Chapter 5 Chapter Five Formation of Capitalist Ideological System
Judging from the above chapters, when capitalism develops in a country, the human factors must go through a period of drastic changes, and then the past agricultural social regulation can be replaced by the new commercial regulation.In other words, this means that the whole country has entered the stage of numerical management, and since then various internal factors have been generally subject to financial manipulation.
With these examples, in addition to the definition given to capitalism (Chapter 4), we can still review the assumptions made before (Chapter 1), and list the necessary conditions for the evolution of capitalism in history as follows:
Capitalism unfolds historically as an organization and as a movement.If it wants to exist in a country, it must achieve a wide circulation of funds, the employment of managers regardless of field, and the full utilization of technical support factors (such as transportation, communication, insurance, and the employment of lawyers, etc.).Once this situation is opened, the passage of credit must be guaranteed by the legal system, and then ownership and employment can form a large network, and it will become bigger and bigger, until the social and economic system of the people and the state are mutually external and internal.
Such a view includes the idea of a "whole" that capitalism possesses as a whole, that it can run smoothly and become irreversible in a country because it is recognized by the judicial power, and its sub-organizations All factors may be fairly and freely exchanged.
This is true for actual development, but not necessarily so for the formation of ideas and theories.Readers must understand that many major events in history surpass the personal experience of the people at the time. It is impossible for the people of the time to see the overall situation, plan ahead, form a blueprint and then complete it according to the plan.Most of the time, it is the individual who only faces local problems, adapts to the situation and pushes the boat along the way.It was only when the situation became clear that later generations inferred the actions of the predecessors from the outside world, and they formed a huge organization and movement in history.The formation of capitalism lasts continuously, unfolds in each country, even spans centuries, and overlaps with other human factors, so it is not easy to form a system of thought in advance.
Therefore, to explore the composition of the capitalist ideological system, we can only find various original ideas from the writings of the people at that time, and connect and patch them up.I suggest starting this chapter along the following lines:
(1) Focus on England in the seventeenth century. In the 17th century, Britain was one of the most important countries in Western Europe.It already had a good agricultural base (which Venice did not have at the time), and a national legal system (which the Dutch Republic did not have), so it entered the capitalist system, creating a prototype (prototype), which thereafter gave other The influence of the state is profound.Even in forming an ideological basis on the side, British writers are the most active.Whether they were distributing political leaflets or writing monographs before and after the Civil War, their words were all related to the current situation.That day was not considered a justification for promoting capitalism.However, if they are connected together, the traces are obvious. It can be seen that this kind of historical organization and movement is called capitalist, and it has the support of the ideological world, and the predecessors lead the descendants, and the descendants expand the opinions of the predecessors.Therefore, this chapter takes the writings of the British ideological circle in the 17th century as the mainstream, in order to cooperate with the actions of this country, but does not reject other speeches, and the important ones are still included in abstracts.
(2) Theories from the 18th century and beyond are included separately so as not to confuse them with the subject.According to the analysis of facts, Britain had already entered a capitalist society before and after the Glorious Revolution (see Chapter 4 for details).The ideas behind such organizations and movements have also matured, and in the personal aspect can be represented by Locke, which is the subject of this chapter. Comments since the 18th century came after capitalism had matured. For example, Adam Smith emphasized the importance of the laissez-faire policy within the scope of capitalism and criticized Britain's handling of the colonies at that time.Marx’s exposure of the legacy of capitalism after the Industrial Revolution and his re-evaluation of capitalism with materialist dialectics are outside the above themes.And because sociology was valued at the beginning of the 20th century, it attracted Weber and Sombart to use new methods to review capitalism.Although the opinions of the above people may make us have a different view of capitalism than before, they are only commentators rather than creators and promoters. There is a big difference.As for the defense of capitalism in Western countries after the East-West Cold War, this has already been mentioned at the beginning of this book, and it will be reviewed at the conclusion later, and it does not belong to the scope of this chapter.
(3) From the standpoint of technology, arrange the materials before the 17th century according to the time sequence, and focus on three stages.In general, the emergence of a capitalist society must first create a high-level structure of a country and a new low-level structure in society, and then rebuild or reorganize institutional links.This is not necessarily the case for the actual implementation of capitalist organizations and movements.There are discrepancies among the various texts on theories, but their respective tendencies to the above three topics are extremely obvious.We should also pay attention to these three stages as the basis for our analysis and review.
Under the above premise, when we mention capitalism in history, we have to start with the Florentine author Machiavelli in the early 16th century.When this person wrote the book, Western Europe had not yet completely shed the color of the Middle Ages, and Martin Luther had not launched the religious reform movement. It would be ridiculous to say that Machiavelli is the founder of capitalism.However, he emphasized materialism when the Renaissance reached its climax, and used metaphors in his masterpiece "The Prince" (The Prince), repeatedly pointing out that the head of a country has the obligation to maintain the safety of the people under him, and the people's attention Safety is nothing more than life and property, so his intention is in line with the above-mentioned purpose of severely damaging the high-level structure at the time of the transition from the old to the new.It’s just that such a high-level structure was formed, and people’s lives and properties had to be protected. The social image it produced could not be expected by people including Machiavelli in the early 16th century.
With today's historical perspective, we can see that this high-level structure is independent externally and guarantees liberty internally. After a long period of evolution, it is impossible to have nothing to do with representative politics and capitalism in the future.
Historically, Machiavelli was a troublemaker, with his critics seeing him as an open advocate of political insidiousness and disregard for conscience.There is a saying in modern society called "end justifies means" (end justifies means), which can also be said to be pioneered by Machiavelli.
Machiavelli was born in 1469, at a time when Italy was "falling apart".The northwest corner is the territory of Venice and its mainland, the north is Milan, the midwest is Florence, and the peninsula is divided into north and south across the center, which is the territory of the Pope.Further south is the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, including Sicily and the southern part of the Italian peninsula.But these five units have not completely divided Italy, and there are still many small units in each unit.Due to the unstable political situation, mercenaries from Germany (known as the Holy Roman Empire), France, Spain, and Switzerland often invaded and participated in the civil war, and the people were deeply poisoned.Machiavelli was born in a famous family, but his family was in decline, but he still served as the security secretary of Florence with his own ability, and went to various countries and the Holy See as a diplomat. In 1512, Florence had another coup, and Machiavelli resigned. , and was detained for a time, and after he was released from prison, he lived in the countryside and wrote books. Both "On Kings" and "Discourses of the First Ten Books of Livy" were completed in 1513.
