最近一个月终于初步整理完了中国西方的思想史，在寻找当代思想前沿的时候成为了WELL的会员。
WELL，译为全球电子链接，是反文化的领导人物Stewart Brand在反文化逐渐落幕，其Libertarianism思想精髓逐渐被新的网络黑客文化吸收，互联网兴起之后，建立的第一个网络论坛，在建立的几十年里聚集了当代的知识分子。2012年，在网络社区被大众占领，网络时代的商业模式被广告付费模式统治之后，WELL社区成员自行花400000美元，买下了WELL，以会员付费模式运行。
成为会员之后在论坛上游荡了几天，发现这里的讨论质量是我见过的所有的任何网络论坛最高的，很多人都是水平很高的知识分子、作家、音乐家、活动家等等。有经济基础的朋友可以考虑入会，他们有一个论坛是可以公开访问的，可以进去看看，讨论2018年的当代世界局势：https://people.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/503/State-of-the-World-2018-Bruce-St-page02.html
http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/the-dark-night-of-the-liberal-spirit-and-the-dawn-of-the-savage/
Michael A. Weinstein
I propose to undertake a critique of contemporary American liberalism, specifically what is commonly called “neo-liberalism,” from the foundation of a phenomenological reflection on modern consciousness. Liberalism, as a political formula for self-consciously organizing society, is fatefully bound to the continuance of the modern understanding of life and cannot survive the failure to instantiate that understanding into consciousness, to make it the very constitution of consciousness. The current talk about a postmodern historical period appears, therefore, to be an admission that liberalism is a thing of the past. Yet the very term “postmodern” is empty of any positive content, subsisting tensely to signify a craving for its own transmutation into something fundamentally new, a fresh description of the structure of life that would carry with it a transfigured politics. There is also a radical uncertainty in the postmodern mind, a suspicion that there is no transformation on the horizon, that consciousness is incarcerated in the categories of modernity and must face the realization that the human self has at last become fully lucid to itself, that now is the time to learn to live within a final self-understanding and not to escape into new visions. Taken together the craving for radical novelty and the nagging doubt that it is a genuine possibility make postmodernism another instance of avant-garde modernism, perhaps the last one, the final modern irony.
Postmodernism is the modern reflection on the loss of dynamism in modernity, its self-closure, and the inability to get beyond it: postmodern consciousness bounds the boundless, but the “dynamic insight” of continuous change, as Karl Mannheim called it, has been inextricably associated with modernity. Thus, postmodern consciousness is the pure dialectical negation of modern consciousness, locked in an embrace with it, decreeing that it must assent to just what it is most unwilling to hold close to itself, its own being as a static form. Postmodernity is the most acute instance of the “unhappy consciousness,” an empty craving for liberation, for the unlimited, crashing against the success of self-determination. Politically, it is decomposed or deconstructed liberalism, a spasmodic hope for progress unhinged from life by a corrosive, nostalgic doubt.
Postmodernism is the most recent of the “waiting philosophies” that have characterized twentieth-century Western culture, the most profound of which is Martin Heidegger’s effort to open himself to the voice of Being, undertaken within an “interregnum.” I shall initiate a phenomenological reflection on modern consciousness by questioning waiting philosophy, which is constituted by the pure intentionality of a receptive strain towards that which does not appear and the appearance of that which is held in doubt. The intentionality itself cannot be criticized on its own terms: it is a possible structure of consciousness that is not self-contradictory; that is, one can form one’s being-in-the-world according to uncertain expectation. Thus, a critical approach to the unhappy consciousness of postmodernity will have to proceed by treating it as a symptom of an act of evading a more primary intentionality, as a form of neurotic compromise between a judgment of the truth about personal existence and a wish that the judgment was false. The life of uncertain expectation is a form of dissociated existence in which one carries out all daily activities according to the requirements of social function and legal fiction, while experiencing these activities as detached from any unifying significance. The sense of importance is fully transcendentalized into the experience of waiting—the round of life becomes reduced to killing time, whereas inwardness is intensified into a restless tension and dis-tension, according to the vicissitudes of doubt. Such a consciousness wrenches itself into a groundless hopefulness through nostalgia for a lost unity, translating deprivation into craving for novelty. It is the breakdown product of the religious will, the historicized wish for salvation divested of its object and even of any symbolization of a questionable object. The waiting attitude is based on the judgment that it is better to hold on to the religious intentionality than it is to become coincident with life, verifying Max Weber’s observation that the modern life that they had created for themselves was too much for human beings to bear. Postmodern consciousness is the very thinnest, almost transparent veil thrown over the modern understanding of life, a nisus towards the beyond superadded to finite mundanity and, therefore, the most austere of the modern cultural neuroses. As the pure wish for a transformation that is held to be questionable or even, more purely, impossible, it discloses its other, its dialectical reciprocal, without any necessity of interpretation. That other, detached from the vacantly straining expectation, but always juxtaposed to it, is the formed content of modern life itself.
