民心与江山：历史常态与现实政治的思考

之前有和网友留言区探讨小问题（如图），聊的比较潦草，但其实这个小问题，涉及的政治逻辑与伦理问题并不小。

我挑两个最常见的： 1，得民心者得天下？ 2，打江山者坐江山？

第一个，被人时常挂在嘴边，已被赋予某种不可置疑近乎神圣的政治正确。但我们只需检索下历史上各类朝代更迭王权转承……就知道，在权力的无情游戏里，这话的准确度还没有另一句中国老话来得高——“天子宁有种邪？唯兵强马壮者是尔。”

绝大多数时候，绝大多数的“人民”，都是一个被各方势力挂在口头利用，喊得震天响，自身却常常保持沉默的抽象群体。偶尔难得一见的发出自己的吼声，也会很快又被各方利用，并随即再次沉寂下去。

很多人幻想中的人民，是一个拥有无限伟力，决定江山颜色，并有着积极主观能动性的实体，就像个英雄一样。一旦英雄震怒，那就是揭竿而起全民起义，再不济也是全民上街，而且这一切，无需有人组织，“人民”可以“自发”的搞定所有。

不得不说，这真是一个历史悠久的美丽童话。

真实的现实却是，人民不会像英雄一样思考和行事，没事折腾一下奉献一下担当一下，不是的。过普通人的正常生活，不惹事，在众多历史关口保持沉默，甚至是为生计奔波操心，这才是大多数“人民”的常态。

这样的人民，被独裁者、被统治集团如橡皮泥一样揉捏、侮辱、盘剥、践踏……才是历史的常态。

而那极少数的人民拍案而起的洪荒时刻，很多时候也不是自发的，而是得有人带头或组织。

历史上大多数的“搞事情”，其实都是极少数人，甚至常常是一个人，最先发起和推动的。没有洪秀全突发奇想的搞一个拼凑的“拜上帝教”，并从身边人开始传教，历史上很可能不会有太平天国运动。没有孙中山上书李鸿章失败后愤而掀桌子开始兜售革命思想，历史上也大概率不会有辛亥革命。

社会主义那套宣扬集体主义的所谓唯物史观，把一切归功于历史的必然和集体的力量，极力贬低个人对历史的作用，所谓没有张三也有李四的逻辑，其实才是真的唯心史学，目的只是为了强调自己那套意识形态罢了。

只要梳理那些历史事件，我们就不难看到，那些极富折腾精神甚至有些激进的少数人，才是描绘历史斑斓画卷的真正推手。

而人民，在那些事件前一般会分为三类：大多数继续保持沉默，如风中之草随风而摆。一部分会支持那些折腾者，另一部分则会反对那些折腾者。

这里面还有一个变量，那就是折腾者的对手集团。支持自己的人民肯定会反对自己的对手，但反对自己的人民不一定会支持自己的对手。

有点复杂的关系。

而折腾者只要保证自己的对手和支持对手的人民加在一起的力量不会超过己方这一边，或在此消彼长的趋势中最终弱于自己这一边，基本就可保证折腾成功了。

通俗讲就是，少数人划边，人民选边站，这就是历史的常态。

就比如夺取政权，关键是要形成一个能够与现政权博弈的政治军事集团。没有少数人先带头组织出这样的反对集团，靠天各一方的人民自发的，突然的，协调一致的推翻官府……基本上是幻想。

人民是有力量的，但一定得先有少数人挑头把他们组织起来。没有组织起来的人民只是民脂民膏，是官府的橡皮泥而已。

得民心者可以得天下，也可以失天下。 得天下者可以得民心，亦可不得民心。

这就牵扯到另一个话题：打江山者坐江山？

很多人会用现代政治文明的理论批判这种说法，但现实总是一次次上演这样的逻辑，无论古今中外。就连被捧上神坛的美国华盛顿，人家也是首任总统，实实在在坐了几年江山的。

为什么？特别是在中国？

在中国的历史上，人民就是沉默大多数的代名词，常常被裹挟被利用。夺取政权真正倚靠的，都是己方这一边的政治军事集团，具体下来，其实就是那“一小撮”。这一小群人冒着全家老小的生命危险，出钱出力出命，最终夺权成功，你让他们不坐江山？就算你是带头大哥，他们也会换了你，而且这还自带天然正义，因为你这带头大哥赏罚不明，无视他们的奉献，让他们坐冷板凳无异于过河拆桥，你当大哥已毫无合法性，换你天经地义。

这逻辑不止在中国适用，在有人的地方都适用，甚至在外星人那里恐怕也如此。

只能说，在现代政治文明框架下，让这些打江山的人只能在有限的一两届任期内坐江山（过渡政府肯定是他们成立，之后就算举行选举大概率选上的也是他们），并在宪政法制的制约下，让他们的权力在监督下合理合法的运作。

这才是既符合文明进步也合乎现实政治的逻辑。

至于那些在别人卖命时冷眼旁观的人，盘算着别人打下江山后，自己鼓吹一下现代政治文明就可以通过选举捡过江山来坐，还是趁早熄了这投机取巧的算计。别人的牺牲，人民就算沉默终究也会看在眼里，到了手中有选票的那天，他们也不会选那些占便宜摘桃子的人。

时间篇幅所限，就先说到这儿，聊的仍很潦草，权当抛砖引玉，能引起一些思考，便足矣。

Hearts and Thrones: Reflections on Historical Norms and Political Realities

Previously, I had a brief discussion with netizens in the comment section about a minor issue (as shown in the image). Although the discussion was quite casual, this small issue actually involves significant political logic and ethical considerations.