The so-called "King" refers to the heads of various political regions in Italy, including the Pope.Machiavelli believes that in addition to protecting their own interests, they should also make the people under their rule safe and secure, and at the same time be able to improve their industries.However, it is better for a monarch to be loved than to be feared. "Because love is maintained by a chain of obligations. Human beings are selfish, and the chain can be broken at any time when it suits their intentions, but fear exists because of the fear of punishment, and it can never be lost."
Therefore, the author of this book believes that when the superiors obtain and consolidate the political power, they should use all means, such as murder, deceit, credit without virtue, and blame subordinates, as long as it is suitable for the time.What the monarch should respect is not morality, but prudence; not honor, but power.The point is that the monarch should not concentrate on doing good things, but should be prepared to do bad things. "Because it is difficult to save a country without doing bad things. He may find that some things that seem moral can only bring him down; things that seem bad can greatly increase his safety and make him happy." .”
In Machiavelli's "The King", there are few religious matters, only one where he said that some people believe that everyone's misfortune and fortune are arranged by God, and human beings cannot change their situation.He admits that "sometimes I tend to be partial to this kind of thinking".But he also believes that fate can determine half of the human condition, and free will determines the other half.In this respect he displays an atheistic tendency.He also believes that human beings cannot get rid of their inferiority, such as adding a fatalist judgment to the "original sin" of human beings taught by Judaism and Christianity.The crux of it is human greed. "It is easy for a man to forget the death of his father, but it is not easy to forget the inheritance he did not get." This can be said to be the development of materialism to the extreme, and it also paves the way for future utilitarianism (such as good or bad is determined by profit and harm).
"On Kings" is still one of the must-read books for some college students in the United States, and its popularity is self-evident.However, since Shakespeare (at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries), few people have attacked the author of this book for concealing good and promoting evil.Most readers can see the positive significance of "The King" from a technical point of view.They were informed that the author did not expect the book to become a bestseller for public reading, but had written it privately to present the new head of Florence, known to the world as "Lorenzo the Magnificent" (Lorenzo the Magnificent).The purpose of entering the book is to hope to get an official position.Judging from later developments, Machiavelli's hope has never been fulfilled, and Lorenzo may not have read the book. "On Kings" was copied in private and published in 1532, the author had died 5 years ago.
The private purpose of Machiavelli's writing has come to naught, and later generations appreciate that he has inadvertently and truly written human characters, exposing the true meaning of political life. As the author said, what he wrote is not what "should" be, Rather it is.Moreover, comparing "On Kings" with "Explanation of Li Wei's Ten Books", it can be seen that Machiavelli was a patriot.He hated the slaughter of Italy, blaming it on Christianity, which advocated modesty, taught people to be weak, and did not pay attention to things in the world.These remarks also represent the resentment of many intellectuals in Western Europe on the eve of the Reformation (4 years after the completion of Machiavelli's two books, that is, in 1517, Luther published his Ninety-five Theses).
Whether this person is good or bad is academically irrelevant.Machiavelli's deep influence on future generations can be seen from the views of an American scholar recently.He emphasized that even at the end of the 20th century, 500 years later, Machiavelli is still "surviving" in the world, "he showed a vitality that few other political thinkers so far can hope for."This is so largely because the Florentine thinker regarded political life as the totality of human life.In fact, other scholars have expressed similar opinions in different terms. For example, another scholar claimed that Machiavelli's writings are condensed in a "universal egoism".In the past, writers often suppressed personal self-interest in the name of morality, but in modern society it is impossible to only call public morality without emphasizing self-interest.And as society evolves, it is even more impossible to put public morality before self-interest in theory. (That is to say, Mencius still called the king as lustful and good, and he is the same as the common people, so why is there any king. It can be seen that the desire of the common people is produced before the standard of the king.)
Machiavelli's political life has many emotional components, such as love and hate, fear and security, ambition and jealousy, honor and contempt.These factors have been brought up again and again in the book "The King".Although these emotional elements are collective in the connotation of political life (for example, the people of Rome hated Antony, and the people of Milan despised their duke), they cannot suddenly emerge collectively, even if they are advocated by leaders and induced by propaganda tools. Ultimately, it must become a social motive and a political force through the enlightenment of the majority. In the 17th century, the British thinker Thomas Hobbes (Thomas Hobbes) pursued that all human political thoughts come from sense (sense) and are stimulated by external objects (see below).Later Locke went a step further to deny innate ideas.Both agree that the so-called social is a collection of individual individuals.Although the subsequent development of the two theories is very different, both theories have an original intention of individualism and egoism.It can also be said that they are all inherited from Machiavelli's original idea, that is, the principles of all political life are all rooted in personal reactions to things.Its first impetus (first cause) is no different from that described in "The King".
Of course, the starting point of such a political philosophy comes from the individual, and the individual’s political response is also the same or similar (the primitive people described by Hobbes and Locke are generally equal, and there is no distinction between nobles and commoners, gentlemen and villains. field).If so, the author of "On Kings" has the same tendency to respect civil rights.If we read "On Kings" carefully, we can see that the author's advocacy of injustice was aimed at the warlords and politicians of the day, and did not involve the kidnapping of civilians and the practice of ravaging the people.Even if political leaders sometimes use psychological tactics to gain the awe of the governed, their main purpose is still to control people's hearts.Locke proposed in the 17th century: If the government is produced by a social contract, its people must at least acquiesce (tacit con. sent).The intentions are the same, both emphasizing that a high-level organization in a country cannot stand alone and exist alone.
In short, although Machiavelli has some points worthy of comment, his position still focuses on protecting the life and property of ordinary people, especially the middle class. There should be no doubts. "On the King" said: "The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they have only a little country around them, they obey the Emperor (Holy Roman Empire) when they want to, and they are not afraid of him or other feudal states nearby. Lords. They are so fortified that anyone knows how troublesome and difficult it must be to subdue them. They have the necessary forts and trenches, enough artillery, and often store in storehouses enough food for a year. , drink, and fuel. Besides, they satisfy the lower classes. They often give them a year's work, without social loss, and the work is the life and the heart of the town, It’s also an industry near where the lower classes live.”