Modern consciousness may be grasped most generally through the act by which the self seizes itself from within in a declaration-deed; that is, the self actualizes its own being through a declaration. My paradigm here is the Cartesian cogito through which the self is realized partially as a “thinking substance” though not yet as a complete life. Indeed, the phenomenology of the modern mind is a remorseless, uncompromising process of enriching and intensifying the inward center of individuated life until it reaches the limit of its empire, and must then either try desperately to transcend itself or learn to live within the boundaries that it has made lucid to itself. The historical moments of modern consciousness are familiar. From the Cartesian starting point of the thinking ego one passes to the self-legislating will of Kant and finally to Nietzsche’s passionate and personated flesh, best captured by Unamuno’s designation, “the man of flesh and bone, who is born, suffers, and dies.” One of the great ironies of postmodern consciousness is that it recreates the Cartesian starting point through an inversion. When Descartes, frustrated in his efforts to discover certain knowledge that would enable him “to walk with confidence in this life,” finally was impelled to make himself the object of inquest, he seized a thinking ego from which no linkages could be made to his daily life. Indeed, his only connection to the other-than-self was transcendental, was to the idea of perfection. Lacking a bridge to mundanity, he devised a “provisional morality” that enjoined him to live with good will according to the usages of those around him. For Descartes there was hope that genuine and satisfactory connections would be made to the world through rational investigation, so his was a patient waiting. Now with the modern closed in upon itself the waiting returns, only it is desperate and impatient. There is the same detachment of life from spirit, but it is not the pregnant suspension filled with expectation of the unfolding of a new age; it is bitter nostalgia ungirdled from perfection, craving for a miracle: the cogito has become the pour soi, thought has become the manipulation of signs, and only the barest interiority remains at the very margin. This interiority is necessary to express the judgment that interiority is a useless passion or, in a flight of bad faith, a word functioning to legitimate racial, patriarchal, capitalistic, or, most radically, linguistic domination.
其余见文章开始原文链接
@we its the worst of the times; it's also the best of the times
The dark force is rising. Come, hero, let's bring the light. >_<
我也思考过这个问题，因为翻译总是一种很耗费时间精力的工作，这一道信息墙往往导致几年甚至几十年的信息文化差异，在当今全球化的趋势下最终的人们的交流媒介会收敛到一种语言上（the principle of least resistance），而这个趋势几乎已成定局了，即英语。这里我写写这个问题的本质以及可能的解决方案。
