Chapter 7 Chapter Seven The French Revolution, the October Revolution in Russia, and the Long Revolution in China

The French Revolution occurred at the end of the 18th century. The Russian October Revolution followed the February Revolution and occurred simultaneously in 1917. The long-term revolution in China has been more than a century so far. Geographical circumstances vary, as do social backgrounds, and the results are of course highly inconsistent.However, from a long-term perspective, the above three movements all occurred in countries with a continental character, and they were all forced to abandon the past system that used agriculture as the standard of the national economy, and adopted a trend of numerical management.

These three countries have encountered many difficulties in the process of reform. Because the agricultural system has been too deep in the past, and political centralization has involved too much, it is not easy to be reborn.The new society presupposes business habits, and its activities are based on the functions of the lower structures.The ancien regime in France, Russia under the tsarist rule, and traditional China could not immediately adapt to the environment, because the existing systems could not produce formulas and rules for free exchange of various economic factors to meet this need.

The plight of these three countries cannot be entirely attributed to the rudimentary organization of the past.They all have flashbacks, showing the specialty of bureaucracy.Louis XIV of France (reigned from 1643 to 1715) claimed to be "I am the country", which shows how successful he was when he was enjoying the country.Catherine II of Tsarist Russia (reigned from 1762 to 1796) and Alexander I (reigned from 1801 to 1825) were both emperors of the "enlightened autocracy" period, and their martial arts and martial arts were also comparable to those of Kangxi (1662 to 1722) in the prosperous Qing Dynasty. , Yongzheng (1723～1735), Qianlong (1736～1795) three dynasties have the same purpose.However, the majesty of its appeal depends on the environment and background of the 18th century and before.When it comes to capitalism and mercantilism, not only the organization and structure of these countries cannot compete with them, but even their own existence has problems.Even the actions and facilities of the past have become hindrances and obstacles in the present.

Class struggle has been raised in all three movements above.Lenin advocated "all power to the Soviets", apparently emulating the strategy of the "sans-culottes" (below) used by the "Montagnards" during the French Revolution.China's organization of the so-called "Rebel General Headquarters" during the Cultural Revolution was not ingenious, because the "Rebel Committee" (insurrection comite) also appeared in Paris at the end of the 18th century.But the difficulties and hardships encountered by France, Russia, and China are actually due to social and economic inequality, and the conflict of class interests is the center of gravity of all problems?On the other hand, is it because of the experience of France, Russia and China that the future decision-making of the whole world can only take the road of capitalism, because it is "real gold is not afraid of fire"?

The problem is not limited to this.Capitalism, as a kind of organization and a kind of movement, certainly occurred before the French Revolution, but the term capitalism was born from the French Revolution and its process (see Chapter 1 for details), so it has a history of nearly two hundred years.In the future development, especially the recent development in mainland China and the Soviet Union, it is still doubtful whether this concept, which is the opposite of socialism, can remain intact.This book cites the method of induction, advocating that France, the Soviet Union, and China enter into the digital management process, or try to put forward the experience of entering this realm.From a technical point of view, if we can actually dissect the above three movements and then refer to the data in the previous chapters, we should be able to provide a more objective but more specific answer to the above questions when we draw conclusions in the next chapter.

The French Revolution is an extremely controversial subject.The historian Georges Lefebvre wrote in 1932: "The ancien régime had put the history of French agriculture on the path of capitalism, and the Revolution suddenly finished the job." This statement cannot be shared by other writers, And Lefevre mentioned in another book: "The progress of capitalism has not accelerated in the past ten years. On the contrary, the environment has only slowed it down." In fact, although Lefevre's two statements are contradictory, But still can stand at the same time.Because the former refers to capitalism as a system and involves organizations; the latter refers to the actual amount of accumulated capital and the degree of mobilization of human and material resources.One is a long-term view, and the other is a short-term judgment.But the difference between them is very easy to cause misunderstanding.

Writing history from personal experience is more entangled.A well-known example is the debate at the beginning of this century between Alphonse Aulard, the first professor of the French Revolution at the University of Paris, and his protégé, Albert Mathiez.In the later period of the French Revolution, the radicals were led by Danton, Marat and Robespierre. After Marat was assassinated by a female assassin, only Danton and Robespierre remained.In Aulard's view, Danton is a hero, while Robespierre is both vain and a nerd, so his personal likes and dislikes determine the path of revolution.Madiz emphasized that Robespierre and his comrades are sincerely working for the welfare of the common people, while Danton embezzles good goods and can sell the revolution at any time.Not to mention the special books they wrote, they also held teaching positions and edited special journals for decades.In addition, there are nearly thousands of various monographs on the Great Revolution, more than ten volumes at every turn, and trivial periodical texts are even more overwhelming.The date when this book was completed coincided with the 200th anniversary of Louis XVI's convening of the "Estates-General" (Estates-General) and the Bastille prison riot. French people are preparing to provide new thoughts during the commemoration. The words will be dazzling.We have exhausted our energy for a thousand percent of their works, so how can we extract their essence and make short essay reviews?

But history is a very broad field, and we are involved in it, and everyone has different goals.In our view, the French Revolution is a common theme in human history, affecting the development of other countries.If we abandon this section of the subject matter, we will have no way to explain the deeds of the previous chapters of this book, and it will be inconvenient to explain the future development.With this international attention, the French Revolution as we know it served as a model.The last chapter mentioned that the United States, Japan, and Germany lacked a central system in the past, so the creation of a new system was less obstructed. This has given us a pre-arranged mirror in the hypothesis. Therefore, our observations focus on the sudden reorganization of France at the end of the 18th century. At the same time, the technical difficulties encountered, without emphasizing the personal aspects of the plot.Here is an example:

Louis XVI's attempt to flee in June 1791 was a legendary episode in the history of the Revolution.Originally, the plan was well-planned, and the difficulties were initially broken through.It was just that as soon as they left Paris, the group relaxed their guard, the king was spotted twice, and the car dealership couldn't maintain the scheduled speed, so that the people who were preparing to meet on the way had to evacuate their posts, and the horses were also dismissed.It was already dark when the king reached Varennes, and the delay there was a major cause of the interception.Warren was not far from the border, and the Austrian army was ready to meet him.It is true that those who sympathize with the king and queen feel sorry for the failure of the matter. Even historians can't help but wonder in their hearts: If it is a coincidence that Louis arrives at the border safely, what will happen to the situation in the future?But this kind of fantasy is not only useless, but may cause illusions.Subsequent facts have proved that the problems in France at that time could not be solved by strengthening or even reforming the top institutions of the country. Under such circumstances, the power of the king was minimal.