Although the author's theme is still the monarch, when he wrote this paragraph, he pointed out that the local princes, that is, the heads of the park princes, if there is such a city in the territory, they should live with such a city, because the enemy is against him. Be sure to attack hard with violent divisions.What he failed to explain was that the future military and political power was not in the Holy See, nor in the villages controlled by feudal lords, but in the cities.Free cities in the Middle Ages were not directly controlled by feudal lords, citizens had autonomy, and internal management was based on industrial and commercial regulations, which already had a capitalist tendency. Machiavelli emphasized that the ideal state of these free cities has replaced The foundation of capitalism was laid in the future, but he did not expect that the scale of such a free city would even expand in the future and become the basic organizational principle of a modern state. It not only developed in the countryside, but also extended to the territory of the Holy Roman Empire. .
Directly citing Machiavelli's ideas to capitalism is today's CB Macpherson (CB Macpherson).His book points out that the author of "The Prince" has accepted the Italian urban bourgeoisie as the main elements of capitalism, and their capital is chattel.McGregor also pointed out that in the 17th century, James Harrington (below) in England believed that the gentry (gentry) who owned land outside the feudal system were also supporters of capitalism, and they even brought real estate into the within the capitalist system.
As mentioned earlier, we believe that capitalism can work in a country, but its credit system must be guaranteed by the judicial power, and then the free exchange of various things in its low-level structure will not be affected. Still debatable.From the perspective of history, we are afraid that the widespread use of this term will not preserve its characteristics as an organization and a movement.If the term loses its integrity, it will inevitably involve more irrelevant things between China and foreign countries, ancient and modern. It is neither easy to review itself, nor can it make a meaningful connection with Chinese history.But as McPherson reminded, both Machiavelli and Harrington's works tend to be summarized into capitalism. The former focuses on industrial and commercial wealth, and the latter includes agricultural wealth.
Harrington's The Commonwealth of Oceana appeared in 1656, 134 years later than The Prince, during which the feudal system in Western Europe had already collapsed, and the capitalist social system had not yet been organized.This is so because the two dispositions of private property are diametrically opposed.When the former was in its prime, land could not be bought and sold at all, while in the latter, all human beings who could be called bourgeois (including movable and immovable property) and laborers (including labor and labor) could exchange money as a medium.Since the organization of its society is like this, the top institutions of its state must also undergo drastic changes.In England, where the king and parliament and courts hold these principles, they cannot be immune to impact.At the same time, before the Reformation, the Catholic Church controlled a large amount of land and collected tithes from the people.The Tudor dynasty even confiscated the property of the monastery and sold it. The king still controlled most of the country's wealth, and he was still responsible for the finances through his personal relationship.So far these phenomena still exist, and no one can guarantee that all the wealth of this country can be exchanged fairly and freely.When the Stuart dynasty was captured, the king's income was already insignificant, and the objective conditions for Britain to enter capitalism were mature.However, at this time, we still have to wait for a legal review of the issue of kingship before we can talk about "implementing a new system."
Considering the historical facts, the monarchs of Western Europe can be regarded as transformed from Germanic chiefs before the Middle Ages, and they all went through the election process, so they are also limited by the customary laws of the tribes in theory.However, after countless battles and hereditary inheritance, the above procedures can only be regarded as folk custom.At the beginning of the feudal system, there was no substantial difference between the king and other lords, but their jurisdiction was surrounded by border areas (marches) as a backdrop, so the terrain was relatively fixed, and their independent character was more obvious.They still maintain a contractual relationship with their entourage.But in the late feudal period, their domain has shrunk a lot.For example, the territory of the French king in the 11th century was less than 1/10 of today's France.The territory of the King of Aragon in Spain was less than 1/5 of that of Spain today.Although the kingdom of the British king is relatively broad, and he is nominally the vassal of the French king, it has also been reduced a lot.In today's Germany, five dukes proclaim themselves kings during the decline of the Holy Roman Empire, and their jurisdiction is even narrower now.In this fragmented situation, Christianity has become an external force to unite the West.No wonder the pope and papal theorists vigorously advocate that the church also holds some secular power, and even advocate that God grants all power to the pope, and that the laws of the church are higher than the laws of the secular.The authority in the world, because they are all Christians, should also be rectified by the Holy See.
Although this theory could give the Pope the upper hand in a short period of time in the late Middle Ages, it could not constitute a permanent system.Afterwards, currency was widely used, and professional soldiers replaced traditional warriors. Itinerant judges and their entourages became paid bureaucrats. The kings of various countries expanded their territories, and dynastic states gradually transformed into nation-states. In the fourteenth century the Italian Marsillio of Padua had already sketched the outlines of an all-powerful modern state in his pamphlets.His so-called separation of church and state is to advocate a new system and overthrow the style of the Middle Ages.He believes that monks only have the function of preaching, and they can only be regarded as members of the country, and the source of all kinds of power is the people.Martin Luther's religious reform also had some nationalist character.For example, he published a pamphlet in 1520 called "Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation" (English translation is Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation), calling for the Germans to be the masters of religious matters in Germany. At the end of the 16th century, there was a French theorist, Jean Bodin.The modern nation-state he imagined is based on the power of the head of state. Under the condition of not violating the laws of nature and not infringing on private property, legislation can be made to change social customs, and the past rules are not enough to shackle the new scale.In this way, the subjects led by the head of state can practice different religions and use different languages (until the time of Louis XIV, the French could not be said to speak today's French).
From the above data, it can be seen that by the time James I came from Scotland to England as King of England in the early 17th century, the concept of the title of king had fallen into a dangerous point of divergence.Theorists can trace back to the traditions of the Germanic nation about 1,000 years ago. They can also stand in the Middle Ages and believe that the imperial power is protected by the church, or they can follow the theories of modern writers. From the new perspective on natural laws after the Renaissance, they think that the nation-state The head of state can open the situation by itself.James also enjoys another privilege, but also bears a special burden: he is the king of England, and he is also the supreme head of the Church of England.
When the Puritans were preparing to change, James was still advocating the divine right of kings, claiming that "the king is a replica of God breathing in the world", which is out of date.Although he himself died in heaven, his son Charles I died in a different place.But the background of the 17th century convinced James that this was the way to do his duty.Because his throne came from the efforts of his ancestors and his own inheritance.Inheritance obtained by victory or blood at that time was granted by God.But when Charles was defeated and taken prisoner for trial, Cromwell's special court cited a completely different theory: the defendant Charles Stuart, still called King of England, was charged with treason because he was only "endowed With limited authority", it expanded itself into "unlimited authority".Apparently, the theory is still based on the contractual relationship of the feudal system.
