第一篇：弟子規(李默)

圣人語，弟子行

——讀《弟子規》有感

“弟子規 圣人訓 守孝悌 次謹信??”每當我背《弟子規》時，耳邊就會響起媽媽那語重心長的話語：“這《弟子規》啊，背起來容易，當要將它理解好了，并把圣人的教誨在生活中實踐起來卻很難。”以前我聽了，都不以為意，直到今天——

一大早，走出房門，便看到媽媽像以往一樣在打掃衛生，但動作又和以往不同，顯得有氣無力的。我也沒多想，轉身便到洗手間刷牙洗臉去了。“咳！咳！咳咳！”時不時地有幾聲咳嗽聲傳到我的耳中。我想：媽媽喉嚨又上火了吧。剛洗漱完走進房門，就聽到媽媽那虛弱的呼聲：“默兒，幫媽媽把地掃掃。”我一聽，心里就不耐煩了，剛想對媽媽說我還要寫作業呢，腦海就響起了自己朗朗的讀書聲——“父母呼 應勿緩 父母命 行勿懶 父母教 須敬聽 父母責 須順承”。是啊，這不正是古今流芳百年的孝敬父母的文明行為嗎？我把《弟子規》記在了腦海，可我何時又聽從過這些教誨呢！太慚愧了！我快步走出房間，從媽媽手中拿過掃把，低著頭，邊掃邊說：“媽媽，地我來掃，您去做早餐吧。”

媽媽慢慢地走進廚房，準備做早餐。“咳咳，咳咳咳??”可那咳嗽聲卻一聲大過一聲。媽媽病了，我這做女兒的卻還只顧著自己，這是讀過圣言書的人嗎？我大步地走進廚房，對她說：“媽，您去休息吧，早餐還是我來做。”媽媽一聽，頭一抬，眼睛好像立刻就生動了，望著我，仿佛在說我懂事了似的，但她什么話也沒說出口，轉身 1

就走進臥室了。

早餐做好后，我端著湯面，走進媽媽的臥室。媽媽躺在床上靜靜地看著我，一臉欣慰的笑，但眼睛卻是濕潤的，說：“我的乖女兒，長大了。”我聽后，心里甜滋滋的，比考試得了一百分還要高興，嘴角也忍不住直往上揚。把湯面遞給媽媽：“媽媽，您快吃！”看著媽媽津津有味地吃著面，我心里感到無比的幸福。忍不住悄悄地走到媽媽耳邊輕輕地說：“媽媽，我現在總算明白了《弟子規》的真正含義了，以后我一定要力行圣人的教誨。”

第二篇：李世默演講觀后感

如果他們在臺下

——李世默演講觀后感

白荷菲 201355003

筆者總結李世默的演講，主要有兩個方面的內容：

1、元敘事危害著社會的正常發展。無論是原始社會到共產主義社會的單線發展敘事還是傳統社會到現代社會選舉創造民主美好社會的單一導向敘事都與現實相左，且引導社會走向極端的深淵。

2、中國共產黨領導下的中國模式前景是美好的。不同于西方認為的僵化、封閉和不具合法性，中國的一黨制模式具備自我糾錯能力，能夠不斷進行政治改革，與時俱進；能夠通過一套成熟的黨內機制選賢任能；而且以其卓越的競爭力贏得合法性，獲得民心。

下面，筆者將試圖以哈耶克、伯林、羅爾斯和施密特的立場和觀點來看待李世默的這一場演講。作一個大膽的假設，如果這四位政治思想家當時都坐在臺下，他們應該會對演講的內容褒貶不一，但至少不是全盤否定的。