语言是文化的媒介，亦表示这种交流的文化基础是西方系文化。同时，统治语言的形成多是由于文化质量的压制以及一定程度的经济压制，如日本在早起的宫廷语言都是汉语即是为了学习中国的统治制度以及文化以稳定国内局面；而阿拉伯数字的兴起也是因为在阿巴斯王朝时，罗马帝国的文化衰落，阿拉伯、波斯和埃及的基于伊斯兰教的文明质量优于基督文明。如今，希腊系的西方文化在文化质量上远超当今中国社会的文化——这句话并不意味着中国的古代文明在文化质量上的劣势，我们还没有完成如西方文艺复兴时对自己古代文化的梳理，而如今西方文化至少在本质的萌芽上仍然是希腊式的，且有其根本的问题，以至于催生了如今的消费主义以及全球的经济帝国主义等等；这句话仅仅意味着现在的中国的文化的低俗、劣等和物质。
然而我并不认为让汉语成为统治语言是一个合适的解决方案，这是一种狭隘的民族主义，即使最后中华系文明又找到在新时代的重现。所以我写东西主要也都是英文，也因为现在写的还都是学术论文。
但是如何解决汉语的这种你提到的尴尬局面？一直我也没有什么答案。除去体制化的信息封锁，一个更为根本的原因是中国有质量的知识分子太少，以我现在的观察，我所了解的中国所认为的有水平的学者甚至还达不到西方的中坚知识分子博士毕业前的水平（中坚知识分子指的是在未来有潜力成长为如罗素、Caustells、胡适这样的大家的人，大家亦不是指如先知一般的半神，而是在某一领域有超越前人的建树，即使在未来又被证明是错的），然而却站在了中国思想的领导地位，带偏了整个社会的方向。但是即使存在这么一批知识分子，还是避免不了语言的冲突，这种冲突在上个世纪中导致整个英国哲学界和欧洲大陆哲学界的在完全不同的方向发展，剑桥派系陷入逻辑主义的死胡同里不可自拔，而大陆则开始诞生了现象学。
所以最终的矛盾还是地方语言和统治语言的冲突。
直到最近，我初步解决了人工智能领域大概60年，自建立之初就没有解决的一些根本问题，让我意识到至少勉强反映原意的自动翻译是有可能的——谷歌现在的还有很大问题，再给我十年的时间多半就可以搞出来。
不提涉及到的科技，这个问题的解决思路其实引出了建立一个多文化共存的全球文化——新的文化必然是多种文化共存的，城市文化不算是一种文化，其只是一种异化——人类需要解决一些基础设施的问题：国际性的公正的金融系统——区块链，交流媒介——通用翻译，统一的知识整理系统——新式的图书馆（这个技术还没有萌芽，在解决了语言的问题之后就有可能了），易用的基础生存设施（反文化时期《全球目录》即提供一套know-how让读者自行在野外建立社区，Open Source Ecology，Open Source Chips --- RISV-V）等等，以及不受窃取的通信手段（cipherpunk），分布式的存储手段（IPFS）等等。
但这种解决方案的基础是一套自恰的哲学，这种新的文化是什么样子，在这种文化下人们的生活方式又是什么样子，我们要有什么样的政治制度，什么样的法学，什么样的社会愿景。这些我都还没有想清楚。所以这个问题在本质上是我们的时代需要什么样的哲学、什么样的文化。
最后以西方知识分子里一个极度需要我们学习的态度结尾：如果你发现一件事有问题，去解决他，不要抱怨（If you see something is wrong, go fix it; do not whine）
@Ciao 的确delivery不是很好，我是基本知道他在讲什么，主要通过他了解现在全世界的状况。
不过讲真的是现在我已知的所有所谓学者都纠结在一个错误的问题上——自先秦以降，自古以来的士人（王阳明是例外，长期发展下去可能会是中国理性的启蒙，思想的发展却被清朝打断了），以及现在的学者——即是所有的思想都是一种反抗行为（resistant project)，并没有从问题的本质思考问题。举两个例子，霍布斯的世界体系建立在人的侵略性和自私上（dorminance and self-interests)，Bentham的政治哲学建立在人的追求欢乐上(the pursue of pleasure），在秦以前先哲还在讨论人性善恶，之后则在儒家的框架下再也出不来，唯一的大创新都是从佛家借来的——佛家的根本也是基于任性的理论，如冥想、空等等。
中国现在的问题本质上并不是集权与自由的问题。中国的发展在一个非常合适——这一点先不说了，也可以说非常不合适的时机。500年的文艺复兴之后的发展让西方的人文主义以及其支柱理性主义（reason）走到了尽头，如今的宗教回流（religion fundamentalism）、恐怖主义、民族主义（nationalism）、环保运动（green politics），反文化，开源运动，密码朋克（cipherpunk）都是这种病态发展的产物。有的是建设性的运动，如环保运动以及开源运动以及密码朋克，有的是反抗运动，如宗教回流，只是在毁坏现在的社会的结构而没有输出。中国现在的所谓对民主自由的追求表面上（这些学者也真心以为）是在反抗集权，其实本质上都是反抗由于global captalism引起的alienation（异化），中国泛滥的民族情绪也是如此。但其实上都在问题实质的表面游荡，参与者的防抗行为多是给自己找到一种生活方式，一种身份认同（identity）。但最终均不可能解决问题，这也是中国几千年来王朝循环的原因——但不是所之前他们也在反抗global captalism，而是他们的行为都是一种resistant identity，没有根本上去解决问题。
写前面这两段的原因倒不是想阐述这个问题，而是想引出技术乌托邦不是不做技术和科学——其实我想说不懂——的知识分子理解的用技术手段解决问题，科学和技术其实是西方文明的精髓，其渊源自希腊时期开始（Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Epicurus），在社会混乱的时候退隐为神学（Augustine, Christianity, Neo-platonism)，在文艺复兴的时候被重新拾起（Bacon，Kant, Hume, Husserl, Merleau Ponty， Russell）。与其伴生的Locke的自由主义，Marx的社会主义，达尔文的进化论（evolution humanism, facism）， 都是这种精神在特定的社会的情景的产生的政治哲学。同时，叔本华、尼采、萨特的哲学也是基于这种精神对生活和人的再解读，以寻找新的生活方式（life philosophy）。因此，现在的“技术乌托邦”在实质上这种精神或者哲学对现在的社会状况的再分析。而现在的过分专业化，尤其在中国，让文科的学者对这些内容完全没有理解的能力。
而引出最后一段的原因是希望看见这条线索的读者认识到其重要性。因为常常是，答案就在眼前，而毫无所觉。
越打越多，不知不觉打了半个小时，要干活了