If we completely disregard the British tradition of respecting the rule of law, we can say that this kind of sentence is nothing more than a crime, and there is nothing wrong with it.Even if one sympathizes with the Tribunal, the reader of history will feel that the regicides should announce their revolutionary position when they take revolutionary action.With such a background, if we read the book of Hobbes again, we will be able to see the ins and outs of the ideological world.
Hobbes was born in 1588, the year when the Spanish fleet failed to conquer Britain.After entering Oxford University, he was hired as a private teacher for the children of noble families, so he had the opportunity to travel to the European continent for a long time, and met the astronomer Galileo (Galileo).On the eve of the Civil War, he was often in London discussing politics with the literati and philosophers of the day.The pamphlets he wrote were circulated in manuscripts, and their content was different from that of the king's party and the parliamentary party.During the Civil War he fled France and served as Charles II's mathematics teacher.In the government-in-exile, Hochs had already caused much trouble for his views. In 1651, his famous book "Leviathan" was published in London. The entourage of Charles II believed that the book was rehabilitating Cromwell, so he fled back to London from Paris.In addition, Hobbes offended many conservatives because of his atheism.
After returning to England, Hobbes' interests tended to science and psychology. At this time, he met Harvey who discovered blood circulation.After the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, Charles II also restored his status.Legend has it that Charles II first caught a glimpse of Hobbes on the streets of London and took off his hat as a gift. After that, Hobbes was free to enter and leave the court and received an allowance of 100 pounds a year.During the reign of Charles, Hobbes was often attacked, but the king always defended him, and at the same time discouraged him from publishing further troublesome works.Hobbes was over 91 years old when he died in 1679, but a few months before his death he still published a book on the English Civil War, which criticized both the king's faction and the parliamentary faction.
Although there are many books written by Hobbes, none of them last as long as "Giant".The genie referred to in this book is the state, which is an "artificial man".The author starts from the physiological and psychological state of people.Feelings, imaginations, judgments, passions; thoughts, resolutions, manners, religion.At first glance, this is similar to the levels of "investigation of things, extension of knowledge, sincerity, righteousness, self-cultivation, family harmony, state governance, and peace of the world" advertised by Chinese political philosophers.However, Chinese philosophers have been exposing the concept of an "ethical man" from the beginning who "wanted to show his virtue to the world", while Hobbes appealed to reality.He said: "An object operates in people's eyes and ears, and produces forms. If it operates in multiple directions, it will produce multiple forms." He also said: "Good or bad comes from people's likes and dislikes. And change, they do not have their own absoluteness." In fact, love and hatred are also different movements, love is to get close to it, and hatred is to avoid it.In this way, there is no good or bad ethics in the world, only the movement of approaching or moving away.In this way, human feelings, emotions and thoughts are generated from the displacement of bodies relative to one another.So politics is based on psychology, psychology is based on physics, and physics is based on geometry.This point of view expresses Hobbes' interest in science, and all principles have a prior principle as the basis.On the other hand, he also said that he had seen through Britain in the mid-17th century, and all past political theories were out of date.Instead of searching for historical evidence and trying to justify ourselves, it is better to change the course and create a new world, and treat human beings as a machine first.The standpoint he adopted was scientific materialism, and he also used the deductive method entirely.
Hobbes believed that all human beings are mechanically made, so they have the same character and equal capacity.The so-called equal capacity means that when adapting to the environment, its height is not enough to cause fatal injuries.He said: "Nature has made the body and the mind so equal that even if one man's body is sometimes visibly stronger than another's, or his mind is quicker than another's, the difference is not so great when viewed as a whole. Yes, great. It's not that one person can claim special status and the other can't. Even if the body is different, the weakest may use secret tricks, or combine other weak ones-they are also at risk environment—the strongest can still be put to death.”
This kind of people with the same character and equal capacity laid the foundation for the principle of free exchange of various factors in the understructure of capitalist society in the future.There is no feudal authoritarian hegemony, with armed as a foil, nor is it like the idealists who first use people's virtuous and foolish as the background.Some historians have argued that Hobbes's political ideas were suitable for "middle-class liberal purposes".
Capitalism not only wants to form a large network of ownership and employment, but as it grows bigger and bigger, it will inevitably encourage ordinary people to be enterprising in business.Hobbes presupposes such a possibility.He said: "In my opinion, human beings have a common tendency. They are always pursuing power endlessly and endlessly until they die. This is not only beyond the existing, but must find a higher level of happiness. , or a moderate degree of power must not satisfy it. But unless a person has more, he cannot be sure that the existing conditions and capabilities of adequate food and clothing are within his grasp."
"Giant" explains human psychology with the principle of "whatever moves is always moving and what is still is always static" in physics. Now that the trend of "the few people have diseases, the few people have good goods" has become a movement, it cannot be stopped.Hobbes's theory is active rather than static, which has a huge gap with the economic thought since the Middle Ages that all numbers should remain unchanged.So even though Hobbes didn't know what capitalism was, he had already got the spirit of capitalism in his writing.
Because of this, such primitives are often in a state of dangerous restlessness.Since all people have the same power, they must hold the same hope and pursue the same things, but they don't intend to stop when enough is enough, so they can only compete with each other, suspect each other, and sometimes cause vanity.First of all, they intend to invade and use violence to achieve the purpose of seizing, making themselves the masters of others, and driving others' bodies, wives, children, and livestock.At the same time, they have to grasp vested interests and defend their own reputation. They often offend their relatives and friends and hurt their self-esteem because of a disagreement, an inappropriate smile, or a contemptuous remark, and become deadly enemies.Up to this point, Hobbes still refuses to denounce the above-mentioned people as bad people and what they did as bad things.He also put forward lightly: "Since it is necessary for human beings to continue to survive, such an approach of dominating others by dominion should be allowed to do so."
But the consequences of this aggression also befall the aggressor himself. "Thus man finds no benefit in association with another, but unwarranted misery, for no power can tame fear in all."
