文章吧-经典好文章在线阅读:《力量与克制》读后感100字

当前的位置:文章吧 > 原创文章 >

《力量与克制》读后感100字

2022-04-12 03:04:19 来源:文章吧 阅读:载入中…

《力量与克制》读后感100字

  《力量与克制》是一本由(美) 罗斯克兰斯 / 顾国良著作,社会科学文献出版社出版的平装图书,本书定价:29.00元,页数:207,特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感,希望对大家能有帮助。

  《力量与克制》读后感(一):谁更有力量,谁更克制?

  毋庸讳言,中美关系应该是当今世界上最重要的两国关系了,而每个人都会对中美之间的关系说上自己的观点。不管是对现实情况中美关系的评价,还是本书的读后感,我都认为:美国比较“有力量”,中国比较“能克制”。

  本书大部分文章都是两国学者共同执笔,或者是一国学者写,另一国学者评;书写了双方学者共同的智慧,拥有对两国关系的最深刻把握。而在书中坦露出来的那种口气,也是对美国力量的描绘,和中国克制的说明。美国作为当今世界的唯一超级强国,势力范围覆盖了世界各地,力量自然不可小觑;中国作为近些年发展起来的国家,一方面不但要接受世界各国的挑战,更要接受美国这个超级大国的“战略打击”。众多学者的观点当然也是肯定目前两国之间的关系:美国比较“有力量”,中国比较“能克制”。即使在学者的眼里,这种“有力量”也是一种有理,而这种“能克制”也是一种韬晦。

  中美之间确实存在着一种复杂的关系,从美国支持的国民党时代,到台湾海峡之间国共两党的斗争,再到中美关系正常化,两国人民和政府一起经历了一个复杂的时代和复杂的斗争、合作过程。从经济、贸易、政治交往到军事交流、两国高层互访,中美之间也存在着既竞争、又合作;既有共识、又有分歧;既有冲突、互有利益的深层次的关系。从长远来看,两国的关系要超越于这种复杂的深层关系,着眼于互惠互利的理论,可能对于两国来说是一个比较明智的选择。在确保国家主权的基础和前提下,建立战略上的信任而不是冲突,促成两国从高层到一半民众之间的沟通和交往,而不是互相拆台、攻击和诋毁。和则双赢,斗则两败。

  本书的两大部分,一是达成的共识,说明中美之间多年以来已经建立的关系和取得的成果;一是存在的分歧,台湾问题、节能减排、自由与民主(人权)以及军事上的摩擦等等,说明中美关系在深层次上还有很多的历史遗留和基本国情上的差异。中美关系未来的走向,或者说未来中美两国能否并肩,就在于政府主导下的高层认识和社会发展下的两国沟通了。在经济相互依赖的基础上,在贸易和交流不断深化的前提下,我们有理由相信两国关系会走得更好;但从地区安全的严峻形势上,从不断冲突的中美金融、人权上的纠纷上来看,即使是经济上的合作也会因此走向经济上的相互摧毁(MADE),甚至是国家之间的相互摧毁(MAD),我们不得不为前述的好加上一个问号。

  中美关系应该是一个老生常谈的话题了,但是我们看到现实中这个话题被不断地更新。最近,美国还在就人民币升值问题对中国施压,显示除了美国应有的“力量”;中国似乎并没有随之而动,但也表现出了“克制”。学术上中美关系的讨论会对现实有哪些影响?未来中美关系将走向何处?或许你能从本书中得到学者们的一点希望。

  2010-10-17

  (书名写错了,请修改一下,要不然好多人都找不到)

  《力量与克制》读后感(二):国家关系,利益为先

  这是一本关于中美关系的论文集,汇集了中美两国专家学者的一些文章,内容涉及政治、经济、军事、社会、文化以及环保等问题。对于中美关系的总体印象就像书名一样,在任何一个领域,双方的关系都充满着力量与克制,其理论根据是一个新的大国的崛起,和原来霸权国家之间的冲突不可避免。不过说到中美之间的力量与克制,在当前,恐怕是中国仅仅是刚刚表现出力量的增长,远谈不到克制,而需要克制的是美国,自己发展也要允许别人发展。

  对于国家之间的关系,我习惯于“利益分析法”,当然这种方法在某种程度上可以说是目前比较通行的方法吧。英国首相丘吉尔说过,没有永远的敌人,也没有永远的朋友,只有永远的利益。那种以“意识形态”来确定国家关系的时代已经一去不复返了。想想我们国家在这个问题上开化太晚,当人家都以利益关系相处的时候,你抱着意识形态的观念,不吃亏才怪。

  美国是典型的信奉实用主义的国家,几个著名的实用主义哲学家包括实用主义的开山皮尔士都是美国人,美国是实用主义的发源地,而且除此之外,美国再无其它哲学。也可以说,实用主义是美国的国家哲学。作为实用主义最根本的原则是“为了正确理解我们的概念,必须看它们的结果。”换一个说法,事物的意义在它的结果当中,通过结果来看意义,没有结果即没有意义。这种哲学运用到任何领域即是“利”字当头,所谓“无利不早起”。和我们有的人强调“只问耕耘,不问收获”大相径庭,不问收获何苦耕耘。