The French Revolution had its basic causes behind the scenes, its components complex and majestic, and no one could grasp the situation at the time.If this were not the case, there would never have been so many revolutionaries and so-called counter-revolutionaries sent to the guillotine successively.Moreover, these brewing factors appeared suddenly and did not stay in each stage for a short time, so everyone is not encouraged to take the initiative immediately.When describing the October 1789, when the Parisian woman forced Louis to move to Paris from the Palace of Versailles, Lefevre wrote: "No one can dream that the revolution has just begun." It is like the huge waves and hurricanes of the future.

Louis XVI has been accused by historians of being free-spirited.At first he had the opportunity to run away but he was unwilling to escape, because it was not the old man's style to evade responsibility.When Paris was unstable, he deployed troops to defend, and sometimes suppressed parliamentarians, but when he was threatened by rioters, he refused to use force.He plotted against the queen many times, but changed his mind temporarily. Only when he dies on the guillotine in the end can he die in an honorable manner.After careful analysis, we believe that the main reason for its lack of decision is that the situation cannot be clarified.And his concept of responsibility for all parties conflicts with each other, which is not untrue.When the revolution first began, no one could have foreseen the extent of its involvement, that is, a few people had a radical view, which later proved that their vision was still too narrow.The Great Revolution went from policy improvements to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, then to the establishment of the Republic of China, and then to further modification of the entire human culture, up to ethics and religion, down to the calendar and weights and measures, and finally changed to a military dictatorship, which was subject to international interference. ten years.Under such circumstances, we can only understand what Clemenceau, nicknamed "Tiger Prime Minister" during the First World War, said, "The revolution is a whole, a big square."Because impersonal factors are more important than personal factors, this is equivalent to saying that corporate responsibility is more important than individual responsibility.Also because of non-personal factors, the Great Revolution was able to link up with the history of countries (such as China) that had no direct relationship with France. To reproach King Louis for being unwise and uncouth is to reproach Robespierre for injustice, and still more for Napoleon to be unfaithful.Robespierre wears a light blue coat, aristocratic breeches, and powdered hair.His confidant Saint-Just (Saint-Just) wears earrings, and Danton's personal interests are infiltrated in his negotiations with foreign countries, which is not sincere at least.But Napoleon was also accused of marrying a notorious woman and rising through nepotism.As for making a fortune through the revolution, there are sisters and brothers of Bonaparte's family who all split the soil and became kings, or took the title of nobility.And Napoleon's plunder abroad has never been publicly accounted for.In short, morality is the last link of truth. Once the highest quality in the world is raised, there is no room for turning around, and the story has to end because of it.None of the above comments and accusations comes close to the subject we have attempted to examine.The Revolution attempted to reset the standard of human morality, and its record should not be divided first by moral issues.Let us quote Le Fevere again: "A moralist will praise valor and condemn cruelty," he says, "but he cannot explain accidents." The following is our view on the Great Revolution, focusing on the position of technology, and tracing the most basic facts of the revolutionary process in the discussion: The occurrence of the Great Revolution is generally believed to have begun in 1789.In fact, the parlement in Paris the year before had denied the king's order to raise taxes and amend judicial procedures, and forced the king to hold a three-level council.The relationship here is very important, because the occurrence of the Great Revolution was not a fatal conflict between one class and another class, but an intertwined overlap of interests between various classes, regions, and regions.In the future, revolutionaries will be able to see clearly that class struggle is actually a tool to solve problems.Later, this practice was also seen in Russia and China. The French parliament is different from the British Parliament (Parliament). It is set up by region and is not a legislative body. It is like a high court, and it also maintains a style similar to that of the Tang Dynasty in China.All laws and regulations must be "registered" by the parliament before they can take effect, so the administrative agencies cannot ignore them.Moreover, following the legacy of the feudal system, the judiciary is independent and cannot be controlled by a non-specially powerful monarch. In 1788, the parliament of Paris opposed the executive body of Louis XVI, which led to a political deadlock. At this time, the country's finances also fell into a low ebb. It turned out that France's military and political power in the 18th century was ostentatious. The country lived on debt, and the army also relied on German and Swiss mercenaries.The previous few international wars were either disastrous or undecided; participating in the American War of Independence was considered a victorious country, but it was a loss-making