This imaginary state of anarchy, "all fighting against all," is still far from being fair or unfair, because in this primitive state, public power has not yet been produced, and there is neither government nor law. , neither rule nor fairness.In combat situations, only strength and deceit count.But the result is: "Under these conditions no industry can arise, because the fruits are not guaranteed, and therefore there will be no culture in the world, nor sea traffic, nor sea goods, nor spacious buildings, nor means of transport, because These things require the support of large-scale force. Therefore, there is no knowledge about the earth, no talent for timekeeping, no art, no literature, no society. The most terrible thing is boundless fear, and the danger of murderous death, human beings life is nothing but solitude, poverty, meanness, brutality, and shortness."
Has human history really gone through such a stage?Why is there no such record?If we raise such a question, it can be said that we have not grasped Hobbes' intention.His overall design can be said to negate historical experience. In the final analysis, the chaos in England in the 17th century was due to the fact that the progress of society stood out from history, so that there was no example to help.The king's style is certainly illegal, and the various methods proposed by the Presbyterians in Parliament and the Independents in Cromwell's army lack the support of traditional habits.Since we want to recreate the theory of the political system, we might as well imitate the natural sciences as the blueprint of the social sciences according to the time.The title of his book is Giant Spirit, a fictitious person, which shows that he has always used his own imagination and logic as the basis for his arguments.The greatest strength of Hobbes' writing is not in his humanist situation, but in the thoroughness required when he proposes transformation.Since he takes human selfishness as the basis of his political life, his negative factors must first be negative to the extreme, and then his positivity becomes obvious and powerful.
It is mentioned in "Giant" that the people organize the country and the government in a social contract because they want to avoid tragic death and boundless fear.Every citizen gave up part of the original unlimited freedom, so the so-called state came into being.The supreme sovereignty of the country is granted to one person or a group of people, which is the "giant".He (or they, the same below) is not a signatory to the National Convention, but an executor.He accepts the entrustment of all the people (as long as a majority agrees), and represents them with a collective character against the individual.He enjoyed the title of highest honor and had undivided legislative power.His will becomes law, not itself subject to law.Because his task is to maintain law and order, he must have the ability to judge and explain everything.Once such an arrangement is made, it cannot be changed and will remain in effect forever.
