文章 - - 文章列表 - 普通

本文基于2006年10月在“西南地区民主改革口述史”研究计划培训会上的讲座写成。

光伏产业，危机复兴的突破口？国家新竞争的制高点？一场围绕光伏产业的国际竞争已经展开。以光伏产业为核心打造“新能源大国”，是一个可能使中国经济一举摆脱“世界血汗打工仔”地位的最佳切入点。以国家意志、国家力量主导光伏产业的发展，是最容易汇集全民共识、最具缓解阶层利益对立的方案，可得“四两拨千斤”之效。

公租房建设如今已在全国铺开，成为国家住房保障制度改革的重要载体，也成为了今年全国“两会”的一大热点。这一新事物在各地出现有哪些模式？还要突破什么瓶颈，形成长效的住房保障制度？ 昨日，记者陪同重庆和吉林两地代表团的4名全国人大代表，一起考察了位于北京鹿海园的公租房项目，并与北京住保办的官员一起，就公租房的种种焦点问题进行了对话。 开发模式 北京采取“三多一组合”方式 重庆商报：在公租房建设全面铺开后，国家也还在探索相关的指导性规范措施。以鹿海园这个片区为例，目前北京公租房建设标准是什么？ 邹劲松：按照建设部去年发的标准，公租房都必须在60平米以下。这里的户型比较大，甚至达到了90平方米。因为这是政府从开发商手中收购过来，改成公租房项目的。在发展模式上，北京市采用多元化的办法，我们叫“三多一组合”，多元的主体建设，多方式供地，多渠道筹集资金，然后就是进行建设管理。 崔坚：北京多元化建设具体怎么操作？ 邹劲松：一个是政府建，还有咱们相关的产业园区来建设，还鼓励国有企业拿出自己的用地来建，面向社会公开。同时，北京也鼓励民营企业拿出自己的土地搞公租房建设，解决本单位的职工住房困难问题。 重庆商报：重庆建设模式都比较单纯，直接由政府划拨土地，然后由国企来操作，这和北京的模式有很大的差别。 崔坚：北京调动更多的社会力量来参与公租房的建设，我认为这个做法能让社会更多的人知道公租房，支持公租房，这也是好事情。重庆的模式则能更好地保证公租房的融资，保证公租房的质量，保证公租房的数量，去年我们开工是1300万平方米，今年计划开工1350万平方米，这个量在全国可能是很多省市都没有达到的。 遭遇困惑 如何保证公租房可持续发展？ 重庆商报：从各地建设公租房的情况来看，好像政府都在“吃亏”，如何能保证这个制度不是暂时现象，而是持续发展，成为未来住房保障中最重要的一块呢？ 邹劲松：这个问题是我们现在很困惑，也是正在探索的。公租房建设必须要坚持“两个可”，首先是老百姓可承受租金。 华渝生：老百姓能够承受，经营单位就不一定能承受了。 邹劲松：所以第二个就叫做可持续。我们的公租房试验点还要做大做强，还要可持续。那么这里就需要政府要有作为，比如北京提出政府要采取一定的优惠措施，包括土地让利、税费减免等。同时对承租公租房的廉租房要进行补贴，多管齐下，才能保证老百姓能够住得起，同时还能良性循环。还有就是企业来经营，可以采用协议租赁的方式。 北京马上还会发一些措施，对于公租房建设，减免政府性的基金，减收基础设施配套费，目的都是为了大大降低它的运营成本。 柏广新：还有就是融资方面，因为政府的负债，政府不能直接融资、直接担保等等，所以需要大量的资金启动时，要靠企业解决。 崔坚：这是一个金融问题，我们现在公租房建设资金的筹集方式，和商品房资金筹集方式一样。所以，我们政策的配套性就有一些讨论空间：公租房和商品房能不能不一样，公租房能不能采用特殊的政策。现在商品房的融资模式，等于占了双重资源，首先是融资的企业付了利息，其次是融资的企业还需要用资产来进行抵押，这样成本就很高了。 