This is the lastest development on the hacker movement as a social movement. It has involved open source hardware, open source industrial ecology, blockchain, and more important the clear identification of the adversary --- the global capitalism. But vaguely, I sense it has missed a vision of the society should be, and Amir Taaki is not clear on that. I am still reading contemporary philosophy on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxvwI2r_Sy8&t=2732s
Some notable authors on the subject:
Castells, Manuel Mumford, Lewis Bookchin, Murray Himanen, Pekka Abdullah Öcalan Barzun, Jacques
Last remark. It is not about merely geeks, it is about modernity, and the way out of current broken global culture.
以人工智能为主题的片子有时候电影里人工智能的发明者会自言自语这么一句话：
“我不知道是否是我们应该继续继承这个世界？”
这么些年“走过”了各种政治哲学——儒家的、社会主义的、自由主义的，最终都因为一些很pivotal的事件认知到这些哲学在提倡一种善的同时，也故意掩藏了其对应的人的恶——更准确地来说是人作为一种动物从丛林社会里进化而来继承的动物性。而这种恶都像此报道一样，并不为人所知，也不被高层的知识分子或者精英传播，因为仅仅暴露侬疮而没有药膏只会使机体崩坏。
某种程度上，我们应该需要一个新的社会物质基础以及衍生的文化以及其相应的制度化。
略书感想。
Life should be an aim unto itself, a purpose unto itself.
Even philosophy needs to be “thickened and obscured” before it can be applied to real life. “There is no need to light up affairs so deeply and so subtly.” Nothing is to be gained from living like Tasso, blinding oneself with one’s own brilliance. It is better to be moderate, modest, and a little vague. Nature will take care of the rest.
An being updated post on the book
And Montaigne was right. Life did go on. The St. Bartholomew’s massacres, terrible as they were, gave way to years of inconclusive individual suffering rather than heralding the end of the world. The Antichrist did not come. Generation followed generation until a time came when, as Montaigne predicted, many people had only the vaguest idea that his century’s wars ever took place. This happened partly because of the work he and his fellow politiques did to restore sanity. Montaigne, affecting ease and comfort, contributed more to saving his country than his zealous contemporaries. Some of his work was directly political, but his greatest contribution was simply to stay out of it and write the Essays. This, in the eyes of many, makes him a hero. --- How to Live, Guard Your Humanity
Zweig knew that Montaigne disliked preaching, yet he managed to extract a series of general rules from the Essays. He did not list them as such, but paraphrased them in such a way as to resolve them into eight separate commandments—which could also be called the eight freedoms:
Be free from vanity and pride. Be free from belief, disbelief, convictions, and parties. Be free from habit. Be free from ambition and greed. Be free from family and surroundings. Be free from fanaticism. Be free from fate; be master of your own life. Be free from death; life depends on the will of others, but death on our own will.
Only a person who has lived through a time that threatens his life and that valuable substance, his individual freedom, with war, power, and tyrannical ideologies—only he knows how much courage, how much honesty and determination are needed to maintain the inner self in such a time of herd insanity.