On the face of it, this statement seems inconsistent.This aspect is due to the eccentric character of the author.Regardless of people's inconsistencies and the ever-changing personalities, Hobbes insisted on writing the organization of the state and society as a science when the situation was in turmoil and the country's affairs were not settled. Therefore, every word and sentence of "Giant" is firm and uncompromising.But if you look carefully at the English word sovereign, it turns out that it is the supreme sovereign, but after he mentioned it, it became a general manager. "It is impossible for him to hurt any of his subordinates, and his subordinates should not accuse him of being unfair, because he is ordered by his people to act, and it is impossible to hurt his people."后，在处理公众之事时丝毫不表现各人个性及本身利益，即像代议政治成熟时之议会，它本身即系一切生命财产之集团，于理也不能侵犯其生命财产。作者虽强调国家主权人之意志即成为法律，这却不是说立法可以仓卒为之或恣意为之。他的书中又有一节提及：“民法与自然法（natural law）并非二物，它们不外为同一法律之两个部分。其为成文法者为民法，其不成文者为自然法。”他又写出：“法律颁布于人间，没有旁的用意，只不过限制某些人原始之自由，使他们不伤害旁人，而能互相合作，对付共同的敌人。”这句话表示立法总是将一个负因素加诸一个负因素之上，是不得已而为之。如筑堤原为防止河水之泛滥，当然不能随处乱筑。国家最高主权人在人民，授权委托他办事时必早已明了此宗旨。所以他既要防止过度的使用自由，又不能过度的防止。他本人在立法上之自由，乃技术上之自由，他可以在很多细微末节上把规章订好。
国家体制订定之后，不得任意改变，也是基于既称宪法则不得朝令夕改之意。人民有服从最高主权人之义务，后者相对而有保护他们之义务。这保护力量失效之时，也是服从终止之日。如果最高主权人放弃他的政府，也不留下继承人，则国家解散，全民恢复到以前的绝对自由或无政府状态。这样不正常之事当然不能令之经常发生。除了这些条件之外，霍布斯也提出有野心的英雄人物、庞大的专业市镇，和专利铸币也都是国家之虑。所以纵使他书中写下很多绝对而肯定的字语，他政治哲学上的重点仍是放任政策。这一点早经不少有识之士指出。一个现代学者写着：“霍布斯轮廓鲜明的个人主义使他的学说成为当日最有革命性的哲学，他之赞成君主制度，不过是表面文章。”
《巨灵》的作者不容许教皇和僧侣与国家最高主权人分权，他指出神权由于人类的迷信，但宗教也不能完全不要，它可以导人为善。只是崇拜的仪式由国家指定，国民在形式上都要依样奉行，他们心目中信与不信，是自己的事。“信心系神之所赐，凡人也无法以赏罚而增益之。”所以霍布斯论宗教时属于“伊拉斯图派”（Erastian），亦即宗教没有本身之价值，教会只替国家服务。
霍布斯是否为资本主义的急先锋和创始者？这也要看我们给资本主义的定义而定。如果我们认为资本主义纯系一种思想上的系统，其范围不过是一种意识形态，甚至像有些学者的主张，资本主义以存积资本为人生之目的，则霍布斯不能为之。因为他认为，人类的意图乃根据动者恒动的原则，已有一种得陇望蜀之趋势，虽已丰衣足食，仍怕明日衣食之未周，因之才拚命努力，由互相竞争而动手厮杀，以至造成一个“所有人和所有人作战”的局面。则他的学说分明在防止这不合理之趋向，而不是鼓励其继续发展。这也就是说他的立场仍是道德和伦理，而非纯粹之经济。
可是我们认为，历史上的资本主义既有思想，也包括一种组织与运动，而且要通过法制，所存资本才能累积。同时私人资本经过如此之安排，在社会产生服务性质（这也是本书采取之观点），则霍布斯有极大的贡献。只是在确定这观点之前，我们务必看清他著书时英国社会的情势，而且把他时人的见解拿来一并分析。
表面看来，霍布斯之著作包括《巨灵》及《政府论》（De Cive），纯系私人意见。内中虽提及若干历史例证，也是随性所至，其引用心理学部分，也是初次尝试。倘使当日之人未能重视他的才华，霍布斯即无从树立他在思想史上的地位。而实际上霍氏并未被忽视。一方面《巨灵》一书中，坚持国王的名位在原始时代已是由人民选举，国家最高主权人不会做错事，纵使犯错也只是对神负责而不对臣下负责。所以在议会派看来，他实在是替专制皇权张目。而另一方面他也说及，最高主权可以属于一人，也可以属于一群人，而最高主权人不能保护人民之日，也是人民离弃他之时，又像是赞成清教徒的革命，替克伦威尔捧场，因此也不能讨好保皇党。如此一来他两头生事，倒替自己造成一个在学术上孤独的地位。
按其实，当查理一世被弑，克伦威尔不由自主地做了一个独裁者，而查理二世虽然主持了斯图亚特王朝的复辟，却发觉王位的意义已非昔比。这些情形表现英国国家体制正在激变，没有人能阻止这种改变，甚至没有人能掌握这大规模的更革。霍布斯在这国家没有主宰，人情惶惑的时代创造新论，其功用不在当日，而在未来。他在书中制造了一个全能的大怪物，不仅满足个人的幻想，巨灵更可以解释为一个具有经济性格的现代政府。
据估计，17世纪英国半数以上的男子以当佣工度日，如果将半佣工一并算入，被雇的人可能为全体男子数之2／3。因此社会上对市场经济的变化至为敏感。斯图亚特王朝对工资及物价的干涉，主旨在防止失业。只是当日法制未备，全国性的商业组织尚未就绪，政府所能控制者尤其有限，往往心有余而力不足。而且更可能因干涉而使局势更坏，以致到处失却人心。时人没有历史上的经验，总以为问题可以局部解决。第一次及第二次内战之间，克伦威尔军中已有所谓“均平主义者”（Level-lers）出现。他们散布传单提倡自由平等，着重英国人之人身权利（Englishman's birthright），要求开放选举。他们的理论则是一个人纵没有身外的财产，他的人身既为生产者，则此人也应当被当作资产者看待。有些均平主义者着重劳动力也是一种商品，与现代马克思主义者所说相同。不过他们又是个人主义者，在政治上主张除了仆役乞丐依人而生存者外，凡人都应有选举权。克伦威尔则以为这种说法和做法，已威胁一般人所谓之资产而严格取缔。全民选举（universal suffrage或universal manhood suffrage）是近世纪的一般趋势。它根据一种民主的原则：大凡一个政府统辖全民，虽被辖者为一夫一妇，也应当由这匹夫匹妇出面承认这统辖之体制。可是在17世纪的英国，经济基层的组织尚未就绪，存积资本尚待展开，民智仍为闭塞，交通通信条件又不具备。此时即倡言一个赤裸裸的人体在社会上应享有某种权利，纵在哲学上和人道主义上言之合理，其在代议政治的程序中却难融洽。所以也难怪克伦威尔对这种说法嗤之以鼻。同时我们亦可看出，一种政治思想能否被接受，其本身好坏不说，时机（timing）也是值得注意的因素。