从这个角度上讲，我觉得国家应该出台一些支撑政策。不过我注意到，银监会最近有一个表态，对公租房的融资给予特殊支持，这是好迹象。人大代表以建议的方式进一步的反映，应该还会推动这个事情的进展。 重庆商报：融资成本比较高，企业天生就是要盈利的，即使国有企业也不例外。过一段时间，会不会为了经营平衡，企业把公租房的租金给提高了。 崔坚：就企业本身来讲，它是一个社会的经济细胞。但国有企业为带动社会发展，就得干一些亏本的事情。但是企业成立的目的，其中有一个就是要用它未来的收益来平衡当时的支出，不平衡不给你贷款，这个要讲清楚。 各地租金 重庆的租金付利息都不够 重庆商报：现在每个地方的老百姓都很关心，公租房的租金是怎么界定和测算的？ 华渝生：重庆公租房的成本，包括征用土地成本，加上土建成本、环境配套成本、装修成本，大概每平米3000元左右。柏广新：我这次专门有一个建议，拓展公租房制度，建立国家公民公寓制度，凡是中华人民共和国公民，都应该有这个权利申请。 邹劲松：北京基本的原则是不会高于市场价，但是同时考虑成本。 华渝生：像这样的小区，租金标准能够控制在一个什么范围？比如每平方米30块钱、20块钱、还是10块钱以内？ 邹劲松：没有最终确定。像这里收购的房子，就是大体上是六七千元/平方米。 华渝生：如果不是收购，自己建设大概多少钱？ 邹劲松：目前我们政府建设的也是7000块钱左右，不同的地段价格不一样，有的地段好一些，土地费用高一些。 丛连彪：那租金就不低于40块钱一平米一个月。 重庆商报：相比之下，重庆目前每月的租金是10元左右一平方米，已经很低了。 华渝生：重庆公租房的成本，包括征用土地成本，加上土建成本、环境配套成本、装修成本，大概每平米3000元左右。按照近百分之七的利息算，一平方米一年的利息200元，而租金才120元，相当于政府一年要补贴80元/平方米，这是多么划算。反过来说，你真用三千元来买房子，就利息也不止十元钱。 柏广新：即使公租房再便宜，为什么很多市民考虑最多的还是买房？我觉得，当前最重要是引导居民消费理念的转变。在一些国家或地区，60%的人口住公租房，住商品房的很少。你想，买一栋房子，这个钱租一辈子的房都用不完。所以我们也应该追求使用权，不要追求产权。 未来方向 建议建立全民公寓制度 重庆商报：当前各地都在探索公租房的住房保障方式，如果要在全国形成一套长效的模式，下一步的发展方向会有哪些？ 柏广新：我这次专门有一个建议，拓展公租房制度，建立国家公民公寓制度，凡是中华人民共和国公民，都应该有这个权利申请。在建设的同时，起草完善一系列规范和条例，比如说购买了商品房，就要退出公寓，年均收入超过30万或者50万，退出公寓，这样使公民公寓轮流使用。为什么这样做，因为国土资源是有限的，如果现在都卖掉了，那么将来再建廉租房，我们就没有地方建了，因为土地面积是固定的。 丛连彪：我担心的是，扩大规模后，很多地方的财力可能会杯水车薪。 柏广新：可以逐步将房产税试点范围拓展，你住豪宅的人，花几千万买了，纳税就得高点，这个钱拿回来就建公寓，给普通人建。为了从根本上保障居民的公寓住房，商品房的价格就完全由市场决定去，你卖得越高，我收的税越多。 重庆商报：但同样也有个申请和退出的问题。 柏广新：可以实行公民轮候制度，我符合申请公租房的条件了，或者申请公寓的条件了，就可以申请等候，通过审批进住。各个省市可能遇到一些细节问题，比如外来的怎么办？户口所在外地怎么办？这些住建部要研究，形成一个规范。