business.At the same time, the financial difficulties cannot be solved internally, because the palace's expenditure is less than 6% of the budget, and the interest paid on public debt exceeds half of the budget. The population of France on that day was estimated to be between 23 million and 25 million, and Paris was more than 600,000. Given the wealth of resources in France, if the economic organization is organized, its national economy and people's livelihood should not be dwarfed by those of neighboring countries, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. .Moreover, the French national economy has already started.Since the 17th century, the mercantile policy has been vigorously advocated by the famous ministers Richelieu and Colbert. France has made great progress in shipbuilding, overseas trade, textiles, glass industry and luxury goods manufacturing. The organization of joint-stock companies was also roughly at the same time as in other advanced countries, and the Paris stock exchange carried on speculative business until the climax of the Revolution and the closure of the "Terror" in 1793.However, in terms of the legal system, these new economic factors have not been combined into a self-regulating structure (in our view, capitalism has not yet matured), and can only be flattered by the breathing of bureaucratic organizations.The latter can openly sell various operating privileges.Now it seems that the word "corruption" can no longer describe this situation.The main reason is that industry and commerce cannot be merged into one unit with agriculture, and its wealth base is fragile, and its benefits only benefit a part of the population. Compared with the backward situation in Germany (see Chapter 6 for details), it is too much. The three-level conference convened in 1789 showed that there were actually three systems in France.Its principle is similar to that of feudalism and counties before the Wu-Chu Rebellion in the early Han Dynasty in China, but it is far more complicated.The first level (First Estate) is for monks, Catholic abbots and general monks and nuns, the number of which does not exceed 100,000.They had their own administrative system, religious courts, tithes were generally collected from the faithful, monastic-owned estates, and many bishops and abbots were effectively lords of villages.The monks not only inspect the life and death of all believers, but also govern their marriage and inheritance, as well as education and charity.The first level does not pay taxes to the king, but traditionally negotiates and voluntarily contributes to the treasury, and sometimes pays part of the interest on the national debt, but there is no specific amount. The second level is the nobility.The total number is no more than 400,000.There are mainly two types, one is the original warrior class, some trace back to the German blood before the Middle Ages, and some are later sealed.The other is the judges of courts at all levels and the heads of local managers, who generally donate money to buy officials. At the end of the 18th century, the French aristocrats were extremely confused, some extremely rich and some extremely poor.The general title is inherited by the eldest son, but there are also new noble titles, which only reach the recipient himself.Navy and army officers were headed by nobility, and status sometimes included privileges.The past concept that all nobles are the lords of the manor, this situation no longer exists.Because French land could be bought and sold freely, sometimes entire estates fell into the hands of civilian buyers.However, the feudal system was not completely abolished, and some nobles were still lords and established manor courts.It is estimated that on the eve of the Great Revolution, about 1/5 of the taxi land in France was still in the hands of the nobles.In addition to collecting feudal conventions from farmers, they still insisted on their water rights, mineral rights, tree planting rights, and hunting rights. The aristocrats had no collective organization, and it was extremely difficult to collect direct taxes from them.On the one hand, this is also due to the organization of French local governments.The development of history made the central area of ​​the French territory belong to the king in the early days, and the administrators sent by the central government were generally not restricted.However, the various units in the frontier signed a contract with the king when they were subordinated, and each of them also had hereditary local chiefs and representative local agencies to preside over them, and the taxation was yet to be negotiated.Moreover, the continued existence of the manor system is the reason why the survey and statistics are difficult to be precise.European feudal conventions never specify who owns what kind of property, but only the majority of people enjoy the privilege of coming and going on the same land, and farming has to follow the conventions, which hinders the growth of agriculture even more.In addition, there are entire cities and towns that enjoy different privileges. The third level is civilians, who are said to account for 94% of the country's population, most of whom are farmers.The French farmer system has long been abolished, except for a few areas in the northeast corner, farmer farms no longer exist.Ordinary farmers are free to purchase property.The ratio of owner farmers to sharecroppers varies widely from place to place.The general difficulty is that the division of cultivated land is too small, and agricultural technology cannot be improved.The population has increased enormously over the past few decades, and most farmers