But many passages in the Essays seem rather to suggest that you should engage with the future; specifically, you should not turn your back on the real historical world in order to dream of paradise and religious transcendence. Montaigne provides all the encouragement anyone could need to respect others, to refrain from murder on the pretense of pleasing God, and to resist the urge that periodically makes humans destroy everything around them and “set back life to its beginnings.” As Flaubert told his friends, “Read Montaigne … He will calm you.” But, as he also added: “Read him in order to live.”
五四青年节快乐！
这可能是中国唯一一个向前看的节日。
风雨如晦，Long live the spirits.
P.S.
有段时间没发贴了，最近在看Montaigne（蒙田）的相关著作，和社会关系不大，也就没什么要吐槽的。最近来了蛮多新人呐，感觉主要都是学生，大家建设性讨论，期待智慧的人儿出现;)。
两个数据库随便点了两本书，都可以下载，速度大概100KB/s，下载需翻墙。
乍一看感觉很不错，希望存在时间长一些，有机会让我慢慢浏览。这些书里面有没有你觉得对现代社会在文化、社会理论（social theory)方面描述最为准确的？
Good Job, and Best Wishes.
From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58233.From_Dawn_to_Decadence?ac=1&from_search=true
这本书应该是（目前为止）看过的最叹为观止的书了，后半本我几乎是blaze through（不得不用英文让我觉得我中文好差）。虽然这本书对我个人的历史使命是（几乎）完成对我们生活的时代最后一片拼图(笼统地讲为什么西方以其的代表政府(representative government)为傲，却又鄙视政客；为什么社会主义、共产主义曾经是和自由主义分庭抗礼的理念系统/学（我觉得意识形态是一个故作高深，蠢化大众的术语），却成为类似法西斯的存在；为什么现代派画作充满了颓废的气息；为什么如今民粹主义（populism）在全世界兴起；威权政权存在的合理性等等)以及开始找到结合儒家、存在主义、自由主义、社会主义、技术乌托邦主义、Epicureanism等等新的生活政治哲学——突然觉得打了好多， 但这本书很大程度上能够让人“猜测”未来如何是“更好”的社会。如我之前提过，中国的问题不只是中国的问题，而是一个世界性的所有社会都缺乏方向的问题。举个例子，讽刺的讲，“我们”想要的民主反而在国外有大量的人要反抗，统称为反抗“系统”。
最后做一些备注。可能书很难读，本书旨在综合性分析历史上的文化，因为对提到的哲学、艺术（音乐、绘画、歌剧）、文学（小说）、历史甚至科学技术都是一两句话、或者一两段话概述，不对多数内容有相当了解可能跟不上作者的节奏。
@Ciao 哎，有机会面聊吧……我举的例子的背后的逻辑基本没有get……但多年的经验都是这样吧，基本是一种认知训练偏差，但这历来是一件难事。我只是来这休闲的，长篇大论讨论留待二十年后吧，哈哈哈哈
BTW,卢梭只是个叛逆的孩子、机会主义者，你可能指的是洛克的社会契约、理性政府，卢梭只是标题党……皇室也是自己先崩掉（财政危机、大量决策失误、无意义的战争），然后下层才有机可乘
最近听了好多毛不易的歌，觉得这个人太有才了。
在补充一点背景，Louis XIV的统治集权带来了法国历史的繁荣，以至于整个西欧的上层贵族都来以讲法语为高贵、模仿法国的宫廷礼仪、以及学习法国的high culture，但是这种改革的动机并不来自Louis，其只是一个操作权谋的高手，改革的策划人是当时的财务总理（Superintendent of Finance） Colbert，其进行了一系列的改革。而Colbert的上台手段是通过揭发举报前任，而前任下台的真正原因是Louis知道其在某个小岛上修了城堡并屯兵，所以不放心。
补充背景的原因不是我要强调历史的荒谬，而是说明改革的原动力来自社会、文化和经济基础——然而我并没有提及因为有点过于复杂。
@Lightman 好像是，的确不太合适，不过应该也挺重要的吧，现在中国如果不强调维稳，很可能回到当年军阀局面，只是思想、人权、自由、创新、对话、改革都成为了代价
@Ciao 哎，其实你不明白我的意思——也是我基本没有讲了，连观点都没有，最近还在整理历史和历代哲学，没有很明确的观点——这也是现在“知识分子”的问题，总是以为自己明白，但其实有很大盲区，并无自知之明（do not take it personally)。现在我的感觉绝大多数知识精英是支持体制的，原因不在此论述，举一个历史的例子，文艺复兴一百年后，由于新教（我觉得翻译成反抗教protestanism更合适）的派别太过众多——背后都是不同的利益集团，西欧常年处于战乱之中，类比于中国民国时期的军阀混战，在这种时候，路易斯XIV的集权统治（monarchy)实际上受到多数人——主要的政治力量是新兴的资产阶级——的支持，而反对者多是想要维护自己地方独断统治（tyranny）的贵族。同时从历史的角度来看，这种集权打碎了历史遗留的地方势力，是之后1789年法国革命的必经阶段，因而在那时是进步的。但这也不一定代表现在的制度是进步的，只是提供一个例子来表达：