梭罗素食的原因及其他。有些人素食不是因为毛茸茸的小动物可爱，更严肃的理由有清洁，节约，反对暴力，把女性从与处理肉食相关的繁重厨房劳动中解放出来，等等。

环保总局怎样才能有效保证环保政策的施行？怎样才能使禁令不在地方上成为一纸空文？

台灣的民主反對運動必須得要重新清理過去的歷史，在這個過程中得有主體性的去面對日本殖民主義對台灣長遠的傷害，以及美國對於兩蔣威權體制的支持過程中對於台灣民主造成的迫害及長遠的影響，而不只是切掉歷史重要的構成，透過簡單的反中來自我正當化；這也就是要把歷史中台灣主體構成的他者多元化。

这种关注文本的语言和由此构成的概念史研究方法是否可以运用于关于中国近代历史问题的讨论上呢？

本文通过对华南PS街道办事处化解劳资纠纷的过程及相关事件的田野研究,提供了一个关于2008年劳动合同制度实施的具体案例分析。笔者发现,在《劳动合同法》生效以后,街道办事处在劳资纠纷中的角色由过去的放任转向了干预,并人为地降低了法律的执行标准,以预防可能出现的社会不稳定因素。笔者认为,劳动合同制度未能得到有效实施是受制于多个相互联系的社会过程——如基层政府的组织环境、城市化以后街道办事处与社区关系的变化、产业的升级转型等——的互动。本研究表明,在评估地方政府在社会转型中的作用时,需要特别关注地方背景和具体的制度条件。

在以赛亚·柏林后接任牛津大学经济学系主任G.A.Cohen生前最后一本著作《何不实行社会主义?》的书评。该书认为弱肉强食是目前社会的特征，希望用一个更理想的社会形式取而代之。书评作者劳埃德悲观地认为柯亨的想法超乎现实，他为了实现平等而要求人们拥有的道德，自治和品行是不可能实现的。

在“底层”文学、“打工”文学及“新少年写作”等文学现象中，显示了这种日常生活的平庸性所带来的新困扰，而对这种平庸性的焦虑与不安仍然是新语境下文学写作的基本主题之一。

在西方宪政民主中获得胜选的政治领袖，也经常说自己是代表全体人民主政（虽然投票给他的选民只占总投票额的一部分）。表面上看，英、美与西欧的民主领袖也有民粹主义的倾向。然而，台湾的情况与西方的情况是很不同的。以炒作求取胜选的议题（如台独意识等）为手段而获得权力的台湾民粹主义的政治领袖口中的「人民」，正如王振寰、钱永祥所分析的，「指的却已经不是传统民主理论所设想的积极参与的公民，而是消极被动的、由统治者赋予集体身份的、功能在於表达认可（acclamation）的正当性来源。这种人民在组织上是由上向下动员而来，在身份上则是透过国族的召唤而成；它缺乏社会性的分化、缺乏体制性的意志形成过程、也没有机会参与政治议题的决定」

近日绿色和平发表最新报告《时尚之毒——全球服装品牌的中国水污染调查》，报告指出，耐克、阿迪达斯、李宁等多家国际国内知名服装品牌在中国的两家供应商排放的工业废水中，含有能够干扰内分泌并影响生殖系统的环境激素类物质。之后，各家企业都针对这一报告给出的结论都作出了声明与回应。

工业格局重组是世界格局演变的根源。当前世界的最重要工业格局变化趋势是：在欧亚大陆东端，工业体系在从中国东部向西扩展，逐渐向欧亚大陆腹地延伸；在欧亚大陆西端，工业网在从德国向东扩展，逐步与俄罗斯连接。也就是说，欧亚大陆工业网正在从两端向中心扩展。而在德国以西区域如西欧、南欧，以及中国以东区域如日本、美国，工业则在走下坡路。