feel oppressed.Whenever natural disasters are prevalent, there is a risk of food shortages, which also affect the lives of citizens.According to research, on the eve of the Great Revolution compared with the early 18th century, land rent increased by 98%, prices increased by 65%, and wages increased by only 22%.Therefore, the lives of ordinary people can only go from bad to worse. In 1788, the harvest was not good, the winter was very cold, the river was frozen, and food was in short supply and could not be transported.In the following year, as many as half of the citizens in the city were unemployed, which was the main reason for fueling the momentum of the revolution.The disturbances in Paris during the summer gave rise to rumors of all sorts, which disturbed the country and spread throughout the country. The urban bourgeoisie is the leader of the revolution.They fought for their own rights, as they did, and hated the privileges of the nobles, of course.But the simple conflict of class interests is not the main motive for them to sacrifice their lives to launch a political tide.Because of their successful careers, they can also intermarry with nobles, and they can also buy nobles and donate officials.It's just that they feel mentally depressed under the old system.Since the Enlightenment, the concepts of various natural human rights and national conventions have penetrated into the hearts of the people.The distance between ideas and knowledge and the social environment and living habits is the most powerful condition for driving the middle class to participate in the revolution in modern society. France already has this background at this time.Later, bankers and wealthy businessmen donated money to civil riots, lawyers participated in the organization with eloquence, Sieyes participated in the revolution as members of the religious order, Mirabeau degraded from nobles to civilian representatives, Danton and Robespierre and the Great Like most revolutionaries, they started as lawyers.Mara is a doctor-turned-journalist.None of the above is easy to explain their state of mind and actions based on their own class interests.At the same time, the bourgeoisie (bollfg60isi) is an extremely broad and irrelevant term. From the wealthy businessmen, the almost privileged class, down to the craftsmen with small pockets, they can all be called the bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie. The Great Revolution certainly raised the bourgeoisie. It also caused many members of the bourgeoisie to be liquidated. Now let us go back to the situation when Louis XVI convened the three-level conference: since 1614, such a conference has not been held.Because his ancestors Louis XIV and Louis XV ruled for 131 years in the past, they paid attention to personal politics and lacked a sound organizational system.At this time, the purpose of the king's convening of the three-level parliament was nothing more than to plan a tax plan and solve financial problems.However, the lower class has been heavily exploited. It not only assumes the feudal custom, but also pays the entire direct tax (taille), provides labor (corvee), and bears the vast majority of the salt tax (gabelle). Tax.And the new burden is also inconvenient to allocate directly to other secondary levels.In the past, public and private financial matters were stacked on top of each other, and there was no reorganization for a long time. There was no way to know where taxes could be increased and where rents should be increased. Therefore, the collection of taxes and rents mostly came through the contract system.Only professional collectors who are familiar with local and inter-individual conditions can carry out their tasks and profit from them.If the situation can still be managed numerically, there is no need to bother them.At the same time, there are still many problems that affect the whole body at this time. For example, the trend will intensify in the future, the nobles will go abroad, and many people in the lower class will lose their jobs due to this.Raising the price of grain should be beneficial to farmers, but the farmers in the Midwest who grow grapes and make wine complain bitterly.To improve agricultural production, the first thing to do is to enclose the land, so that the arable land can be put into cultivation together, but the first opposition is the farmers; they lose the right to collect firewood and graze livestock on the public land, and immediately have no way of making a living.There is no way to plan and find out countermeasures for problems like this. Therefore, judging from various non-personal factors, France has been unable to negotiate peacefully and reorganize fairly.The only way is to put everything into a big melting pot and wait for the arrangement of history, but no one saw through this situation at the time. When the House of Commons convened in 1789, the ranks and local units, by law, set out their petitions to the King, called . ahi6y, we might as well call it "Chenqing Form".Among the second-level requirements, there is a section that requires the king to fix the status of nobles.The rank of each person must be carefully ascertained, so that they can form their own consortium and system like monks. From now on, the imperial court will no longer confuse their names by selling officials and titles. The king's close officials must be selected from the nobles, and their children should be in charge of the royal family. educate.It may seem surprising to us today that such demands can be described as ill-advised.The Great Revolution aimed to liquidate the nobles. Once the steps started, many nobles were sent to the