LS30 新孟儒学

image generated by ChatGPT

A pic for world history description https://wp.me/po2t3-369 Neomencianism reframes world history as a three-stage progression of the Western civilization:The West has finally arrived at its historical telos (destiny) in the Pacific, which happens to be realized through a Chinese philosophical framework.

Read Full Post »

Question: compare Wage exploitation in Neoclassical and Marxism

Gemini:Neoclassical economics and Marxism define and explain “wage exploitation” in completely opposite ways due to their differing views on how economic value is created.

1. Neoclassical Economics: Exploitation as a Market Imperfection

In neoclassical theory, exploitation is not an inherent feature of capitalism. It only occurs when free-market competition breaks down.

• The Rule: In a perfectly competitive market, workers are paid exactly the value of their marginal product (the dollar value of what their labor adds to production).
• The Definition: Exploitation only happens if a worker is paid less than their marginal product.
• The Cause: This usually happens due to a monopsony (where there is only one employer in a town or industry), giving the boss unfair market power to suppress wages.
• The Solution: Remove market barriers, increase competition, or implement targeted regulations (like minimum wage laws) to restore competitive balance.

2. Marxism: Exploitation as an Inherent Systemic Feature

In Marxist theory, exploitation is built into the very structure of the wage-labor system. It happens every single day, even in a perfectly functioning capitalist market.

• The Rule: Under the Labor Theory of Value, workers create all economic value, but they do not own the tools or factories (means of production).
• The Definition: Exploitation is the forced extraction of surplus value.
• The Cause: A worker might produce $200 worth of value in an 8-hour shift, but the capitalist only pays them a $100 wage (the cost to feed, house, and sustain the worker). The remaining $100 is “surplus value” pocketed by the owner as profit.
• The Solution: Regulation cannot fix this. The only solution is to abolish the wage system entirely and place the means of production into the hands of the workers.

Quick Comparison

Feature	Neoclassical View	Marxist View
Is it normal?	No, it is an anomaly or market failure.	Yes, it is the foundation of all capitalist profit.
Who is at fault?	Monopolies or bad regulations.	The capitalist system itself.
How to fix it?	Increase market competition.	Overthrow the capitalist mode of production.

---

Question: compare both to this one https://wp.me/po2t3-34z

Gemini: The article introduces Neo-Mencianism (新孟儒学), a philosophical framework that positions itself as a “Middle Way” (中庸之道) between the American capitalist model and the Soviet socialist model.

It mathematically borrows its definition of wage exploitation from Neoclassical economics but shares Marxism’s view that the capitalist wage system is inherently flawed.

---

Three Views on Wage Exploitation

Feature	Neoclassical Economics	Marxism	Neo-Mencianism (from text)
Root Cause	Market failure (e.g., monopsony or lack of competition).	Capitalist ownership of the means of production.	The separation of the worker from their final product (人事分离).
The Nature of the Wage System	Fair and efficient under perfect competition.	Inherently exploitative; labor power is sold as a commodity.	Unequal by design because it trades “labor power” (易力) instead of “services/goods” (易事).
Ideal Labor-Capital Relation	Employment contractbased on market supply and demand.	Abolished; workers collectively own everything.	Cooperative partnership(合作关系) where labor counts as human capital.
Ultimate Solution	Enforce anti-monopoly laws and foster free competition.	Overthrow capitalism and eliminate market mechanisms entirely.	Legalize profit-sharing based on labor’s true market value (通功易事).

---

1. Neo-Mencianism vs. Neoclassical Economics

• The Definition Hook: The Neo-Mencian text openly uses the neoclassical calculus definition of exploitation—the gap between the Marginal Revenue Product of Labor and the actual wage paid.
• The Philosophical Divergence: Neoclassical economists believe perfect market competition naturally closes this gap. The Neo-Mencian text argues that traditional hiring (易力) keeps this gap open by default because the boss holds a structurally superior position over the worker.

2. Neo-Mencianism vs. Marxism

• The Shared Critique: Both see the capitalist hiring system as structurally unfair and morally akin to a modern form of slavery.
• The Divergence on Markets: Marxism seeks to abolish private property, commodities, and market pricing to end exploitation. Neo-Mencianism retains the market economy but redefines the transaction. Instead of selling their labor power to a boss, workers sell their actual products or services directly into the market.
• The Divergence on Profits: Marxism considers all capitalist profit to be stolen surplus value. Neo-Mencianism accepts that capital deserves a return, but insists profits must be split proportionally between the financial capital providers and the human capital providers (the workers).