中国乡村社会目前正在经历一个从治理性危机到伦理性危机的转换过程。

本文从研究德国17世纪的四名汉学家入手，揭示当时莱布尼茨时代的德国的汉学研究，从而在德国当时的文化和学术氛围中来理解莱布尼茨的中国观。

《论衡》中有《问孔》《刺孟》二篇,公开向孔子、孟子发难。另附毛泽东论以批评楚太子生活奢靡起首的枚乘《七发》的文章。

所谓“边缘学科”，是指在两种以上不同领域的知识体系的基础上、采取“跨学科的方法”（interdisciplinary approach）发展起来的综合性科学门类。因为这种研究涉及到不能纳入既有的理论框架之内的新现象，于是有人把边缘学科理解为“科学发展的前沿部门”（the frontiers of science）。又因为这种研究往往游离于不同学科的中心课题和权威话语之外，边缘科学在各个有关领域中的位置也多半是“边缘化的”（marginal branches）。而无论采取上述三种涵义中任何一种还是全部，我们都可以说：法社会学的确是十分典型的边缘学科。

李昌平与《大江城市生活周刊》 的谈话。“每个人都有自己的倾向性，他们会朝着自己的倾向去编故事。我们不说外国，说香港土地是香港政府所有，他们没有自己的土地，那是不是表明香港人民没有权利。根本不需要国外的例子。日本80—90%的林地都是国有，那我们为什么一定要搞私有化呢？”