我的感觉是这种基调的帖子其实就不适合这个时代，也不会促进社会进步，因为对于我们时代的问题，需要去分析历史、社会、体制、科技等等各方面的因素，找到中国真正的问题，在文章里我没有看见个人在这方面的努力，而仅仅是满足自己的情绪表达，这样的作为除了扰乱社会安稳，并无多大作用。
我说这些知识分子从问题的基本认知就错了，有骨气只是吊社会一口气，值得敬佩，却多数也只是自己感动自己，不知有没有人能听懂。中国的问题远远比骨气、自由、民主、抗争要复杂得多。
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/24/chinas-social-credit-system-bans-millions-travelling/
最近几个月外媒一直报道社会信用系统，但是我看到的引证只有发改委发布的通告，报道里从来不谈被黑名单的人的数据出处，甚至不提undisclosed source，觉得报道不是很可信——外媒一直有恶魔化中国的倾向，很多报道就像中国报道西方一样片面曲解事实。所以有没有人知道数据具体出处？或者真实数据？
分类错了。。。
@Lightman 想想这么说也对，媒介决定了受众
@Lightman 受众啊。我第一句表明观点了啊，还分别介绍了两者的受众
感觉受众不同吧。
好的文学作品多是哲学家在用故事讲述自己对社会的愿景（Ecotopia by Callenbach、桃花源记）抑或警告（1984、Brave New World,、Animal Farm、圣经的世界末日）或记录（长恨歌、战争与和平、百年孤独）或对当代社会的反抗（In Praise of Folly，西游记）等等，其手中多是受过良好教育的社会精英——即使现在被视为通俗小说的西游记在当时对于极大多数人口都是文盲的古代中国用也不是大众能够阅读的。
而影视作品多存在一定程度的dumb down——对所传达内容的通俗化，尤其在现代。除去目的纯粹是娱乐的作品——你说的情绪宣泄多是娱乐性的作品，多数作品的创作动机都是教育，其受众是unenlightened mass。因为人都是通过故事来了解世界的，影视作品就是用几乎不用思考的方式，把故事告诉世人，比如《我的团长我的团》、《白鹿原》、《辛德勒的名单》等等。
当然，这两者的界限也是很模糊的，只是这种分类只是一种趋势。影视类中也有第一种，这种一般就被称为文艺片、纪录片等等，如《魔法少女小圆》（哈哈哈）、《教父》、《The Matrix》、《让子弹飞》——所谓站着也把钱挣了的，但看懂的人不多。
from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/secret-state-of-north-korea/
Youtube播放流畅很多。
以前一篇更详细的报道：https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/
这个问题至少在技术上好像区块链可以解决，觉得在国外是个风口。
但是实际上只有15gb的空间，35GB30天后就过期了
下了试了下，本来还截了张图，没料到不能上传，就算了。
支持各种平台，尤其linux，dropbox只有命令行，还是第三方的，megasync界面做得相当漂亮。 速度也还好，有600kb左右，数据应该不具有代表性，没有太多测试，dropbox能到2MB左右。关键是并不用用代理就可以同步！ 安全之类的评估起来就很费劲了，感觉代码都开源了，应该不错，一篇评论
@daidai 开头有说，在问题评论里
补充一下，作者是苏联宣传部成员（he works for Soviet propoganda)
来自http://qr.ae/TU8QzQ 问题评论
不代表个人观点，不过也觉得合情合理。
(a) revolutionary romantics - “Another world is possible
(b) hard-nosed, clear-headed, strong-willed practical guys. True Communists, born leaders—the few, the proud, the selected. They don’t care much for “Another world”, they are focussed on the bottomless possibilities of this one. Their ultimate dream is self-realization through unlimited power. these true Communists do not always know their calling beforehand. Yet, when the D-day comes, they instantly realize their destiny, and majestically rise to the occasion. They never go halfway, until their cause is a done deal. Their motto is “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, and transforms into “Only the paranoid survives” once they are in power.