哈耶克大概是會贊成李世默對元敘事的辛辣諷刺的，因為這完全契合哈耶克認為的人無法克服其無知，人的理性是有限的。且不論是否真的存在社會發展的標準路線，即使存在人們也無法認識或驗證。而哈耶克推崇的演進理性主義更是相信社會秩序是在人與人、人與自然的復雜互動中經過漫長的無目標的過程逐漸生成的，元敘事否定偶然性、否定演化過程的自生自發，無疑會受到哈耶克的批駁。在筆者看來，柏林對“積極自由”的警惕批判，認為若信奉積極自由最終的一個可能是會迫使他人自由，這與哈耶克的演進理性主義不無共通之處，在人類社會發展的層面上來看便是反對元敘事。伯林觀點讓人對元敘事不由得產生恐懼，若單一線性發展路線被個體或群體認定為“真理”，那么“沒有人有權反對理性”，加諸于異見者身上的一切便具備了強制性與合法性。而羅爾斯對理性多元論的承認也讓筆者相信其對元敘事是不屑一顧的，然而羅爾斯的自由主義觀點集中于對公平正義的論證，筆者未能了解到更多與李世默這一觀點相關的內容。施密特雖與前三者不同處于一個陣營，但他卻從另一個角度對元敘事給予了批判，施密特堅信歷史的發展是由一個又一個的“非常狀態”構成的，主權者的決斷在其中發揮著至關重要的作用，那么認為每一個社會的非常狀態都將有同樣的結果、每一位主權者的決斷都將趨同也就荒誕不羈了。

行文至此，筆者發現，雖屬于政治思想的不同陣營，但不論是自由主義還是保守主義的學者都傾向于贊同演講中的第一個觀點，即社會發展并非一個元敘事。而這也逐漸成為當今社會的普世價值，在這個時代若仍處處提意識形態的根本對立也越來越顯得不合時宜。想來具有智慧的政治思想家們早就不在元敘事行不通這一點共識上進行爭論了，盡管他們中的不少人仍然堅信社會主義遠不及資本主義。

然而當落腳到具體的中國模式，思想家們的分歧也許就小不了了。在此拋開自由主義學者對社會主義的根本排斥，筆者希望將各位思想家思想中的具體觀點對應上中國模式的特點和元素并加以分析。當然，今日的“中國模式”已不同于他們那個時代計劃經濟的社會主義了，也正因此才有探討的價值。天馬行空一想，四位學者若能目睹今日世界上的特例，其學說不知又會發生什么樣的變革。由此推想，中國模式應當對政治思想界產生相當大的沖擊才是，對自由主義等各學派的進一步發展也當產生影響，何以目前尚未在學術界形成一股潮流，亦或已在醞釀之中也未可知，這值得筆者進行更多的了解和學習。

哈耶克雖不會像批判納粹主義一般指責當今中國，但對中國特色社會主義市場經濟定是不會支持的，因為看得見的手的作用仍然巨大，與哈耶克所提倡的完全自由市場有一定距離。另一可能是哈耶克也許會視中國的改革方向是披著社會主義外衣的資本主義，一如現在頗有說服力的一派觀點，認為中國已不是社會主義國家。而對于李世默提及的中國共產黨的自我糾錯能力，憑借哈耶克對構建理性主義的駁斥他是一定不會贊同的，因為這種自我糾錯能力畢竟強調的是共產黨內部的力量，很大程度上取決于人為努力和自我約束。堅持法治為自由護航的哈耶克對演講中所提及的以現實競爭力獲得合法性想必也不會贊成，中國共產黨的選賢舉能機制存在著實質法律的因素，即便具有法律依據卻不符合哈耶克所說的法治。法治的確是當下中國模式最大的漏洞之一。李世默的演講有回避這一問題的傾向，但中國要真的實現他所作的預測在十年內獲得那些成就，法治是必須直面的。這里所說的直面并不只是強調其重要性，而是將解決憲法和中國共產黨的關系問題提到日程上來。

中國共產黨選賢任能的機制亦與伯林對消極自由和積極自由的界定相關，柏林大概會認為中國共產黨所謂的黨內民主很可能是摧毀個人主權的看上去科學有效的途徑，實際上則走上了積極自由的危險道路，中國共產黨對自我糾正能力越有信心，這套糾偏機制就越接近于絕對理性，而且會有數不清的現實理由為之作辯護。然而，伯林的多元論思想卻是對中國模式有所包容的。筆者也同意其承認人類價值目標多樣但并非無限，且不能錯誤指向相對主義的觀點。中國模式的開創者鄧小平“不管黑貓白貓抓到老鼠就是好貓”的話語在此維度上意義重大。