较均平主义者更激进者为“掘地者”（Diggers）。这名词起于1649年，当时有主张全部废止私人财产者，其人数不多，大概只数十或百人，聚集在伦敦之南的塞瑞（Surrey）擅自发掘公地，播种作物，准备经营一年，以收获接济贫民，并且声称，这运动一展开，必会将全部英国土地做得无法私有。掘地者不久即为当地军警和地主人众驱逐，以后也未再生事端，只是他们的文字已广泛流传。其中有一小册子称：“不应当有领主或地主站在旁人之头上。世间应为全人类之男儿女儿而存在，使他们自由而生存。”因之掘地者被称为共产主义者（communists）。他们的思想来源不出自现代经济，而出自圣经。他们的宗旨不仅过激，而且带着乌托邦思想。个人财产权固然足以造成贫富悬殊的现象，也足以沦为弱肉强食的工具，可是国家与社会之管制又无所凭籍来否定它。英国在17世纪中期已有如是过激派出现，并非此等人士带有远见，而只表现封建制度崩溃已久，当中一个青黄不接之时代延续了两三个世纪，至此已山穷水尽。英国之输出大宗为羊毛，与农业攸关，有时也由外输入谷物，因之更受国际性的经济力量激荡，如此不安的局面迫使当日知识分子四处寻觅新途径。可是右派加强宗教力量和提倡君权神授等等说法既已搁浅，而左派之全民平等废止私人财产又不切实际，则历史上之资本主义的来临，已经在客观上具备了一个无可避免的趋势。除非国家与社会都采取一种较坚韧之组织，否则不能产生适时应变的能力，去对付一个千变万化的国际经济力量。这种组织基于内中各种因素，都能公平而自由的交换，前已言之。要使其如此，则不能再放弃私人财产权，只有更加强私人财产权。
《巨灵》出书之日，距查理一世受刑及掘地者滋事才两年。这书中已有这样的倾向。霍布斯提议创造一个在立法上全能的高层机构。以下我要指出这高层机构的功能带着浓厚的经济性格。这两者在当时都是推陈出新，彼此都算是打开局面。
霍布斯书中论及经济的部分，没有他论述政治组织的一部分之爽快利落，而且有前后矛盾之处。这一方面固然表现作者主要兴趣不在此，一方面也由于他过于注重他思想体系之完整，有时将他自己的主见与学理上的必然趋势混为一谈。比如说他早已提到法律只在必要时制订，旨在防止人民彼此侵犯，法律不及处则仍为人民之自由。他在论人民之自由的一章里也写出：“下属之自由限于以下各种事物，亦即最高主权人规定他们之行动时预为留下的事物，如买卖、互定合同、选择自己的居处、自己的饮食、自己的职业和他们认为合适的方式教育子女等。”他在下文又说人民之自由尚包括防卫自己人身之手段。
照字面看来，人民既能自由买卖、互立契约，则必先有财产所有权。可是霍布斯的看法并非如此，财产之所有权也仍是国家所制定。这也就是说在初民时期，尚未产生最高主权人时，并无所谓私人财产。“在没有选出一个强制执行的权力之前，既没有国家，也没有财产，即所有的人都有权领取盈天下的事物。”（原文中propriety系中古英文，与property同，此处称财产。）
这样一来，则前后文发生互相牵制的作用了。人民可以自由买卖、互定契约，只是一种抽象的权力，他们原则上可以以所有易所无，但是何者为其所有，何者为其所无，仍由政府决定。
古今中外学者提到所有权之最初来源，都有一个“天生万物以养人”的说法，霍布斯也不例外。他先把这万物解释为人类的“营养”（nourishment）。“上帝通常或无代价地赐给人类，或收取劳力卖与人类。”所谓上帝收取劳力，将营养卖与人类，显然的即是“劳力价值论”（labor theory of value），这理论为中古以来学者间常提及，也是以后古典派经济学家（classicaieconomists）常用之辞。我们在下节讲到洛克时还要说到。这里要指出的，是霍布斯并没有承认服行劳力之人有立即取得成品的所有权。以上所说人类都是集体性格，也还是初民状态，亦即国家成立之前。此后社会契约一行，最高主权人有一桩首要任务，即为分配资源（distribution of material）。霍布斯认为全民可以三种不同方式分得资源。有些人获得“一部分土地”，有的则以“少数的商品”或“在某种技能上的自然财产”（natural property in some useful art）取代，最后一项无非劳动力。但是用以与上帝做生意，耕耘则得麦粟，锻炼则收取铜铁，所以也算“分”得一部分“自然财产”。他在另一段提出：“一个人的劳力也是一种商品，可以和旁的东西一样换取有用之事物。有些国家除了居住地之外再无领土，却不仅能保持其权威，而且扩而大之，一方面由于它们使用劳力在各处贸易，一方面由于将他处资源输入制为成品发卖。”
从这些文字看来，作者有意保持现状，而在现状下固定私人财产权。在提及土地之分配的一段，霍布斯的态度更明显。他说：“最高主权人分配土地时每人一分，他不以任何下属的意见或任何数目之下属的意见认为公平与否而左右。他（自己）决定是否公平，以及是否合于全体的利益。”关于英国之土地，他认为“征服者威廉”（William the Conqueror）（1066年由法国征服英国）曾作此分配。
看到这里，读者已不免发问：霍布斯的立案无非“士农工商各安本业”，土地所有权则追溯到11世纪的根源上去，他为何不照此直说，兜一个大圈子，最后并没有提出任何开创性见解？这一方面固然由于作者拘泥于他的“科学”体裁。他坚持每一项历史事迹都可以用他的公式去“证明”。另一方面则征服者威廉划分的土地原为封建格式，一般不能买卖，执有者为陪臣，对领主服有无偿的义务，至此已近600年，当中经过无数合法与不合法的易手，内战前后又有退佃改业没收赎还等等情节（详第四章），所有权在法律上早成问题，很多人已指出当中的不公平为一切问题之渊薮。他们指出威廉夺取人民的耕地赏给他的陪臣，所形成的地主几百年后仍用佃租奴役农夫。内战即为一种革命，则应该在此时将此桎梏除去。霍布斯站在保障私人财产的立场，力争所有权之合法。他提出威廉以征服者的地位，原有权将地产全部没收，他让不少业主保持他们的家庭，也可以算为一种分配。至于公平与否由他作主，也不容旁人置喙。全国所到之处，即产生营养的功效。至此他也引用哈维血液循环之原理，说明国家收入解缴于国库，已由国库外放，经过大动脉，使全身各部分活跃，其功效与血液之循环于人体相似。
英国在光荣革命前后已大致符合上述条件。土地所有权，一般已规律化。土地税虽不能说是“无限制”，但是以面积征收，按国家需要而定，不受过去成例之束缚，是为今后的一般法则。关于财产转手，则采用平衡法补正习惯法之不及，也有成效。1694年英伦银行成立之后，国家赋税之收入也与民间经济相通。而最重要的，此后农业上的财富可以与工商业的财富交流。叙述这一串的情形时，我们不能夸显霍布斯的预言正确，只能说17世纪的英国极需将国家机构合理化（rationalize）。霍布斯是一个“唯理论者”（rationalist），所以他在世纪中叶已掌握这个重点。他虽没有构造一个资本主义社会，但他所想象的国家高层结构已接近其需要。