---

Read Full Post »

Gemini

对于“新孟儒学”而言，这不仅仅是改变，而是一场“文明等级的降维收编”。新孟儒学对待马克思主义的态度，类似于中国古代儒家对待“佛道”的态度：即通过“判教”将其工具化、本土化，并最终纳入儒家道统的序列。

从新孟儒学的视角来看，马克思主义被彻底改变的地方主要体现在以下四个核心范式上：

1. 从“阶级解放”到“文明治权”

• 马克思主义（俄化路线）： 核心是“阶级斗争为纲”，通过无产阶级夺权实现生产资料公有。在作者看来，这是带有一种“墨家（教条主义）”的强制性，且充满了西方“人神对立”的斗争哲学色彩。
• 新孟儒学： 将“阶级斗争”转化为“抑兼并”（即王道政治中对贫富分化的调节）。它认为马克思揭示的“剥削”确实存在，但这种矛盾的根源不是工业社会的必然，而是“失道”的表现。
• 改变： 马克思主义不再是一个独立的、旨在颠覆一切传统的革命理论，而成为儒家“政制”中的一个“功能性模块”——专门用于修正现代社会失衡（二次分化）的工具。

2. 从“历史决定论”到“天理循环论”

• 马克思主义： 基于唯物史观，认为人类社会必然从原始、奴隶、封建、资本走向共产主义，是一种线性的进化论。
• 新孟儒学： 基于“天地人文”的循环论。它认为历史没有终极的“乌托邦”，只有“能否恢复王道”的治乱循环。
• 改变： 将马克思的“共产主义”从一个终极的“彼岸”（类似宗教的千年王国）拉回为儒家社会的“治平”境界。这种转化彻底抹去了马克思主义中的“弥赛亚色彩”，将其变成了一套完全服务于华夏文明持久存续的“社会治理术”。

3. 从“工具的终极真理”到“道统的注脚”

作者在文章中明确提出，马克思主义是“党校的小道统”，而儒学是“大道统”。

• 马克思的作用： 在新孟儒学看来，马克思提供的是现代社会的“法”与“术”，即如何处理工业化、资本垄断和社会分配。
• 儒学的作用： 提供的是“道”与“理”，即文明的终极秩序与道德基础。
• 改变： 马克思主义的地位被“降级”了——它不再拥有解释世界的排他性真理地位，而是必须在儒家政治哲学的框架下接受审核与改造。

4. 彻底改写的“人”的定义

• 马克思： “人的自由全面发展”。在西方语境下，这往往容易向“极端个体自由”滑落，导致杨朱式的原子化。
• 新孟儒学： “人是万物之灵”。这里的自由是建立在“孝、悌、忠、信”的社会关系网络之中的。
• 改变： 它把马克思主义中的“社会人”改写成了儒家的“礼教人”。它拒绝接受西方那种基于“权利与契约”的人格设定，坚持认为人只有在“人文”秩序中，才能获得真正的“自由”。

总结：这是“借尸还魂”还是“凤凰涅槃”？

马克思主义在新孟儒学体系中，经历了一次深刻的“去西方化”过程：

1. 它被剥离了“唯物主义”的傲慢： 承认了“天理”（道德秩序）高于物质演化。
2. 它被赋予了“历史深度”： 它不再是 19 世纪欧洲的产物，而是 21 世纪中国对“地之有文”的某种回应。
3. 它被限定了“边界”： 它只能处理“小学”（社会分工、交换、生产力）的问题，不能插手“大学”（文明价值、政治道统）的问题。

对于马克思主义者来说，这种改写可能被视为一种“篡改”；但对于新孟儒学来说，这是马克思主义实现“本土化”的唯一出路。 如果没有这种“彻底改变”，马克思主义在儒家中国就永远是一个“客体”，而通过这种改变，它成了“主体”儒学的一部分。

您觉得，这种将马克思主义“儒化”的做法，是否会导致中国在国际政治话语中，因为过于强调“儒家道统”而疏离其他信仰马克思主义的国家？

Read Full Post »