羅爾斯的政治自由主義學說認為自由憲政不是各種社會力量博弈而取得暫時妥協的結果，強調了公民對政體的理性基礎的理解與支持才是政體合法性能夠穩固的保證。這為人們提供了對李世默中國共產黨的合法性來源論述的思考角度。在奪取政權和鞏固政權的許多關鍵時刻中國共產黨在博弈中都取得了勝利，然而這樣的競爭力就足以構成合法性了嗎？如果論及對其理性基礎的理解和支持，又如何判斷呢？李世默給出的民意調查結構一定程度上或許可以反映真實情況，然而自上而下的調查就能替代自下而上的承認嗎？筆者對此仍然存有疑惑。而羅爾斯兩個正義原則中爭議最大的第二原則，強調公平優先于效率，則正是對中國模式現存的貧富懸殊和腐敗問題的叩問。如果這位學者當時坐在臺下，也許會對這一現象進行詬病。

施密特的“非常狀態”理論讓筆者感觸頗多。而反思中國共產黨的執政歷程，歷史又何嘗不是由非常狀態來決定的呢，這在新中國的六十四年中尤為明顯，中國的發展都帶有每一代領導人鮮明的印記，這似乎與去人格化的趨勢是背道而行的。那么，在施密特看來，是不是就可以說一個政黨或者政府的合法性很大程度上就取決于主權者在非常狀態下的決斷呢？這在中國模式的語境下，就是說中國共產黨是否有民意的基礎不能僅看經濟成就，不能僅考察其日常的民意支持度，更要研究其在非常時刻的決斷是否符合人民的根本利益。也許這讓人對中國未來的判斷蒙上了一絲保守主義的悲觀色彩，然而，筆者卻認為這個角度的思考是有利的，有助于安全的。

以上是筆者在觀看李世默演講后結合當代西方政治思潮這一門課程所得出的一些感想。非要用這四位政治思想家的觀點去看待和評論這一場演講雖然稍有牽強，但是筆者所想要表達的是，這些學說和觀點對于研究當今中國模式仍有重要價值，并不因其所屬的是自由主義或保守主義陣營便能斷論，學術界需要的是將他們的學說分條理析地與中國當下實情作一一的對應研究，而中國模式也必將對政治學思想領域的發展產生沖擊。

第三篇：2016李世默在清華演講稿全文

2016李世默在清華演講稿全文

李世默在清華演講稿全文，2016年，李世默在清華大學時事大講堂上，借用五位政治學學者的理論，分析認為21世紀是靠改革競爭的世紀，中國共產黨領導的中國必將在此競爭中脫穎而出，因為正處在少年期的中國政治體制在全世界大國中最具有改革能力。在演講中一起上了一堂“從全球政治學視野看中國共產黨與改革”的公開課從全球政治學視野看中國共產黨與改革“為題從全球政治學視野看中國共產黨與改革”為題李世默在清華演講稿全文

大家下午好，很開心來清華和同學們交流。我不是老師，我是生意人，但賺錢以外，我的業余愛好是研究中國共產黨。首先，我要聲明我不是中國共產黨黨員，小時候試過，但可能因為生活作風有問題，被拒絕了(笑)。后來入黨未成，一不小心當上了資本家。我平時是周一到周五做資本家，周六周日研究中國共產黨。今天我跟大家分享我這些年研究中共的一點——不能說是學問——只是一些心得，希望大家能夠對我的心得提出意見和批判。

我要講的題目是《從全球政治學視野看中國共產黨與改革》。政治學，英語叫politicalscience，就是政治科學，但政治學是一門軟科學，就是用科學的方式來研究社會，研究政治，研究軟的東西