guillotine without interrogation.So why were they so arrogant in the first place, not humbly asking for forgiveness when they should be asking, but instead boasting and demanding the enhancement of their privileges? This behavior can also be explained by reference to the situation of non-personal relationship: Making a petition is also a legal procedure.The three-level meeting turned out to be a dialogue between the king and his subjects.Of course, the king wanted representatives at all levels to make coordinated decisions to collect taxes, and the latter took this opportunity to convey their feelings to the public.If you have power, you have obligations, and if you have obligations, you have power. All of the above are in line with the feudal system.It's just that since the meeting is divided into three levels, the convening of the meeting has cast a shadow of class struggle. Representatives at all levels are elected by local units, and the procedures are different. Generally, they go through primary elections and re-elections three or four times.Therefore, the representatives can only be regarded as being authorized by the local units to participate in the consultations on state affairs, rather than taking part in the consultations of state affairs based on their personal opinions.After such an arrangement, the electors of the various local units also feel that they have become a kind of public opinion institution, and unless their class and local petitions are answered, they are obliged to do so.So headed by Paris, which is both the capital and the salon where fashionable people discuss politics, many periodicals and pamphlets were produced to incite revolutionary sentiment.Since then, the 407 "electors" in Paris have often assembled after electing representatives of the three-level assembly. The Paris Commune and the National Guard (National Guard) were born from the meeting of the electors.These institutions and organizations, as well as the clubs where Parisian politicians often meet, became the basic forces to instigate the revolution, and they both maintained order and mobilized the mob.The situation in other regions is similar. At the beginning of the riots in Paris in 1789, the prefects (intendants) sent everywhere by the old system fled, the organization of the government has been disintegrated, and the municipalities have roughly followed the method of Paris. Except for the National Assembly, detailed below), it no longer accepts the command of the administrative system under the king's jurisdiction. Therefore, the weakness of the old system is one of the main reasons why the situation is out of control.This situation also brought the French Revolution closer to the Russian October Revolution than to the German unification movement. On July 14, 1789, the Parisian masses first rushed into the building of wounded and sick soldiers, obtained 32,000 muskets, and then attacked the Bastille Prison. .Word spread everywhere, towns and villages mobilized, and peasants attacked the strongholds of the nobility. For the sake of brevity, the Great Revolution can be described in two stages: the first stage, from the opening of the three-level conference in May 1789 to August 1792, lasted more than three years, and its purpose was to formulate a constitutional monarchy. In August 1792, Louis lost all his powers, and the revolution went from mild to extreme, and finally to the period of terror (reign of terror, referred to as Terror), and then ended due to the "Thermidorian Reaction" (Thermidorian Reaction), which was July 1794 months, and the later period lasted nearly two years.From then on to Napoleon's seizure of power in November 1799, the period of more than five years was only a period of rectification. When the third-level meeting was held, there were about 600 representatives from the third level, and about 300 representatives from the first and second levels.At first, the king and the parliament insisted on following the established practice in 1614, that the three levels discuss and vote separately.Obviously, this cannot make any changes to the national system, even if it wants to change the guidelines and policies, it will be very difficult.Therefore, representatives of the third level advocated that all representatives discuss together and vote collectively. Under this idea, the third-level meeting became the "National Assembly". The representative political body produced by the Constitution-making Conference is called the "Legislative Assembly" [Legisla-tive Assembly], which met in 1791. The above is different from the "National Convention" [National Convention] in the later period of the revolution).Because the king blocked the place of the parliament, these representatives gathered in the indoor tennis court of the Palace of Versailles, and also encouraged some nobles representing the lower-level monks and the progressive faction to participate, fearing that the king would suppress it by force, and the participants signed the oath, saying that unless the goal was achieved , never disperse.It mentions the convening of the National Assembly, whose purpose is to "draw up a constitution, give new life to the country, and determine the correct principles of the monarchy." This is how the revolutionary process unfolds.Seeing that the situation was out of control, Louis XVI ordered the representatives of the first and second ranks to participate together.His concession was not out of enlightened opinion, but a threat from inside and outside, and Paris felt a food panic and didn't know the king's intentions.He concentrated his troops in and around Paris to keep the mob from mobbing and to secure