华夏国家起源新论——从“猴山结构”到中央集权国家

华夏国家起源新论——从“猴山结构”到中央集权国家                                             萧功秦   用“五种生产方式”范式来解释中国早期国家起源，难以自圆其说。“亚细亚生产方式”理论从“国家村社”结构来解释公共职能的需要对于国家形成所起的作用，虽然别开生面，却无法解释中国早期国家起源。解释中国的国家起源，必须从《五帝本纪》等先秦文献入手，但单纯研读这些文献，难以通过直接归纳，拼接出一个完整的国家形成的历史图景。13世纪蒙古草原游牧共同体显现出来的“庇护扈从”组织结构，恰恰为我们理解从三皇五帝到夏商周的国家形成过程，提供了全新的启示与思路。从《史记》的《五帝本纪》、《夏本纪》等文献中，可以发现类似于游牧社会强者提供保护、弱者提供扈从效忠的“猴山结构”，这种上位者与下位者基于双方利益的结合，实现了小共同体从分散状态向集中状态的最初转变，以此关系结构作为解释框架，可以形成中国国家起源的新假说。夏商时代的中国，从“猴山结构”的松散联邦，经由作为分封制前身的“因故土而封之”的“羁縻制”，再发展到西周的分封制；到了春秋战国，分封制下的诸侯纷争，导致了中央集权化的变革，最终发展为秦汉帝国。在这一历史轨迹中，可以探知中国早期国家形成过程的完整链条。中国早期国家既不是经由西方古典奴隶制的路径，也不是简单地经由亚细亚生产方式所指的东方专制主义的路径，而是在华夏小共同体的“庇护扈从”关系上，经由酋邦联盟、羁縻制、分封制等前后相继的历史阶段，在华夏民族的集体经验中演化而来，并最终走上了中央集权的专制主义道路。       Critique on Autocratic Monarchy in Ancient China                                                Li Ruohui   In the discussion about whether ancient China is an autocratic society, whether the emperors are automatic is an important point. The idea that there is no automatic monarchy in ancient China is very popular in contemporary academia, holding the supporting that there were no self-criticism of automatic monarchy during this long period of time. In this regard, there are two kinds of different understandings: one is that autocracy sure is dark, yet this concept was not applied on the emperors in ancient China, in other words, there did not exist the fact of automatic monarchy in ancient China; and the other is that in ancient China, it was regarded that the emperors should be “automatic”, i.e. although there existed “automatic monarchy” in ancient China, the ancients gave positive evaluation of it, and criticism on autocracy was only directed at the liegeman’s invasion of imperiality, which substantially intended to maintain “automatic monarchy”. However, we can discover several discussions in classical documents which used the word “autocracy” on the emperors, and attacked “automatic monarchy”. This indicates that in the autognosis of ancient China, there existed not only the fact of “automatic monarchy”, but also criticism on it. And this kind of criticism included two aspects: one is the foundation of classical Chinese political philosophy which regards China belonging to people all over the land but not private property of the emperor; and on the other hand, the political system of decentralization between the emperor and Counselor-in-chief was established to insure the foundation descending to mere talk. If the emperor arbitrarily issued edict without the permission of Counselor-in-chief or Secretariat, it would be considered as unscrupulousness of taking the empire of his own.