  书中有关中美两国在主要领域中的关系有这样几方面论点:

  中方认为,军事关系是两国关系的关键,直接影响两国总体关系。同时,它也是两国关系中最薄弱的环节。其中,美国涉台军事政策是“总开关”。前不久,国防部长梁光烈在越南会晤美国防部长罗伯特·盖茨即表明了这一观点。

  美国则以自由化与民主人权问题为中美之间的关键问题。任何两国之间的关系都良性的、困难的和无法容忍的三个方面,从美方来看,在民主人权上存在的问题属于第三个方面,仅有经济上的自由化无法使中美保持良好关系。目前国际政治上有一种新的主张,即“民主和平论”——成熟的民主国家之间不易发生战争。民主问题不单是一个国家的内政,它涉及国际安全。如果中国能够在民主方面有所突破,那么将会降低中美之间的紧张程度。

  在经济贸易领域,两国的依存度相当高,正向着“确保相互摧毁”的程度发展。社会领域,中国经济的持续增长、中产阶级对政治体系的融入以及社会政治领域的进一步自由化,将对中美关系良性发展产生积极影响。相反,狂躁的民族主义以及庞大的永久性的底层社会的出现,对中美关系来说则是最坏的结果。

  个人认为,对待美国使用“利益分析法”是最好的公式,困难在于具体到事件上,把方方面面的因素考虑进去进行,分析利益得失,利益相权取其重,危害相权取其轻,如何做出权衡与选择则比较困难。比如,前不久,美越这对老冤家联合在南海举行军事演习了,俄罗斯也透露出“重返金兰湾”的意图,我们呢?如何考虑多种因素,如何分析,又该采取何种对策呢?

  《力量与克制》读后感(三):地球上,有个美国

  要说在这个世界上对中国影响最大的国家,倒并不是那几个和我们有很多故事的紧邻,比如日本、朝鲜和俄罗斯,而是一个远在大洋彼岸的国度——美国。美国对我们的影响来自方方面面:从美职篮到奥斯卡,从福特汽车到托福考试,从意识形态到美国总统是谁……等等等等,似乎都在影响着我们的生活、我们的理解、我们的思维和我们的心态。

  中国人对美国的感情总体来说是正面的居多一些。相比而言,中国人认为美国人可爱的要远远超过认为日本人可爱的——事实上,我们能够举出的“可爱的”日本人相当有限,而“可爱的”美国人则举不胜举。在文化方面,美国的文化自然是让世界倾倒,这当然也包括中国。而中国人对美国政府的感受也是千差万别,有的人会认为它是世界上政治最发达的国家,美国一直鼓吹的民主和人权在中国也是越来越有市场,不过,认为美国是一个霸权主义国家的中国人似乎更多。

  美国其实可以是一个世界上最美好也最友好的国家。他们经济最发达,他们的人民乐观向上,他们有好莱坞大片和NBA篮球。然而,如果让中国人说美国是一个“完美”的国家似乎非常困难。而让中国人最为愤愤不平的就是美国人喜欢管闲事。

  而在另一方面,在美国人对于中国的情感也是同样复杂的。中国正在迅速崛起——按照《力量与克制》一书中某些学者的说法,其实“崛起”这个词是值得商榷的,因为中国曾一直是这个世界上最发达的国家,现在只能说是重新找回本属于自己的地位。然而,正是这种找回自己地位的发展,让大洋彼岸的那个美丽的国家对中国感情复杂。美国似乎对中国越来越敬畏。奥巴马上台之后迅速访问中国,向中国投了无数的橄榄枝之后回到美国又进行了一系列的不友好的举动。这其实反应了美国对中国的复杂态度,也就是人们普遍所说的美国试图“两边下注”。而对于中国宣扬的“和平崛起”,美国人是既想信又不敢信,因为在中国的民间有很多民族主义者的声音非常高调。这样美国很担心。其实这也不难理解,玄冥二老欺负张无忌那么多年,突然发现张无忌已经武功盖世,他们当然是不敢掉以轻心的。

  于是,中国和美国就开始彼此忌惮,因此就急于彼此了解。《力量与克制》这本书里就收录了中美两国的学者关于中美关系的研究成果,倒是很值得一读。

  其实,中美之间的不信任和互相攻击,最主要还是来源于双方文化上的差异。非常可惜,《力量与克制》这本书里,中美的学者就两国的各个方面都进行了探讨,唯独没有提及文化。而中美的各种分歧和冲突——除了经济利益之外,都可以找到文化层面的解答。