访谈。

David Fincher’s The Social Network, which tells the story of Facebook, is fast and intelligent and mean, a sort of screwball comedy without the laughs. It’s written by Aaron Sorkin, whose credits include The West Wing and A Few Good Men, and based on a novelised history by Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires. As long as it stays with the details of its tale – the faces, the clothes, the dialogue, the rooms, the parties, the sleek restaurants – the movie seems both restrained and sure-footed, willing to leave the thinking and the conclusions to us. But its larger plot movements are strangely dedicated to an insistence on two intriguing but evasive fables. One says that genius needs humiliation to get it going: so much so that the humiliation may be more important than the genius, a nicely faux-democratic message. The other says you can only make real money, money beyond dreams as distinct from just a lot of ordinary money, if you don’t care about wealth at all. Genius doesn’t calculate, even when it’s a computational genius.The film’s best line appears in a long, intense, information-crowded conversation before the credits. Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, a student at Harvard, is sitting in a bar with a girl from the far less classy Boston University and boasting about his implausible chances of getting into one of Harvard’s fancy and exclusive social clubs. Once he’s in, he says, he’ll be able to introduce her to a better class of people than the ones she knows. For some reason the girl, Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara, doesn’t take kindly to this suggestion, and the mood goes from lousy to worse. Finally she gets up and leaves, telling him that he will go through life believing that people don’t like him because he’s a nerd. This won’t be true. They won’t like him because he’s an asshole.Zuckerberg trots back to his dorm room and proves by inventing Facebook that Erica is absolutely right. No, that’s not quite the film’s line of argument, but it is largely what it shows us and a late attempt at a revision of Erica’s line lends it a weird retrospective authority. Just before the movie ends, a woman lawyer who has been present at the depositions regarding various suits against Zuckerberg and what he stole from or owed to whom, looks at our lonely hero, forlorn and with only his computer to befriend him, and says: ‘You know, you’re not really an asshole, you’re just trying so hard to be one.’ Then comes a truly mawkish moment. Zuckerberg hesitates, then types onto his Facebook page a version of the request that millions are now making and receiving every day: will Erica be his friend? No answer, film ends. Just as we’re wondering whether this little scene wouldn’t have been too soppy for David Selznick let alone David Fincher, a text crawls up the screen telling us how much Zuckerberg settled for: $65 million in one case, an ‘undisclosed amount’ in another. Facebook, the text informs us, is worth 26 billion. This is just a grand old American story after all. Nice guys finish last and assholes finish rich. If you’re feeling sentimental, you can ask the key, corny question. Yes, but are they happy?Of course a lot happens between Erica’s insult and this ending, and what humanises Zuckerberg in the movie is the possibility that he’s so angry not because Erica has upped and left him, but because she had the last word and she’s smarter than he is. He can’t have this. When he gets back to his room, he drops a few sexist and ethnic slurs about Erica onto his blog for all who care to see, toys with inventing a web-game where people – I mean male students – are invited to compare pictures of girls with pictures of animals, and then settles for devising another game called Facemash. This involves hacking into the records of the university’s residence halls, collecting photographs of all the female students, and putting them up on the screen in pairs. The game is really subtle. The guys just say which of the two girls is ‘hotter’, and chortle away. The game is so successful that before the night is over Harvard’s computer system has crashed and Zuckerberg is famous.Enter the Winklevoss brothers. These are two athletes, rowers, members of an elite that will never admit Zuckerberg even into its environs, who are looking for a programmer for an idea they have: a computer-based social network trading on the snob value of Harvard’s name, an extended electronic version, in other words, of the system Zuckerberg was describing to Erica. They contact Zuckerberg, who says he’ll work with them but does nothing but stall them for a month or two. Meanwhile he invents his own social network, and calls it The Facebook – later he drops the ‘the’. He and his friends, notably Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield, who puts a little money into the venture, start to include other universities in the system, including places on the West Coast, and well before the end of the movie, the network has gone international. The Winklevoss brothers learn about it just after they have narrowly lost a race at Henley. Close but no cigar; just the news that the locals too have Facebook.Did Zuckerberg steal the Winklevosses’ idea? They think so, and the $65 million they received in the settlement suggests there was something ($65 million, to be precise) in the thought. Zuckerberg’s position is that he so transformed a lame, provincial project that he can’t possibly be taken as having nicked it: this would be like saying Shakespeare stole Macbeth from Holinshed, or Newton stole gravity from the apple. The case of Saverin is rather different. At the centre of the movie, with flashbacks radiating out from it, is the room where the depositions are being heard in the two cases. Saverin lent Facebook more and more money, and was CFO of the company. However, once Zuckerberg had met the charismatic Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake), and moved to California, Saverin was edged out, and the film pictures him as the model of East Coast caution trumped by West Coast cool. Parker is the real-life inventor of Napster, a music-piracy system whose failure did more damage to the recording industry than even its success could have done, and what Zuckerberg likes about him is not just his savoir-faire, the sort of fast style that makes the poshest Harvard club look like a garden party, but his sense of risk and the future. Saverin too is suing Zuckerberg, ostensibly for cheating him out of the continuing profits but in movie terms for betraying the only friend he has.The acting in the movie is quite wonderful, very disciplined and focused. Timberlake as Parker is charming, funny, reckless, even dangerous, but also nervous, an ex-nerd who hasn’t entirely forgotten his past. The film’s second-best moment, after Erica’s early line, comes when Parker announces at a party, as everything is being filmed, that soon all our lives will instantly be on the internet. Two minutes later the police burst into the apartment and take him off for snorting cocaine. Did somebody set him up? Saverin out of envy and revenge? Zuckerberg because he thought Parker was putting the company at risk?Garfield is good as Saverin: sympathetic, decent, but limited, and easily made to feel inferior, a nice guy who won’t finish last but won’t be near the front either. The triumph of the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg. He manages that stolid, stubborn, stupid look that clever people often have, and when his expression changes, which is not often, we may think he is getting angry. But then Eisenberg’s closed manner robs us of any confidence that we can read any of his expressions. This is the whole trick of the performance. We can’t gauge the expression, yet our curiosity forces us to do something with a face that is held so long and so often in front of our eyes. So we keep guessing. Was that almost a smile, and if so, what did it mean? Contempt? Some milder form of amusement at the idiocy of others? Some of our guesses are irresistible, and might even be right. Zuckerberg’s social awkwardness, presumably real enough at one stage, has become a style, a mask, an aggressive pose. His confidence in his own intelligence, and his conviction that he owes nothing to anyone, least of all any sort of obligation to be nice to them, come across very clearly whatever expression is on his face, and his only weakness, it seems, is a defensive impatience: he just can’t afford to think anyone else has a mind that matters. He is a monster of sorts, and like all monsters, a mirror of something that humans want or need or fear. Certainly it’s as a monster that he is compelling, and that’s why the attempt to reduce him to a little boy lost, just a nerd after all, is so craven, a shameless reaching out for the Oscar-worthy stereotype.