那么科學的方式是什么呢?一般的科學方式是：第一步是要設立一個假定，拿這個假定到實驗室里去驗證，有的假定被驗證出是對的，有的假定被驗證出是錯的。驗證了對的假定可能成為理論。過一段時間又有人有新的假定，新的假定被驗證以后就推翻以前的理論，成為新的理論。科學就是這樣發展的。我今天講的所有內容都只是假定。

今天的假定是：全世界都需要改革。

21世紀是一個在改革中競爭的時代。能成功改革的國家將是贏家，改革失敗的國家將是輸家。

在這場改革競爭中，中國共產黨領導的中國將在全球大國中脫穎而出。所以，21世紀是中國的世紀。

全世界幾乎所有國家都面臨治理危機，從發達國家到發展中國家，都在說“我們需要改革，不改革不行了”。可是幾乎在所有國家，改革都陷入了巨大的困境，舉步維艱，四面楚歌，為什么?

我想借用五位世界一流的政治學學者的眼光來講這個題目。塞繆爾·亨廷頓：政治衰敗

塞繆爾·亨廷頓《變化社會中的政治秩序》

第一位叫塞繆爾·亨廷頓，大家都知道他寫的《文明的沖突與世界秩序的重建》，但在政治學里我覺得他最好的著作是《變化社會中的政治秩序》。亨廷頓發明了一個概念叫“政治衰敗”(politicaldecay)，這是近代政治學里很重要的一個概念。

亨廷頓在《變化社會中的政治秩序》里研究了二戰以后新獨立的國家，這些國家的大環境在發生巨大的變遷，可是他們的政治制度不能相應地改變，去適應新的環境。這種情況下，就發生了政治衰敗。他還說在體制很穩定、很成功的情況下也會發生政治衰敗。意思就是說，現有政治體制發生了所謂的固化，固化到一定程度，環境發生了變化，社會發生了變化，世界變了，可是政治體制沒有辦法去推動質的變化來適應外部環境和社會內在的變化，那么這個政治體制就發生了政治衰敗。

曼瑟爾·奧爾森《國家興衰探源》

第二位叫曼瑟爾·奧爾森，他的代表作是《國家興衰探源》。他創造的概念叫“分利聯盟”(distributivecoalition)。

奧爾森在《國家興衰探源》里研究民主體制，他說民主體制里邊必然出現利益集團，這些利益集團通過多年不斷積累權力，形成分利聯盟。意思就是利益集團權力強大到一定程度，他們可以尋租，他們可以俘獲甚至操控政治體制，使政治體制為分利聯盟的利益服務，而不是為整體利益服務，甚至以損害整體利益為代價來維護分利聯盟的利益。奧爾森說在民主體制里，分利聯盟俘獲政治體制這個問題是一個無解的困境。只有兩種東西可以打破這個困境，一個是革命，一個是外部的沖擊。如戰爭。這是非常悲觀的一個角度，無解。

弗朗西斯·福山：否決制

弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序的起源》、《政治秩序和政治衰敗》

第三位叫弗朗西斯·福山，最近兩/fanwen/1545本書叫《政治秩序的起源》與《政治秩序和政治衰敗》。福山把前兩個人所創造的概念——“政治衰敗”和“分利聯盟”——組合起來討論政治衰敗。

第一，他說政治衰敗在任何政治體制內部都可能發生，無論是威權體制還是民主體制。福山說，現代治理需要三大要素：一是強政府，二是法治，三是民主問責。

福山說美國現在正處于政治衰敗中，原因之一是當代美國是強法治、強民主、弱政府。而這個局面使得美國無法推進急需的改革。

福山還提到兩種問責制，一種叫自下而上的問責制，一種叫自上而下的問責制，兩種制度各有優劣。

自下而上的問責制即通常說的民主制度，你不好老百姓把你選下去。它的優勢在于有一個自動回應機制，你做的不好老百姓可以選另外一位。它的劣勢在于分利聯盟，福山又創造了一個新詞叫“否決制”——“Vetocracy”，就是分利聯盟把持政治體制，為了維護自己的利益，損害集體的利益。“Vetocracy”其實就是中國人說的，成事不足敗事有余。自上而下的問責制，也許中國是自上而下的問責制，私人企業也是自上而下的問責制，它有強大的執行力，這來自于政治獨立性，就是福山說的“politicalautonomy”。它的困境和弊端，第一是信息的困境，底下的人不把正確的信息給老板，老板摸不清楚下面到底怎么回事，導致決策錯誤。第二是福山說的所謂的“壞皇帝”的風險，老板出問題了怎么辦?