资本主义的社会亦待司法权来维持。在这一方面的解释，霍布斯着重个人之差异（individual differences）。乍看起来，这和他以前所说所有人品格容量大体相同之说完全相反。其实前面说的是触及人类互相争斗的品性及在生死关头的拼命精神，这样才不相上下。若在平常，人与人之间还是有高低长短之不同。其基本原因，在于个人对外界反应的不同。想象力或敏捷，或迟钝，注视方向可以经恒，也可以短促。这仍是认为人类是一种机械。他对外界事物的关系无非是一种运动。运动则有缓、速，又有久、暂。在不同程度的反应中，产生了圣贤、才智、平庸、愚劣。于是个人有不同的权力。什么是权力？权力无非是现有的媒介和工具，用以获取未来的好处。霍布斯在此处提及过去之成功、名誉、言辞之流利，以及形式之美好（此处他用form，所指为容貌，因为他说这种品质能使男人得到女人及陌生人偏爱），都是权力。他在另一处又问什么是权力？权力乃是获得所欲物品之工具。但是一个人之权力常为另一个人的权力所阻碍，所以究其实，权力之能算数的是超越于旁人权力之外的一部分。又因为各人的好恶不同，社会上有分工合作的办法，于是每个人都有他的价值（worth）。这价值也不是一个绝对的因素，而是旁人要利用他的权力时愿付之代价，所以由旁人之需要及判断而决定。
有了以上各种观念，霍布斯区分司法权之行动为“交换的公平”（commutative justice）及“分配的公平”（distributive jus-tice）。前者以同等的价值交换，其“比例是算术的”，后者将同等的好处分配于有同等功绩的人，其“比例是几何式的”。他又继续解释，分配的公平，亦即是均平（equity）。这样一来，在他所想象的社会，所有价值都是“市场的价值”，全部法庭和民法所谓的公平都离不开一个“市场观念”。
霍布斯的世界没有中庸之道，要不是完全没有秩序，只有人与人互相残杀，就是一体驯服，听命于巨灵，虚构之人。有些作者批评他过于夸大人类的坏性格，未顾及彼此间相互合作相互提携也是一种天性。也有些作家指责他没有看清17世纪社会里的经济冲突并不是一般性的全面冲突，而是社会上某一特殊阶级和另一特殊阶级间之冲突，因之压平这种冲突的全能政权也要在这特殊阶级之间做公正人，而不能笼统地说成是在一个全部纷乱的社会中建立秩序。因为《巨灵》之中有了这些毛病，才引起后人之修正。最先修正者为哈灵顿，他的《海洋国家》出书于1656年，当时克伦威尔尚在人间。
哈灵顿出生于英国贵胄之家，祖先和部铎王朝及斯图亚特王朝都有密切的关系。詹姆士·哈灵顿生于1611年，壮年时遇到内战爆发，英国乾坤颠倒，他之未被卷入漩涡，一方面固然由于他不走极端的个性，一方面也出于命运安排。他在牛津大学未得学位，即决心前往欧洲大陆旅行。初驻足于荷兰，目的在吸收新时代的军事技术，并且一度加入英国人在欧洲的志愿军，而因为英国始终没有在三十年战争中遇到出头的机缘，他从军的目的未遂，倒以空闲之身前往意大利。以后他对威尼斯有相当的景仰，也基于当日旅行的经验。
哈灵顿也曾涉足德、法及丹麦，但是印象不深。他在1638年左右回英国。因为家世背景，被推为英王查理一世之随从，与国王相处极亲密。哈灵顿也曾在英王拟用军事力量削平苏格兰反叛时（详第四章“主教战争”）替查理筹款。可是他在国王与议会冲突时却同情议会，曾两次将款项贷予议会。也有人说他曾希望被提名为议会会员，只是此志未酬。
查理战败，被苏格兰人交给议会派之后，哈灵顿经各方同意，出任被拘禁国王之随从。这样他要经过双方之信任。他很想以这地位在两者之间找到一种妥协方案，却总是事与愿违。哈灵顿虽不在局势暧昧游离之时投机取巧，仍为议会所忌，而且因为他拒绝宣誓不资助国王逃亡，曾被监禁。
虽然他对国王多所维护，而且觉得很多攻击查理之辞与事实不符，可是他自己终身为民国派，无论在何种情形之下，此志不渝。1649年查理被处死之日，哈灵顿一直陪他走到断头台畔诀别，他还说此情此景给他精神上很大打击。可是他亦前后发行不少小册子，其中毫无勤王论调。《海洋国家》未出版时，一度被克伦威尔的政府查禁，由作者往谒独裁者的女儿请她疏通，才与世见面。查理二世复辟，哈灵顿一度入狱，被释之后健康已不如前，虽然晚年结婚，却未再发出任何政治言论。他于1677年逝世。
哈灵顿对马基雅弗利和霍布斯都有批评。比如说马基雅弗利在一个政局运转不周时，动辄斥之为“腐化”。哈灵顿经过一番思考，却指当中之组织可能未如所说。其弊不在一时人事，而可能在整个结构。又如霍布斯所叙，还可以说是替君主专制张目，哈灵顿则张扬共和优于君主。霍布斯所叙之权力牵涉到容貌、语言、过去之成功以及今日之谨慎，总之出入于个人品格之境界。哈灵顿则指出权力出诸刀枪，军事力量又要经济力量支持，因为“军队是一只猛兽，它有硕大无朋的肠胃，经常需要喂养”。他又说：“人依赖富庶之家，不出于选择……而是由于牙齿的需要。人需要面包时，立即成为推食于他们之人的仆从；一个人能如此喂养全民，则他们都为他帝国内之臣属。”
这样看来，他并不是与马基雅弗利及霍布斯对立，而是延长及强化他们的见解。哈灵顿曾谓马基雅弗利为“近代唯一政治家”；霍布斯则是“迄今全世界最优秀的作家”。大概马基雅弗利写作时比较注重当事人之权宜，较未考虑到社会经济的力量。霍布斯则大规模地勾画全体人类之政治生活，作文时气概之磅礴，世无其匹，可是也只注意到各个人之行止，而忽略了他们的集体性格。所以在考究资本主义之思想体系的形成过程中，应该看出一个前人开路，指示大概的方向，后人继续前进，脚踏实地，其立论愈为精密，其现实主义更为露骨的一般趋向。前面已经说过，霍布斯通过《巨灵》之笔画，建议创设一个新的社会高层结构。哈灵顿不主张这高层结构全凭理想，最低限度，要切应于下层的一般需要。
他们两人都未能预料以后有所谓资本主义的名目出现。站在17世纪中叶，他们却有澄清当日局势之宏愿。霍布斯讨论一般原则，对现实还只是若即若离。哈灵顿则毫不犹疑地对克伦威尔治下的英国对症下药。只因恐文字犯忌，他的书也以虚构的体裁写成，但“海洋国家”（Commonwealth of Oceana）是不折不扣的英国，无异纪实，并且内中有些建议，作者还期望克伦威尔能采纳。
《海洋国家》之要旨，是政府之权威必与民间之经济力量互为表里。以英国而言，土地之占有为决定性之因素。如果社会上某一阶级占有土地为全国一半（他称之为“平衡力”［bal-ancd］）或一半以上（他称之为“超平衡力”［overbalance］），则政治力量必落在这阶级手中。英国已经有了一段这样的变化。蔷薇战争（Wars of Roses）以来，亨利七世将大桩地产强制分裂，亨利八世又没收寺产，也在拍卖赏赐时化整为零，于是追至17世纪，英国已产生不少中级地主和小自耕农（yeomanfarmers）。本来控制于政府的权力也早应落入他们手中，只因伊莉莎白以她的手腕延迟这种发展。可是这种趋势终不可免，于是17世纪掀动全国内战。
在哈灵顿看来，一个国家的体制可以是绝对皇权，也可为封建皇权，或共和制，依土地在一人掌握之中，少数人掌握之中或多数人领有之中而定。在他的时代，英国已走上了第三途径。并且政局之妥定，也不是完全被动的视经济条件而转移。大势既决，执政者仍可以从中调节，力求均衡。他建议英国行土地法，限制地产，使每一个家庭由地产所得收入每年不逾2000镑。超过此数，即须分配给各个子孙。
哈灵顿的书中仍包含若干乌托邦的性格，例如作者主张重新安排社会的下层结构，将全民组成教区（parishes）、百家集团（hundreds）及部落（tribes），以为选举立法代表之凭藉，再按他们的贫富编成步兵及骑兵。这些建议虽然没有付诸实施，可是组织选举区及普遍征兵，则是现代国家之一般原则。《海洋国家》也主张草拟成文宪法，政府分权，执权者周流轮转（rotationof office）与秘密投票。这当中有很多特点显然受到威尼斯的影响，经过他的传介，这些影响以后也及于美国。
中国的读者务必看清，《海洋国家》虽然主张限制土地所有之最高额，但与中国的均田有天壤之别。中国之均田、占田或限田，使每家分得50亩至百亩之