民心與江山：歷史常態與現實政治的思考

之前有和網友留言區探討小問題（如圖），聊的比較潦草，但其實這個小問題，涉及的政治邏輯與倫理問題並不小。

我挑兩個最常見的： 1，得民心者得天下？ 2，打江山者坐江山？

第一個，被人時常掛在嘴邊，已被賦予某種不可置疑近乎神聖的政治正確。但我們只需檢索下歷史上各類朝代更迭王權轉承……就知道，在權力的無情遊戲裡，這話的準確度還沒有另一句中國老話來得高——“天子寧有種邪？唯兵強馬壯者是爾。”

絕大多數時候，絕大多數的“人民”，都是一個被各方勢力掛在口頭利用，喊得震天響，自身卻常常保持沉默的抽象群體。偶爾難得一見的發出自己的吼聲，也會很快又被各方利用，並隨即再次沉寂下去。

很多人幻想中的人民，是一個擁有無限偉力，決定江山顏色，並有著積極主觀能動性的實體，就像個英雄一樣。一旦英雄震怒，那就是揭竿而起全民起義，再不濟也是全民上街，而且這一切，無需有人組織，“人民”可以“自發”的搞定所有。

不得不說，這真是一個歷史悠久的美麗童話。

真實的現實卻是，人民不會像英雄一樣思考和行事，沒事折騰一下奉獻一下擔當一下，不是的。過普通人的正常生活，不惹事，在眾多歷史關口保持沉默，甚至是為生計奔波操心，這才是大多數“人民”的常態。

這樣的人民，被獨裁者、被統治集團如橡皮泥一樣揉捏、侮辱、盤剝、踐踏……才是歷史的常態。

而那極少數的人民拍案而起的洪荒時刻，很多時候也不是自發的，而是得有人帶頭或組織。

歷史上大多數的“搞事情”，其實都是極少數人，甚至常常是一個人，最先發起和推動的。沒有洪秀全突發奇想的搞一個拼湊的“拜上帝教”，並從身邊人開始傳教，歷史上很可能不會有太平天國運動。沒有孫中山上書李鴻章失敗後憤而掀桌子開始兜售革命思想，歷史上也大機率不會有辛亥革命。

社會主義那套宣揚集體主義的所謂唯物史觀，把一切歸功於歷史的必然和集體的力量，極力貶低個人對歷史的作用，所謂沒有張三也有李四的邏輯，其實才是真的唯心史學，目的只是為了強調自己那套意識形態罷了。

只要梳理那些歷史事件，我們就不難看到，那些極富折騰精神甚至有些激進的少數人，才是描繪歷史斑斕畫卷的真正推手。

而人民，在那些事件前一般會分為三類：大多數繼續保持沉默，如風中之草隨風而擺。一部分會支援那些折騰者，另一部分則會反對那些折騰者。

這裡面還有一個變數，那就是折騰者的對手集團。支援自己的人民肯定會反對自己的對手，但反對自己的人民不一定會支援自己的對手。

有點複雜的關係。

而折騰者只要保證自己的對手和支援對手的人民加在一起的力量不會超過己方這一邊，或在此消彼長的趨勢中最終弱於自己這一邊，基本就可保證折騰成功了。

通俗講就是，少數人劃邊，人民選邊站，這就是歷史的常態。

就比如奪取政權，關鍵是要形成一個能夠與現政權博弈的政治軍事集團。沒有少數人先帶頭組織出這樣的反對集團，靠天各一方的人民自發的，突然的，協調一致的推翻官府……基本上是幻想。

人民是有力量的，但一定得先有少數人挑頭把他們組織起來。沒有組織起來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。

這就牽扯到另一個話題：打江山者坐江山？

很多人會用現代政治文明的理論批判這種說法，但現實總是一次次上演這樣的邏輯，無論古今中外。就連被捧上神壇的美國華盛頓，人家也是首任總統，實實在在坐了幾年江山的。

為什麼？特別是在中國？

在中國的歷史上，人民就是沉默大多數的代名詞，常常被裹挾被利用。奪取政權真正倚靠的，都是己方這一邊的政治軍事集團，具體下來，其實就是那“一小撮”。這一小群人冒著全家老小的生命危險，出錢出力出命，最終奪權成功，你讓他們不坐江山？就算你是帶頭大哥，他們也會換了你，而且這還自帶天然正義，因為你這帶頭大哥賞罰不明，無視他們的奉獻，讓他們坐冷板凳無異於過河拆橋，你當大哥已毫無合法性，換你天經地義。

這邏輯不止在中國適用，在有人的地方都適用，甚至在外星人那裡恐怕也如此。

只能說，在現代政治文明框架下，讓這些打江山的人只能在有限的一兩屆任期內坐江山（過渡政府肯定是他們成立，之後就算舉行選舉大機率選上的也是他們），並在憲政法制的制約下，讓他們的權力在監督下合理合法的運作。

這才是既符合文明進步也合乎現實政治的邏輯。

至於那些在別人賣命時冷眼旁觀的人，盤算著別人打下江山後，自己鼓吹一下現代政治文明就可以透過選舉撿過江山來坐，還是趁早熄了這投機取巧的算計。別人的犧牲，人民就算沉默終究也會看在眼裡，到了手中有選票的那天，他們也不會選那些佔便宜摘桃子的人。

時間篇幅所限，就先說到這兒，聊的仍很潦草，權當拋磚引玉，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.