福山說改革在美國正在失敗，美國沒有辦法改革。為什么?他舉了一些原因。第一，民主和透明成了美國改革的絆腳石。美國太多的公眾參與，太多的透明，也就是說太多的民主，使這個國家的改革寸步難行。

第二，公民社會在某種程度上也不利于美國的改革。公民社會孵化了利益集團的形成，利益集團積累權力形成分利聯盟，分利聯盟導致否決制。在這樣的公民社會里，只要有一個分利聯盟不喜歡一件事，它就能把這件事給黃了。要所有人都覺得沒問題才能做，結果是什么事都做不成，改革更做不成。

第三，是法治。美國的法治出現了治理的司法化。就是說所有的政治、所有治理都要通過立法。立法的過程遭到分利聯盟的俘獲，即便立了法，分利聯盟再通過司法程序百般阻撓它的執行。

最后，是自由。福山說自由和特權是一步之遙，一不小心自由就變成了特權。美國最高法院今年判決說政治獻金沒有上限，這是憲法說的言論自由。就是說我自己合法賺來的錢，為什么不能在電視上買廣告，說某某政客好，說哪些政策好，哪些政策不好?給政治獻金設上限是違反言論自由的。而維護言論自由的后果是什么呢?當然是越有錢越牛，所以自由與特權是一步之遙。

王紹光：中國式共識型決策

王紹光《中國式共識型決策》

第四位政治學學者，是王紹光，他是香港中文大學的教授。他研究國家能力和國家建設。他近期的著作叫《中國式共識型決策》。王老師用中國在2016年啟動的醫保改革為案例，仔細闡述了當代中國的政治體制如何超越利益集團，成功推動改革。

中國治理模式的三大要素

我認為中國的治理模式有三大核心要素。

一是賢能治理。這是理想狀態，賢能治理也會出問題。中國選賢任能的模式，就是中國的官員來自于草根，最有能耐的人通過這個體系一步步往上爬，最終進入中國的最高治理階層。

二是實驗治理。中國幾十年來推/fanwen/1545行很多政策，都是從小地方先試起來。失敗了就算了。成功了就讓各個地方學，再成功了就全國推廣。失敗的成本較低。這樣的實驗治理只能在中央集權的國家才能實現，在美國不可能，你在舊金山實驗一個東西成了，然后華盛頓讓麻省也試，做不到的。

三是回應治理。有沒有能力回應人民的需求，回應制度到底健康不健康。據我了解，中共其實有非常復雜和有效及時的反應機制。

三中全會是政治改革的又一個里程碑

中國30多年的改革開放，取得巨大的成就，也面臨巨大挑戰。

經濟挑戰非常嚴峻，中國經濟模式走到現在創造了巨大的財富，但這個模式要改。環境變了，經濟結構變了，所以要改變這個經濟結構，可是在改變過程中增長率就會下降，又會引發其他問題。這個平衡怎么掌握，很難。

腐敗是一個巨大的挑戰。環境也是巨大的挑戰。這么大規模，這么快速工業化，人類歷史上前所未有，造成的環境問題是巨大的。

三中全會好像有600多條改革的政策，國企改革、土地改革、法律改革、經濟改革。三中全會開完后，很多學者、媒體都說中國開始實施大膽的經濟改革，可是政治改革停滯不前甚至開倒車。我覺得這是一個誤讀。

我覺得三中全會啟動了中國幾十年來最大膽的政治改革。很多人把政治改革的定義定死了，認為只有往某種方向去改變的政策才叫政治改革，朝其他方向作的改變，再巨大也不叫政治改革。但如果把政治改革作為一個中性詞，就是對政治體制動刀，對政治體制做質的改變，我想三中全會是一個里程碑。

