SigPhiSigPhi

论社会主义

约翰·斯图尔特·密尔

语言:
英语
状态:
完整作品
作者归属:
作者本人所著
文本状况:
未检测到扫描噪点 (对全文的自动评估,未经人工核对)
篇幅:
约 27,800 词 · 132 个段落
引用本作品
  • APA约翰·斯图尔特·密尔. (n.d.). Socialism [论社会主义]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-stuart-mill/socialism
  • MLA约翰·斯图尔特·密尔. Socialism [论社会主义]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-stuart-mill/socialism.
  • Chicago约翰·斯图尔特·密尔. Socialism [论社会主义]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-stuart-mill/socialism.

这是 SigPhi 所复制版本的引用:SigPhi 是其数字复制品,不是出版者。元数据中没有版本年份(因此写作“n.d.”),译者只有在有记录时才列出。

内容简介

身后发表的论社会主义诸章:社会主义的批评里有什么是对的,又有什么行不通。

背景与流传

这是他两边阵营都宁愿忘掉的那个穆勒。他接受社会主义关于财产和劳动的大部分诊断,同时以自由和激励为由提出异议。未完成:他是在写这本书的时候去世的。

这是编辑性背景,不是可引用的来源:与作品本身的段落不同,这些说明无法在语料库中核对。

开篇
But it was also said that slavery, that despotism, that all the privileges of oligarchy were necessary. All the successive steps that have been made by the poorer classes, partly won from the better feelings of the powerful, partly extorted from their fears, and partly bought with money, or attained in exchange for support given to one section of the powerful in its quarrels with another, had the strongest prejudices opposed to them beforehand; but their acquisition was a sign of power gained by the subordinate classes, a means to those classes of acquiring more; it consequently drew to those classes a certain share of the respect accorded to power, and produced a corresponding modification in the creed of society respecting them; whatever advantages they succeeded in acquiring came to be considered their due, while, of those which they had not yet attained, they continued to be deemed unworthy. The classes, therefore, which the system of society makes subordinate, have little reason to put faith in any of the maxims which the same system of society may have established as principles. Considering that the opinions of mankind have been found so wonderfully flexible, have always tended to consecrate existing facts, and to declare what did not yet exist, either pernicious or impracticable, what assurance have those classes that the distinction of rich and poor is grounded on a more imperative necessity than those other ancient and long-established facts, which, having been abolished, are now condemned even by those who formerly profited by them? This cannot be taken on the word of an interested party.…

阅读全文 →

← 返回约翰·斯图尔特·密尔