indeed not great. People already have enough to eat, and there are already enough people working in agriculture. Compared with the prices of foreign agricultural products, the prices of Chinese agricultural products have not risen much. It is true that this small road cannot accommodate hundreds of millions of surplus laborers.Therefore, the fundamental way out to solve the three rural issues is the urbanization of the countryside. Farmers move to the cities, greatly reducing the number of farmers and making them urbanites, workers, employees of the tertiary industry, and so on.This process must take time, step by step, and a virtuous circle of expanding purchasing power—expanding the market—increasing employment opportunities—increasing income—and expanding purchasing power. The question is, has the government set up obstacles in terms of providing employment opportunities and in terms of peasants entering cities?I see obstacles.It is difficult to set up a company, with arbitrary fees and credit card requirements. It cannot provide a fair and cheap judicial environment, making it difficult for enterprises to survive, make profits, and expand reproduction, thus making it difficult to provide more employment opportunities.Every step is so difficult. Taken together, the way for farmers to go out is blocked and the speed is slowed down.Of course, there are many other reasons, but this reason has a strong artificial color, and also has serious moral flaws and system flaws, and it is easier to correct it.However, to solve this problem, it is necessary for the people to control the government more and more effectively, so that they can truly control their own destiny. This step cannot be avoided in the end.The dynasties of all dynasties have not bypassed it, and there are many lessons learned from the past.