為什么是里程碑?我認為有三方面。

一是中央和地方政府權力分配發生了巨大變化。三中全會比較重要的一點就是國家預算，以前中國的國家稅收只有一半在中央政府手里，這次把它變成了全國的預算，這是巨大的權力再分配。

二是黨紀和國法的權力分配發生了巨大變化。三中全會對中紀委進行了重組，把地方紀委的決策權力從地方黨委那里抽出來。這又是一個巨大的權力再分配。

三是黨和國家的關系發生了巨大變化。1949年建國時引進的蘇聯模式“三駕馬車”——人大對應最高蘇維埃、黨中央對應蘇共黨中央、國務院對應蘇聯的部長聯席會。三中全會——我認為——把三駕馬車的格局打破了。國家成立了很多領導小組和委員會，都是黨中央在領導。比如，中央國家安全委員會，負責國內國外的安全;深化改革領導小組，負責經濟改革政策。這是一個驚人的權力再分配，是一個巨大的政治改革。中國共產黨走到了中國國家治理的前臺中央。

所以，我覺得三中全會是中國改革歷程中一個巨大的里程碑，很多人把新中國的60多年分成兩個30年，我覺得三中全會啟動了第三個30年。第三個30年最重要的兩個方向：一是政治治理的完善，一是全方位民族復興。中國政治體制改革的原動力

近些年來，政治學里流行的說法是，選舉民主制國家最善于自我糾正，也就是改革，因為能夠通過選舉更換執政黨。但是現實卻恰恰相反。民主國家普遍陷入治理危機和改革困境。而中國呢?

回顧中華人民共和國的65年歷史，在中共的一黨領導下，中國經歷的政治、經濟變革，幅度和深度是近代史上罕見的，遠遠超出幾乎所有其他國家，包括所有民主選舉制的國家。為什么?我認為這是中國政治體制的獨特性質的結果。在中國，核心是中國共產黨，中共本身就是中國的政治體制。中國是世界上大國中唯一的一個擁有這么一個獨立于社會又同時來自于社會的政治力量，正如福山所說的，politicalautonomy。中共來自于中國社會的草根，又高于中國社會的所有利益集團，這個機制就是中國改革的原動力。

尼可羅·馬基雅維利：

每種政治制度都有它衰敗的一面

尼可羅·馬基雅維利《論李維》

回到最開始我說要跟大家分享五位政治學家，前面講了四位，都是我們同時代的人。

第五位是一位古人，這位古人是政治學的泰斗，沒有他就沒有政治學，他叫尼可羅·馬基雅維利，是500年前佛洛倫薩共和國的外交長官。美第奇家族復辟以后，把他打入監獄，施以酷刑，然后將他流放到鄉村。在寫給友人弗蘭西斯科·維托里的信中，馬基雅維利講述了自己的流放生活。在漫長而平靜的日子里，每當夜深人靜的時候，馬基雅維利總會換上宮廷的華服，進入自己的書房。在那里，他廢寢忘食地閱讀先哲遺篇，與古賢心照神交。只有在那樣的漫漫長夜里，他才感覺不到饑餓干渴，也不再懼怕死亡。在那里，他寫下了流傳百世的代表作《論李維》，這本書是所有政治學的基石。

他在這本書里，把全世界所有政治制度歸納成三種：一是君主制;一是貴族制，他說的貴族制是希臘語的貴族，就是我們講的選賢任能或賢能制，不是后來歐洲出現的世襲制的貴族;三是民主制。