the National Assembly.But the so-called mob, once organized, was actually a revolutionary mass force and a talisman for some of the representatives in the National Assembly. The three-level conference gathered for discussion on May 5, and there was a tennis court oath on June 20. The Paris Commune was organized on June 25. The Bastille Prison was captured on July 14. Louis XVI went to Paris on July 17. , hoping to appease all sentiments, on October 5th, there were still more than 6,000 street women in Paris carrying javelins in the rain and carrying two cannons. Require.With the support of 20,000 Nationalists behind them, the king and queen were forced to move from Versailles to the Tuileries in Paris.Two weeks later, the National Assembly met in Paris. Since then, each other has been under the shadow of the Parisian masses. The masses or mobs commanded by the Paris Commune have the power to influence the overall development of the state affairs in the future. To this day, no definite explanation has been found for these deeds.For example, the Paris riots and women's demonstrations were obviously planned and presided over by someone.Who are they?What was the original purpose?Although historians have their own guesses, the most likely to benefit from it is the Duke of Orleans (ducde Orleans), the distant uncle of the current king, who himself wants to be a constitutional monarch, or it may be that Sias and Mihabo have foreseen it, and even Some people doubt that La Fayette, who became famous during the American Revolutionary War and is now publicly promoted as the commander of the National Army.Several chief writers who ran newspapers were also accused of instigating the initiative, but no one presented reliable evidence.In short, from personal observation, it is difficult to write a definite history. Moreover, the harvest was good in 1789, the food problem was once resolved, and the tense atmosphere has eased.So why are the earth-shattering events yet to unfold, and the civil war and the continuous bloodshed on the guillotine are still happening three years later? The National Assembly decided to take over the land of the monastery, to abolish the tithe, to abolish all feudal obligations, personal obligations were unconditionally abolished, and land obligations were redeemed at a price.It also passed the "Declaration of Human and Civil Rights", the first paragraph of which advocates that "everyone enjoys freedom and equal rights from birth to the present, and social differences only arise under the condition of common utility."These rights are further enumerated as "liberty, property, and resistance to oppression."Citizens are one and equal before the law.The new law has yet to be promulgated, and the new constitution divides citizens into two categories: "active citizens" and "non-active citizens". The former have a minimum tax and enjoy the right to vote. The Legislative Assembly held in 1791 was produced according to such a procedure, and its organization was a unicameral system, so there was no distinction between nobles and commoners, let alone monks.The King maintains limited veto power over bills passed by the Legislative Assembly (the Legislative Assembly is held every two years, and the King can veto the same bill twice, so the veto is valid for a total of 4 years).To deal with the current financial problems, it was decided to issue a paper currency called "assignats", secured by the confiscation of monastic lands. It seems that the reforms included in these articles are very extensive, and the steps are gentle and compromised. Why can't such a plan turn war into jade?There must be something strange in it. The abolition of feudal privileges was not passed through scrutiny and consideration in the National Assembly, but a small number of premeditated people decided to meet at 5 o'clock in the evening (August 4, 1789), and the meeting was extended until 2 o'clock in the morning to obtain a vote. The program is also pre-arranged.For such an important reform, most of the people concerned must admit that it is what everyone expects and actively carry it out before we can hope to overcome technical difficulties.But in fact, when legislation is enacted, it is hoped that its actions will be like "magic", so there are many elements of propaganda and little actual effect.At this time, the remaining feudal factors in France were not visible as a whole, but infiltrated into various economic life in the countryside, such as "prestige" that came with privileges; in many cases, personal obligations and land obligations were inseparable Distinguish; many feudal privileges are based on occupation, and some are based on contracts.Even if the peasants are required to pay 20 and 25 years for redemption, there are many technical difficulties. Moreover, some lands are subject to tenants and transferees, and it is not known who can take advantage of them. It remains the same, and the situation varies from east to west, north to south.Therefore, a single bill in the National Assembly only produced all kinds of disputes.Some peasants fought for their interests under the Act, and entangled them until 1793, the plot of which was a "proper civil war." The confiscation of monastic estates and the abolition of tithes seemed easy, but later it involved more.Since the bishops and abbots lost the income of their subordinates, the Congress decided to pay them salaries, so all religious personnel became government employees.And because the administrative regions of the country were organized at this time (refer to the difference between the central and border regions of the French provinces in the previous section), the