Any catastrophic disturbance of social order, whether provoked by war, or famine, or a natural disaster, or stupid, delusional, corrupt rulers.
It also requires an unusual level of inequality. Which is possible to measure (Gini coefficient), and then you know: when a big-scale calamity happens, which place is ripe for the Communist revolution.
This map shows the budding revolutionaries all good breeding grounds for Communism, courtesy of World Bank.
Key word: Inequality.
In case you are still guessing, Mao is self-evidently (1.b)
Another contribution from Dima, Oct 3, 2017:
If you want to feel like a real communist, you must do all the right things, in the right order: Read the classics and be able to answer the question: “What are the three sources and the three integral parts of Marxism?” Join a local Communist cell, or form your own and establish a contact with other local cells, in order to organize yourselves and propagate the ideas and practices of the Communist transformation of your society Take side with the subjugated working people in your neighbourhood and at your working place, use every opportunity to explain to them how their lives will turn to the better once the political power is taken by you. You must organize strikes, demonstrations, sit-ins and other forms of civil action that disturb the bourgeois political life and reveal to the working classes the deceptive nature of so-called freedom of speech, freedom of association and other myths of bourgeois ideology. Never flinch from use of violence, including use of weapon, in fighting the oppressing classes. Their past history of subjugation and exploitation, as well as their future crimes, vindicate civil wars, mass shootings, taking of hostages and concentration camps. Never yield to the myths of bourgeois justice or morality, they exist solely for perpetuation of class exploitation. Once you triumph, you’ll introduce a new, better proletarian justice and proletarian morality. Once the oppressing classes lose their political power, you must immediately nationalize most, or all of the means of production. Anything larger than the ethnic grocery shop at the corner, anyway. You shall not forget the shop for long, though, because the small-bourgeois instincts of its dark-skinned owners in the long run inevitably produce the most reactionary forms of large-bourgeois ideology. Political rights of the oppressing classes must be revoked. No voting rights, no right to establish political parties etc. All bourgeois media must be confiscated, any attempts to spread bourgeois propaganda punished. Introduce a strict censorship. Keep a strict party discipline. Some of your comrades will inevitably get wrong ideas about confiscating bourgeois homes, shooting saboteurs, torturing organizers of subversive actions, and other necessary measures of class struggle. These comrades must be censured or purged from the party. If they persist in their erroneous small-bourgeois ways, they must be treated in line with the worst of class enemies. Revolution must be able to defend itself. Establish a large, well-armed defense force and an omnipresent, highly efficient secret police. Once the oppressing classes in the entire world are eradicated, you may consider to abolish your Communist state. But until then, these will be inviolable guarantors of your victorious proletarian state. From here, using your well-deserved power of the armed proletariat, you use your own discretion for further advancement of the Communist cause. This is well-tested many places and worked perfectly in Russia, China, Cuba and many other places. Don’t listen to what the detractors say about so-called crimes and demise of Communism. The Korean communists have been holding their ground for 70 years. Maybe, you are the one who one day finds a way to beat that record. This is what it’s like to be a true Communist!
亲爱的站友们，搭了梯子才上来
@Ciao 是因为英语吗？感觉这就是一本传记，故事性蛮强的，所以才放这的。最近每天晚上看，找到以前看徐中约的近代史，Stavrianos的全球通史，Manchester的光荣与梦想，罗素的西方哲学史等等的感觉，感觉好舒畅。
过年好冷清啊，都没有帖子看。最近终于找到社会主义失败之后的政治哲学线索了，给大家推荐Murray bookchin这个人，零几年刚去世，正在看他的传——ecology or catastrophe: the life of Murray bookchin，初步感觉这个人是现代意识形态的先驱，我们时代的自由主义的洛克或者社会主义的马克思一定会受其影响。
诸位新年加油，It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.