他說每一種政治制度都能夠表現得非常好，可是每一種政治制度都有它衰敗的一面。君主制會衰敗成暴政，貴族制會衰敗成寡頭制，民主制會衰敗成放蕩制。

我想留給大家的一個想法，就是也許世界上沒有永遠的東西。我們研究政治學，研究任何一個國家的政治體制，最值得研究的就是這個政治體制在它的生命周期里，是在哪個點上。如果在少年期那是一種預測，如果在中年期和老年期就是另一種預測。在現實中，也許沒有一個政治體制是永恒的。每一個政治體制，不管是君主制也好，貴族制也好，民主制也好——中國現在實行的也許是賢能制，美國是民主制——所有這些政治體制最終都可能走向衰敗/fanwen/1545，就像人的身體一樣。政治學的基礎就是，把政治體制、社會當人的身體一樣研究。把政治體制比作人的身體，就像人小時候經常生病，每年都感冒，病歷卡很厚，但是一到發育的時候什么病都沒有了，到七八十歲病又回來了，也就臨近死亡了。

我經常把當代中國比作美國100多年前，100多年前的美國也在發生巨大的變革，快速地工業化，那個時候的美國，它的腐敗、它的暴力遠遠超過今天的中國，但那個時候的美國，它的政治體制在它的少年期，那些再嚴重的問題也沒能阻擋它成為超級大國。中國的政治體制也有很多問題。每個人身體里邊都有癌細胞，就看它什么時候出來。每個政治體制的基因里邊也有癌細胞。我的假定是，中國的政治體制在少年期。美國政治體制，以及整個西方的政治體制，倒是一個值得研究的問題，它們肯定不處在少年期。我們要研究的問題就是西方發達國家的政治體制，在它們的生命周期里邊是中年期還是晚年期?如果美國的政治體制是一個50歲的人，它還有一次機會可以重新復興。如果是80歲呢，就像福山講的那樣，政治衰敗就是眼前的宿命。

中國的政治體制處在少年期，它具有巨大的活力——也就是改革的能力，21世紀是中國的世紀。

以上這篇李世默在清華演講稿全文為您介紹到這里，希望它對您有幫助。如果您喜歡這篇文章，請分享給您的好友。更多演講盡在：精彩演講望大家多支持本網站，謝謝

第四篇：李世默--兩種制度的傳說

Good morning, and my name is Eric Li, and I was born here.No, I wasn’t born there;this was whereI was born.Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity.It went like this.All human society develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of the culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s people will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught the grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.Then the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows: all societies, regardless of culture, be a Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they are all rational, once given the vote, they produce the good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth,again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on then is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese did not buy it.Fool me once, the rest is history.In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to a second-largest economy.650 million people were lifted out of poverty.80% of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate all my grandmother’s portions.So I ask myself, what is wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bound.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expending in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here is the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than another country in the recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then the privatization of farmland, then the Cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule les to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decide a priori what kinds of change they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is political reform have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10years ago, every aspect of Chinese society how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hand of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem.But let’s first look at the larger context.Now this may be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you will find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like university or community program.They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called keyuan.Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of position is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city distract to manger in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju, and ju levels.There, they enter high officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a distract with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of millions of dollars in revenue.Just show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and onlu 40,000 fuju and ju levels.Afer the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes a two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernized version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is a son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career tool a 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion US dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it is just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “the party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of legitimacy?”Isaid, “how about competency?” we all know the facts.In 1949, when the party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old.Today it is the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew research polls Chinese public attitudes and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago: 70%.Those who expect the future to be better a whopping 82%.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes, and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.93% of China’s Generation Y are optimistic about their country’s future.Now if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.Idon’t need to elaborate this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of the developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling.Pollution is one, food safety, population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its legitimacy.But most analystmis-diagnose the disease.They say the corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore in order to cure it you have to do away with the entire system.But more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s still moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, is 94 and dropping.For the hundreds or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries cannot fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the US and become the largest economy in the world;income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, not eliminated and China will move up 10-20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will be holding firm.We live in the dust of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there is only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong and it is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you.

第五篇：李世默TED演講稿(英文)

Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn’t born there.This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative.Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows.All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.Now.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it.Fool me once… The rest is history.In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions.So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context.Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program.The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels.There, they enter high, officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels.After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S.dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone.It’s just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old.Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%.Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling.Pollution is one.Food safety.Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy.But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I.ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong.It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?