national territory was divided into administrative districts (depart-ments) of approximately equal area according to the mountains and rivers within the territory, so the old bishopric was abolished, The new bishopric overlaps with the administrative district.Under the principle of unity of politics and religion, the National Assembly passed the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" in 1791, stipulating that bishops should be elected by voters and no longer recognized by the pope, and all monks should swear an oath of loyalty to the country .According to a modern writer, the move "broke the unity of the nation and began the civil war." It is very difficult for ordinary non-believers to grasp the mystery.The Roman Church was created by Christ's mandate to Paul, and the bishop's mantle has been passed down for thousands of years, which means that the gods have come down to people.Many religious personnel already feel that it is inappropriate to cut the number of bishops and change their jurisdictions.For, from a theological standpoint, these measures have defiled the very roots of their divine mission.As for taking an oath to the human government, it is tantamount to converting all bishops and abbots into political instructors.Some monks are more optimistic, thinking that serving the Lord and civil administration can be regarded as two ways, but few are in favor of taking oaths. Of the 160 bishops, only seven took the oath.Later the pope denounced the "organizational act", which further deepened the division in France.The patriots asked why the dignified French should be ordered by Italy.The priests who resisted the oath urged the believers not to be led astray by this blasphemous government, and even advocated that they should not buy or sell monastery land and not pay taxes to the government. Since then, the French Catholic Church has split into two.The proximate cause of Louis XVI's attempt to flee was religion.Two months before leaving, he wanted to attend a mass hosted by a regular priest, but was blocked by the citizens of Paris and gave up.Finally, he was out of touch with a large number of revolutionaries by vetoing a bill punishing monks who disobeyed orders. After Louis was intercepted at Valennes and sent back to Paris, the National Assembly, in an attempt to avert civil war, retained him as a passive king, claiming that he had been kidnapped and executed for those who planned to flee.However, it is still a very serious problem that high-level French people have taken refuge in other countries. When the situation was unstable in 1789, the government wholesaled 200,000 passports within two months. Although some holders only traveled within the country, most of them went into exile.This situation has not stopped. In 1792, two-thirds of the officers in the regular army had left their posts.Because of the separation of these leaders, the society is even more unstable.Exiles (emigres) were concentrated throughout Belgium and Italy, but a group at Koblenz on the Rhine in Germany was the most threatening. Invade France and overturn the revolutionary trend.In this case, Louis' Austrian queen became a burden between his feelings in China and abroad.Apart from the other issues, it is impossible for Louis XVI to be a passive king because of the relationship between religion and exiles. 1792年巴黎群众的蠢动，不是由于年岁的收成不好，而是因法币贬值，一般农民宁可背粜，不愿接受不值钱的交付券。但是我们也可以看出，法国自1789年以来的基本问题并没有解决，即如类似纸面上的法案也和“人权及公民权利宣言”一样，只能算是一种计划和一种企图，不可能立即实现理想。这种未曾受定的局面，一遇局部危机，就会江河日下而不可收拾。 法国大革命曾被解释有它本身的逻辑，内中群众与权力和崇高的理想不可分割。即革命者不容易从他们的人身经验一眼看出，而只能够在事势逐渐展开时，理解体会。本书接受这种观点，并且将之扩大。大革命发生时新闻报纸初出茅庐的煽动群众，即作者和主编也不免为他们自己的辞藻所蒙蔽。最近100多年来的进展，却使我们在社会心理学和政治经济学的看法，远胜于18世纪末期。而且像法国大革命这样伟大的事迹，其包涵既多，内中不少的因果关系可以前后倒置。这也就是说，我们可以从以后业已发生的情事和业已证明的史实追溯回去，追究当日酝酿的情形，分析各种行动的动机。 可以简要地说，1789年法国所遇到的困难，乃是环境需要立即采取一个用数目字管理的方式，首先则低层机构中各种经济因素要能公平而自由地交换。而此时法国却分为无数大小圆圈，错综重叠。各种人文因素也彼此牵制。经济改革牵涉到政治体制；僧侣的组织也涉及群众的安全。表面看来一个简单的要求，实际有等于一只动物之脱胎换骨。而这动物在改造期间又仍要穿衣吃饭，以致更难。 从法国革命之前后看来，这当中产生了两个完全不同的社会，涉及政治、经济、法律、外交、文化及宗教信仰。因其范围大、时间短，当中无法避免暴力。革命初期希望凡事妥协，有意效法英国之光荣革命（详第四章），后期则凡事不妥协。如果国王暧昧不明，其存在足为国事之累，则将国王送上断头台。如果外国有干涉之意图，则索性由法国作主，向奥地利、英国和西班牙宣战，并转守为攻地进兵比利时、荷兰、瑞士、意大利和德国。如果封建余存的因素纠缠不清，则将政权特权一律无代价的废止，直接实行耕者有其田。如果僧侣不肯宣誓，以致法国的天主教会分裂，则索性不承认耶稣基督，而另崇拜一个自然神论之“最高存有”（Supreme Being）。如果反革命的人物可能滋事，不守经济法规的人物可能影响社会秩序，即宣布“嫌疑犯法案”（Law of Suspects），一连拘禁30万人，很多不经审判而送上断头台。写到这里，本书也要仿效西方的历史家附带声明，叙述这些事之因果，并不是赞扬提倡。只是这一串事迹之逻辑与因果，非常明显。法兰西要给自己创造一段新生命。 将旧有体制全部解散一切重来，其胆量值得钦佩，可是也在心理和行动上沾染着极端可怕的景象。所以小说家狄更斯（Charles Dickens）会用一两页针锋相对的词语，重复地叙述当日矛盾。我们试设想：旧的组织制度既已推翻，此时既无尊卑长上，也无合法与否，其合理与否，由各人作主，这是浪漫史的最高潮。同时把人类退化至原始时代，是一个令人心栗令人惶惑的境界。 预示此种情况，有卢梭（Rousseau）所谓“高贵之野人”（Noble Savage）。其为高贵，则是不染世俗上奴役旁人和剥削旁人之恶习，其为野人，是不受假惺惺的文教所拘束。恐怖时期巴黎不少妇女边在编织绒线衣物，边在观赏断头台上的流血，甚至投井下石，对受刑的人加以凌辱、嘲笑，有近于所叙解放中人物。再叙述得彻底一点，这时候法国已近于霍布斯的初民状态（详第五章），亦即所有人与所有人作战。除非有“巨灵”（Levia-than）出现，由一个全能的政府作仲裁，否则每个人都有死在暴力之下的可能。1792年9月巴黎暴民到各监狱行凶，将1000多囚人当场打死，事后到巴黎公社领取酬金。引申霍布斯之学说，则当时联军攻下凡尔登（Verdun），法国国都看来危在旦夕，群情恐惶，一般人都相信囚犯将为联军内应，于是对他们行凶，也算是自卫。 根据这样的逻辑，我们可以追述革命进入第二阶段的情形：巨灵既为国家主权人，不能没有发号施令的权力，但这种权力已无从由旧体制承袭，有待创造。所以其组织不能循理合法（要是合法就无需革命了）。以上各种条件注定其组织者为少数人物，首先以阴谋发难。 1792的革命，由雅各宾派（Jacobins）领导，他们经常聚会于雅各宾俱乐部，内中又以从吉伦德选出之代表所谓吉伦德派（Girondists）为表率。兹后又有所谓山岳党者，大部也属于雅各宾俱乐部，又参杂其他俱乐部之成员，总因为他们在国民会议席位占高，又为过激派，所以有此名号。这两个集团间的来往交流，相当复杂，初非径渭分明。只是以后斗争展开，吉伦德派主张温和的改革，贷路易十六以不死，也主张地方分权。山岳党则和巴黎的市民结合，主张对法国予以一个彻底的大改革，将卢梭所提倡的“社会契约”推化为事实，在过渡期间，当然只有中央集权。他们不仅主动地将吉伦德党逐出雅各宾俱乐部之外，还在政治上清算他们，引起恐怖之展开。 大革命分为前后两阶段，固然以1792年8月国王之失去职权为分水岭。但是其阴谋和酝酿已在几个星期之前开始。巴黎城市分为48个区。雅各宾的组织人员无疑受未来的山岳党指挥（此时国民会议尚未集会，所以不能径称之为山岳党），他们将这些区公所一个一个争取组织妥当，其计划隐匿周详，始终无一人单独露面。他们自称已经消除了“现役公民”和“非现役公民”的区别，也不承认路易十六为国王。8月9日夜，由这些区公所组成的造反新巴黎公社侵入公社的会议厅，将原有的公社组织驱逐。国民军的司令准备干涉，则由新公社代之以新司令。其所以如此得意称心，乃因组织者早已将巴黎市井间能持武器者全部笼络。合法的巴黎公社和国民军至此已失去招架的能力。 迄此，巴黎公社还保持着资产阶级的风格，国民军也限“现役公民”参加，主要的任务为维持秩序。