https://www.edx.org/course/citiesx-past-present-future-urban-life-harvardx-urban101x?utm_source=email&utm_medium=partner-marketing&utm_content=email-harvardx-course-citiesx&utm_campaign=harvardx
欢迎各位补充
@Lightman 现状这种东西的研究是没有什么现成的书的，否则就不叫现状了，一本书都只能是盲人摸象，看个局部。了解这些东西主要的方法还是“划线”，通过看历史并根据自己的经验来理解现状。
一些片段化的我看过的和知道的现状的书：
Wish Lantern, Young lives in new China; Age of Ambition,Chasing Fortune, Truth and Faith in the New China; China's silent Army; Survival of fittest, the shifting contour of higher education; 殷海光，中国文化的展望； 燃灯者; China: A Fragile Super Power; Dealing With China-Hachette Group;
最后建议还是看一些历史，不然很容易不知道怎么处理和理解现状：
徐中约的中国近代史(the rising of modern china)，Ciao之前在测试硬盘的时候有分享 全球通史（A Global History，from prehistory to 20th century)
这两本入门
@Ciao 我说的受制于政府是指政府的资助和控制决定了研究的大方向，公司以及个人的思想态度并不在讨论范围之内。这即我说的受制于。这里的理解区别很值得注意：分析一个社会、组织、国家的行为的时候，这个组织的下层基础决定了其走向，个人的想法只能是顺应形势，时势造英雄；古往今来，没有一次社会变革是因为单纯的理想主义成功的。所以现在我只对大思想家保佑钦佩之意，而大多数公共知识分子只是在制造麻烦，寻求自我满足和自我利益。
关于德国的观点我大致同意，当年德国日本的情况非常像此时中国。然后我却不认为其经济技术超前文化和制度，在两次世界大战前，德国的教育制度、思想在很多方面是超越英法等国的，现代博士制度是从德国开始，哥廷根是欧洲的科学中心之一，各国留学生都来德国学习；存在主义和现象学的中心也在德国；黑格尔、康德等大思想家也都是德国的；等等。当时英法的资本主义制度已经开始崩溃——罗斯福的新政、工会运动、社会自由主义改革大概就是一、二站后改革崩坏的制度的事情。德国在当时相当于在探索一条基于最早卢梭的idealism（和我们说的理想主义不是一个概念，不明白的话可以去看看哲学史，比如罗素的History of Western Philosophy），被康德、黑格尔继承的新的社会制度设计，只是这套社会制度发生畸变，变成了法西斯，如同社会主义发生畸变——结局我们众所周知。这种畸变的发生和德国的社会现实（即下层基础）息息相关，可谓是根本原因。中国现在的情况除去文化和哲学（即制度雏形）并没有发展起来之外，和德国很像，现在西方也处于一种崩坏状态（这一条讲起来就很长了，我也还在也研究中），并不能给中国太多的有益指导或者说不存在唐朝对诸夷那样的制度压制。
@Ciao 最后一条邪恶后面多打了希望，不能修改很成问题吧，看看能不能加个修改功能
@Ciao 感觉这条信息发的感触两点吧。
一是国内的公司和实验室过于严重地受制于政府，十分唏嘘，研究人员往往也不知道他们的研究用在哪里，就像被养的枪。
二是希望让更多人看见，意识到，慢慢地解决方案会出来，就像刚开始计算机也被认为是政府式邪恶，反文化和黑客改变了这个局面
@Ciao 比较喜欢最后的个人想法，这应该算是新的制度设计的雏形。
@Ciao 本来记得放了Twitter 的链接的，可能漏了吧
@Ciao 我算是行业内人员，这些东西的技术其实我都比较清楚，比如你说的那个离线设备联网的，关系就像苹果手表和苹果手机，数据库非常大，图像处理来面部识别现在也要经过云端处理。谷歌眼镜是眼镜式接口的鼻祖，并不限于具体功能。
@Ciao 不是谷歌眼镜，我只是打个类比
@Ciao 技术提供商是llvision，从这篇twitter里过去我没有付费墙
哎，人类进步任重道远啊，觉得Star Trek里共和国和帝国的斗争可能永远会持续下去，苏联解体之后美利坚也是堕隋啊。
Chinese Police Add Facial-Recognition Glasses to Surveillance Arsenal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-police-go-robocop-with-facial-recognition-glasses-1518004353