Here, I’ll highlight two of the most common questions:

• Does winning the hearts of the people guarantee the throne?

• Do those who conquer the kingdom have the right to rule it?

1. Winning the Hearts of the People

This phrase is often repeated and has been elevated to a level of unquestionable, almost sacred political correctness. However, a quick review of historical dynastic changes and power transitions shows that in the ruthless game of power, this saying is far less accurate than another old Chinese proverb: "Is the emperor born of noble blood? No, only the strongest army prevails."

Most of the time, the so-called “people” are an abstract entity, frequently invoked by various factions for rhetorical purposes, yet they themselves often remain silent. On rare occasions when they raise their voice, it is quickly exploited by different sides and soon falls silent again.

The "people" imagined by many—a heroic entity with boundless power, determining the fate of regimes and acting with active agency—remains a myth. Once angered, this "heroic" people are thought to rise in rebellion or at least take to the streets en masse, and all of this is imagined to happen spontaneously, without organization.

But this is nothing more than a beautiful, age-old fairy tale.

In reality, people don’t think or act like heroes. They don’t take risks or make sacrifices unless absolutely necessary. Leading ordinary lives, avoiding trouble, staying silent at critical moments in history, and worrying about day-to-day survival—this is the norm for most people.

This type of "people," manipulated like clay by dictators and ruling elites—humiliated, exploited, and trampled upon—is the historical norm.

Even in the rare moments when the people rise, it’s often not spontaneous but rather led or organized by someone.

Most historical movements were initiated and driven by a small minority—sometimes just one person. Without Hong Xiuquan’s sudden idea to create a pieced-together “God Worshipping Society” and start preaching among his acquaintances, there likely wouldn’t have been the Taiping Rebellion. Without Sun Yat-sen’s frustration after his petition to Li Hongzhang failed, leading him to promote revolutionary ideas, there likely wouldn’t have been the Xinhai Revolution.

The socialist doctrine of collectivism, which attributes everything to historical inevitability and the collective, while downplaying the role of individuals in history, is actually an idealistic view. Its purpose is merely to emphasize its own ideological framework.

By examining historical events, it becomes evident that it is the determined and often radical minority who are the real drivers of history's colorful tapestry.

As for the people, they generally fall into three categories during such events:

• The majority remain silent, swaying like grass in the wind.

• A portion supports the agitators.

• Another portion opposes them.

There’s also a variable here: the opposition faced by the agitators. Supporters of the agitators will naturally oppose their rivals, but those who oppose the agitators won’t necessarily support their rivals.

It’s a somewhat complex relationship.

The agitators only need to ensure that the combined forces of their opponents and their opponents' supporters don’t surpass their own side. If the balance of power tips in their favor, they can often ensure success.

In simpler terms: a minority draws the battle lines, and the people choose sides—this is the norm of history.

For instance, in seizing power, the key is to form a political-military faction capable of challenging the ruling regime. Without a minority taking the lead to organize such an opposing group, relying on a scattered, spontaneous, and coordinated uprising by the people to overthrow the government is largely a fantasy.

The people do have power, but it needs to be organized by a leading minority. Unorganized people are merely resources to be exploited—clay in the hands of the authorities.

2. Do Those Who Conquer the Kingdom Rule It?

This leads us to the second question: Do those who conquer the kingdom have the right to rule it?

Many criticize this notion from the perspective of modern political theory. Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates this logic, across different times and places. Even George Washington, revered in the modern era, served as the first president of the United States—effectively ruling for several years.

Why? Especially in the context of China?

In Chinese history, the "people" often symbolize the silent majority, frequently coerced and manipulated. The true force behind power struggles has always been political-military factions. And within these factions, it’s often a small minority—the so-called "few."

This minority risks their lives and those of their families, investing resources and efforts to seize power. If you ask them to step aside after victory, even if you’re the leader, they might replace you. This would carry a sense of inherent justice because disregarding their sacrifices and sidelining them would make you appear ungrateful—a leader with no legitimacy. Replacing you would be entirely justifiable.

This logic doesn’t just apply to China; it applies wherever there are people. It might even be true among extraterrestrial civilizations.

The key, under modern political frameworks, is to limit the rule of those who conquered the kingdom to one or two terms (they will likely establish transitional governments and dominate initial elections anyway). Under constitutional constraints, their power can then operate reasonably and lawfully within a system of checks and balances.

As for those who watched from the sidelines while others risked their lives, calculating that they could inherit the kingdom by promoting modern political ideals—such opportunistic thinking should be abandoned. The sacrifices of others are noted by the silent people, and when the day comes that they hold votes, they won’t choose those who merely seek to reap the benefits.

For now, I’ll leave it at this. Though still somewhat casual, I hope this serves as a starting point for reflection.