雅各宾所动员之群众称为sans culottes，直译为“不穿马裤之人”，以别于18世纪中等以上的装束。我们无妨称之为“无裤党”。巴黎之无裤党，以小商店老板及独立营业之技工领头。但是他们动辄在街头聚集数万人，而巴黎人口以户计半数为拥工，所以当中不可能没有长期的佣工与短期的雇工参与行列。他们手执标枪，使迄今地方自治之武力为之改换色彩，也使整个大革命为之改观。 凡革命则需要群众武力。革命期望于他们的是行动多于思想，团结的力量超过个人的色彩。无裤党提出的要求，首重粮食的价格能与工资配合，即后来提倡限制私人资本，主张任何人不得有一家店面以上的铺场，没有任何高深的见解。因为其简单，所以能构成革命之大洪流。等到内部生出歧见，各有是非，革命已近尾声了。这时候，即1792年的夏天，他们都相信生活之不愉快责任全在路易十六。 雅各宾人士与无裤党结合，曾两次向国王提出问罪之师。6月20日冲入特拉里兹宫时，路易应付灵敏未生事故，对革命者说来，也算是失败。8月9日夜他们占领巴黎公社的官署之后，即马不停蹄，说服国民军，于翌日再向特拉里兹进兵。于是“一大堆爱国者、无业游民和冒险家，总之就是攻巴士底监狱的同样色彩之人群”，一共集结了2万人，向保护国王的瑞士雇佣军作战。国王一行逃避于立法会议的会场，请求议会保护，并且命令卫队停止抵抗，可是武装冲突依然展开，双方死伤约1200人。国王王后一行从此失去自由，以后搜出一铁匣的公文，证明路易对革命实为不利，这证件成为1793年初将他判死刑的张本。1792年9月国民会议开幕时，国王已失去职权，“9月残杀”即无裤党到牢狱里残杀囚人（详上。其中不少被害者为不肯宣誓的僧侣和政治犯，也有一般罪犯和娼妓同样的在枪捧之下牺牲），这样的事已发生，而且法国军队在瓦尔米（Valmy）又打了一个胜仗，在短期时间之内，战事已稳定，民国在此时成立。最初吉伦德派还在国民会议里占优势，只是为着革命至此是否应当缓和，采纳众议，还是随着巴黎公社激烈到底等等问题，展开了和山岳党的斗争。此中谁是谁非，经过很多历史家的争辩，只因为内中涉及个人动机，迄无定论。 今日去当时已近200年，我们有了历史的了解，就可以说，当事人不一定能明了他们自己的行动在历史上的真正意义。法国大革命早已展开，机构上各种基础都已具备，于是箭在弦上，不得不发，这时候只有化复杂的情势为简单。现实超过抽象，决断胜于犹豫，于是很少有个人之间的是非曲直，只有革命的逻辑，它亟需随着实力找到着落。 所以国民会议以366票对361票判国王死刑，此后党争展开，山岳党整肃吉伦德派，将他们推上断头台，发动了恐怖政治，各种政敌消失之后，过激派又展开了内部的斗争。罗伯斯比尔首先将最激进的赫伯（Hebert）处死，回头又将主张较温和的丹东处死，等到“热月反动”展开，罗伯斯比尔也被前在各省执行恐怖政策的议会代表处死，同出于以上逻辑。在宽阔的眼光看来，法国已面临着一个“苍天已死黄天当立”的局面，巨灵尚未长成，只有煽动性的报纸动摇人心，无裤党满街捉人。不问他们的动机如何，都成为助长革命炽热的燃料。我们与其追究个人品德，不如认识他们的时代。 恐怖政治在“大敌当前国贼未除”的气氛之下产生。法兰西已有两个总司令自动投奔敌国，在国内则征兵30万，又发生了温底（Vendee）和里昂（Lyons）的内乱，土伦（Toulon）则降英，影响了地中海沿岸的安全。这时候国民会议欲藉着内外军事政治的危机来创造一种新的社会经济体系，其中牵涉到千缕百条人与人的关系，于是只好以暴力和威胁通成。1793年9月5日，国民会议提出“当今的程序（order of the day）为恐怖”，只不过公开承认业已展开的一种运动，增加其强度，加快其速率而已。 但在最黯淡的时候，新的组织业已开始。丹东发起组织的公众安全委员会（Committee of Public Sefety）集司法行政大权于一身，又通过国民会议，也操纵了立法权。它既像战时内阁有任免将官、总揽军事外交的能力，也藉着特务人员，监视社会人士，指挥革命法庭。它之诞生，证明非常时期实施三权分立之不合实际，也证实了柏克（Edmund Burke）所预言，法国过激运动必导引一种军事独裁。经过公众安全委员会掌握的权力，由丹东而至罗伯斯比尔，又更通过巴拉（Barras）和赛亚司而至拿破仑，无疑是新法国高层结构之根源。 革命者此时还有一个有利之条件，是全国各行政区域的组织也大致仿效巴黎体制。1789年旧体制瓦解之后，各城市也组织了他们的公社，也有地方性的雅各宾俱乐部，大都会里也有无裤党，他们从城市里将力量延伸到附近村镇里去。革命后期，各城市也以不同的名义组织，有似于公众安全委员会的机构，总揽动员治安事宜。当各地呈现分化趋势之时候，国民会议决定派它自己的代表到各地去督导。反对山岳党的吉伦德派，认为这是分化政敌的好机会，于是推举山岳党的代表出任。殊不知这些督导员到任之后大权在握，积极增加各个人的声望，当中半打左右的强人，日后成为“热月反动”之后法国的台柱。此时，他们整肃各地方组织、加强恐怖政治、执行物价管制、征集人员物资、组织工厂、设立济贫所、将税额配于富人，无裤党则承命协助他们按户搜索。用不着说，当中必有无数违规犯法之情事，但是这种种作为，加强了中央管制，也就是将新高层结构的权力施展到低层结构里去。因此产生的行动，合乎“山岳党的风格”。也有历史家谓这些中央派出之督导员，有黎希流和柯贝特（详上）所遣派的省长之才干，其中有些日后成为拿破仑官僚机构里的能臣。 新体制的低层结构，可谓全民平等。大革命后期既已废除“现役公民”和“非现役公民”的区别（但是1795年的宪法规定选举权仍受资产限制），又革除了贵族与平民的差异，更取消了封建特权、什一捐、买官的办法，和以前只派予平民的赋税和国内内地的关卡，新体制开始脱胎换骨，形成一个庞大的扁平体。但这种平等乃是法律前之平等，诚可谓之为理想之机会均等，而不是均分财产或中国“均田”式的平等。劫富济贫式的平等，曾经圣约斯特提及，可是未能付诸实施。总而言之，大革命只创造了一个低层机构里各种经济因素都能公平而自由交换的原则，奠定了日后以数目字管理的基础。即山岳党人物，有时抱有社会主义之趋向，也无从将这种思想构成一种系统。共产主义只有一次被提出，但是随即被制压。历史家也承认以当日法国生产组织之程度，谈不上废除私人资本。 这样一来，法国只有走上资本主义的道路。“热月反动”之后，“五人执政”（Directory）期间，“一个新国家经济慢慢登场，经济放任政策，［只］受国家缓和节制”。这时候农村经济与城市经济结为一元，批发事业开始统辖零售生意，专制政府虽策定大纲，从旁监视，其中各处接头的情形仍待私人展开。新组织和运动既脱离封建特权的束缚，又不因宗教的禁忌而支吾，还靠什么作其掌握之南针？那么也只有机会均等的竞争，一切以金钱为标准了。并且它所造成的结构也只有越做越大。广泛地展开信用，不受人身关系束缚地雇用经理，和通盘活用的服务——即是我们所认为资本主义的技术上之条件——都因之而日益显著。设立工厂、集中生产，使独立工匠经营的小店铺关门，扩大了城市中的无产阶级，也只是迟早之事。以上所述可以经过几十年和几百年的进程，而私人资本在社会上和政治上力量之比重越来越大。我们从大历史的眼光看来，以上事情可以用1799年7月（即热月反动之日）算作法兰西的出发点。以同样的眼光看来，事到当日，丹东、马拉和罗伯斯比尔都已经完成了他们的历史任务。他们是好人或坏人，与后人的关系不深，即算他们都不具备做独裁者的条件，他们所创造的一种高层机构却是以后组织与制度的基始。 这样的说法，好像近乎宿命论（fatalist）；也好像是说，将要发生的事情都会发生，与各人的存心没有关系，甚至与人力无涉。其实也并不尽然。虽说18世纪末的法国人无从确悉今日我们所谓资本主义者所包括的了解（所以资本主义者这名称产生于19世纪而不产生于18世纪），他们对近身之事，也并不是完全盲目地全以冲动处置。例如罗伯斯比尔倒台之前，巴黎的无裤党已先失势。起先山岳党限制最高工资对无裤党一部分人有利，对其他人不利，已经产生了分化作用。以后这种工资与物价的管制又没有着实地维持到底，则起先受惠的也日渐不满。罗伯斯比尔在清算丹东之前抑制左派，更使一部分无裤党的领袖失去凭藉，其他的则藉着机会在政府里做官，由革命者摇身一变而为职业性的官僚。所以“热月反动”固然是由于恐怖政治做得太过头，人心思变，一方面也是革命的力量本身已在分化，事实上各人都在计算本人切身的利害。我们所谓非人身因素和集体责任，也不是说世事之演化全由冥冥之中神秘的力量作主宰，只是事涉群众运动和群众心理，我们无法从各个人留下的记录挂一漏万地勘判，只好看清全盘局势，以逻辑上之推论，补文献之不足。 同时这样看来，卢梭之所谓“高贵野人”，仍系理想上的一种极端。事实上，革命分子亦要穿衣吃饭，无法完全放弃个人之私利观。一到对外战争转败为胜，内外的军事威胁消除，恐怖政治已无必要时，所标榜的革命道德也是多余，而且天主教会既已放弃它的地产和政治力量，人民信仰天主教也不足为虚。这些条件就已在邀请“热月反动”出现，五年之后拿破仑因时就势，只将既成事实确定。总而言之，世间既有经济则有组织。法国既已否定巴贝夫（Babeuf）所提倡的共产社会，则新组织只能从现状内个人的获得与占有参差不齐的条件下展开，其基本原则为各个人自识指归，则就不期而然地造成一个资本主义的社会了。 可是在短时间内急遽改造，法兰西付出的代价不算不高。恐怖期间据说牺牲了17000人性命，而且这数字只是革命法庭正式判死刑的案件，其他不经审判，草率推上断头台的，又何止此数。里昂在清算反革命之日，将囚徒200人一批，排放在壕沟之间，予以炮轰，南特（Nantes）之牢狱被传染病侵患，也无法给被监禁者食物，实为人间地狱，于是将逾2000囚犯，置在漏水之船上让他们在罗尔（Loire）河中淹沉。专家估计在1793年9月到1794年7月间，因之丧生人数达35000至40000之间，而间接受害者尚不计，所拘禁之嫌疑犯则可能为30万。因革命而引起的对外及以后长期的拿破仑战争，死伤更多。勒费弗提到革命期间陆军的死亡失踪人数达60万，而另一估计又提及1800年到1815年间战死及因创伤而死的也近4O万，在一个人口不到3000万的国家，实为一个极大的数目。 然则全面动员，驱使法兰西7％的人口执干戈以卫社稷，其力量不可谓不雄伟，也不可能全为浪费。团结士气人心的成效不说，经济动员也是组织新国家的一种步骤。庞大的军队极需食粮、被服、兵器、马匹和交通工具，更需要民间组织的第二线和第三线的支持。国民会议期间（1792年至1795年）经济政策着重出卖没收的地产，管制物价与工资，一部分兵工事业由国家直接经营。但是大体上国民经济仍保持商业性格，直接向民间争取物资，限于事势上的需要，着重将剩余的粮食输至前线，若干村镇亦有地方政府配给食物之情事。总之除非无法避免，政府不愿自己动手主持，当中一个主因即是当日经济消息尚不灵通，局势难于掌握。因此政府仍对商人作各种让步，即对外贸易算是国营，政府也仍给商人各种回扣及暗盘，即限制物价时，原则上也将批发商及零售商之正当利润计入。 “五人执政”期间（1795年至1799年），政府放弃物价与工资的管制，曾引起物价陡涨，造成通货膨胀，各级官僚在混乱期间贪污自肥。1797至1798间一年和大陆各国大致保持和平（只与英国仍在战时状态），加以收成良好，物价回跌。执政政府曾致力制定经济对策，例如加强税收效率、削减预算、增加关税、继续征用军事物资。1796年的币制改革，以纸币换纸币没有功效，翌年改用硬币，从荷兰、德国和意大利搜括的金银，与对外贸易的入超，解决了货币来源的问题，并且趁此机会收回公债。法国大革命期间的一段奇遇则是政权叠次易手，政府始终没有正式赖债。只有1797年宣布公债之2／3不付息，这2／3的兑换券在市场上无人问，等于被宣布作废。另1／3也随着跌价，从此政府对利息之负担大为减轻。虽说收支仍不平衡，情形大有改进。只是对外不能保持和平，1798年后战事又再失利，才有拿破仑的登场。 拿破仑加强对占领各国的榨取，将国内的税收归并在中央政府收入中，拒绝采取动摇人心的短视政策，又向国外借款及于热那亚和汉堡，在1802年使收支平衡。巴黎的通利银行（Caissedes Comptes Courants）有了波拿巴一家人及其他政府显要为股东，虽为私营，也替政府担任出纳，又为公债付息，法兰西的资本主义体制至此更浓厚了。于是索波尔在叙述大革命的结论时写出： 〖中小规模之制造分工日详；农人与都市技工之区别日益明显，资产阶级之重心因而转移。商人及企业家取得过去遗传之财富，领有重要地位。投机生意及供应军需和搜括军事占领的土地，给他们以更大的利润机会。经济的自由，展开了企业集中的道路。此后这些人以他们敢冒风险和采取主动的精神投资于制造，放弃了投机生意，于是对资本主义之工业化有贡献。 〗 叙述到这里，本书的作者也和不少的读者一样感到惑然。国王王后及贵族政治家、虔诚的传教士和带煽动性的革命者，当中固然不乏投机分子，可是也有不少忠臣烈士同样地在断头台抛头颅洒鲜血，玉石俱焚，其最后目的无非让资本家赚钱？难道所谓社会契约真的不过是做生意的一种契约，有如柏克所指斥，有如“买卖咖啡与胡椒、印花布和烟草”？虽说本书在以上章节中一再主张不要因为道德问题而阻碍技术之讨论，可是也并不是说道德只是做事时之赘尤，可以完全不理。一到技术之研讨告一段落，仍有将整个问题提出再检讨之必要。 我们所谓资本主义，只是新社会这个多面体之一面，法国大革命扫清了内部各种障壁，在新体制之下，行政系统的功能有了一种看来似是而非的矛盾性格，一方面政府变成一个全能性的政府，有如勒费弗所说：“自今之后，除了长距