  中美两国的文化,从根本上说,中国是儒学文化,美国是基督教文学。前者虽然也有以天下为己任的说法,但是它的表述却是“达则兼济天下”,这里的重点是“济”。与之对应的则是“穷则独善其身”。温家宝总理在多个场合强调,中国人要首先办好自己的事。这不是自私,而是一种自省。自己的国家还有很多人处在温饱线上下,美国就要求我们做什么世界的“利害攸关方”,这在某些领域还有可能,但是并不会在所有的领域都会这样。中国更不会去做世界的霸主。中国目前没有那个实力,即使有那个实力也没有那个兴趣,因为中国的文化里根本就没有那个取向。儒学是中国文化里最积极的一种了,但是也只不过说“达则兼济天下”,而不是“霸天下”。现在中国正在从“穷”而转向“达”,所以对内还是要“独善其身”,对外则在能力所及的范围内“济”天下,非洲是一个很好的例证。美国批评中国在非洲的行动,认为那是掠夺,其实他们这是用自己的文化模式来思考中国。可笑之处在于,美国一旦用他们的思维方式来思考中国的时候,中国就特别可怕,这也和美国文化的特点有关。

  美国文化的根本是基督教,基督教的主要教义当然是爱人,但是他们首先爱的是上帝的儿女。对于不承认是上帝的儿女的,那么就天然的属于魔鬼撒旦,对于这些人,要么争取到一个阵营来,同样变成上帝的儿女,那么就可以去“爱”;否则就是异己,要予以铲除。所以,美国文化有着很强的吞并性和排除异己性。从这个角度也就不难理解,为什么美国不能接受一个社会主义的中国,最主要的一点,是中国和他们不一样。

  自诩为“上帝的儿女”的美国人对于不属于上帝的儿女的中国人有着一种莫名其妙的心理优势,他们认为自己永远是对的。在《力量与克制》这本书里有几篇文章是关于中国的民主建设的。中国要不要继续加强民主与法治建设,答案是肯定的。这对中国、对中国人民都是必需的。然而可笑的是,似乎从某种角度上看,美国人比中国人更关心中国的民主与人权问题。《力量》一书的第六章是美国的托尼·赛奇教授写的《中国与美国:两个互动的社会》,在这篇文章里有一句话“如果中美两国要避免冲突,那么,一个必要条件就是,中国日益兴起的中产阶级至少能够非正式地参与其领导层的决策过程”。这句话就很难理解,中国的中产阶级地位是否提高只会对中国的政治生活甚至是社会结构有所影响,关你美国什么事呢?中国中产阶级地位上不来,只会导致中国社会的贫富分化更加严重,中国会不太稳定,但是一个不稳定的中国就会和你美国冲突?还是你们容不下这样的中国来找我们冲突?

  还有,台湾问题。

  台湾问题一直是中国的内政问题。美国有一个什么《对台关系法》,其实这个法律本身就莫名其妙。即使台湾地区发生战争,这个远在太平洋对面的地区和你美国又有什么关系呢?交战的双方也都是中国人,又不是你美国的公民,你又紧张什么呢?台湾问题从消极面来说和美国真的没有什么关系,中国即使真的统一两岸对美国也没有什么伤害,除了会伤害美国的既得利益。换句话说,美国是得利得惯了。而当有一天中国真的比美国更发达的时候,中国至少在台湾问题上不会看你美国的脸色,换句话说,美国的很多不合理的既得利益会消失。胡蜚要抢回本属于自己的东西,所以恶人会害怕。美国也是一样。

  美国真正担心的,是不断强大的中国会让它在这个世界上说了不算。对此温家宝总理在接见奥巴马总统的时候说得很清楚:各国的事情要由各国人民自己决定。美国在军事和经济上领先全球,但这并不代表他们在道义上也应该说了算。美国不断地批评有些国家是独裁国家,而它自己却一直在扮演着世界的独裁者。对于美国来说,他们怕不断壮大的中国会和他们会权,这其实是他们不了解中国的文化,如果他们深入了解了中国文化之后,他们的结论会更可怕:强大起来的中国,会让世界上各个国家自己说了算。

  似乎全世界的人都知道这个地球上有个美国。而美国也担心在不远的将来,随着中国的强大,地球上的人会更多地记得这个世界上有个中国而忘了美国。其实美国也无需在此问题上多虑,因为世界上的人们对美国的态度,完全取决于美国自己。美国本应是一个非常完美的国家。

  《力量与克制》读后感(四):Rationally Probe into the Truths and the Strategies

  书为中美关系选修课选读书目,文为英语写作Research Paper。

  When it comes to the bilateral trade relationship between China and America, the stereotypes pop out in most minds regardless of the nationality that Chinese people are to blame for the American unemployment, and it’s unfair for Chinese government to place obstacles to American corporations. Moreover, the American administration and mainstream society also make an utmost effort to advocate these ideas which fueled the surge in anti-China emotion. Yet are these truths? Should China be affiliated with accusation and assume the obligation? I felt skeptical about the propaganda and tried to combine the research done by another scholar several years ago (Bingxi Zhen, Argue Against America’s Ten Prejudices and Misconceptions Over Economics and Trade to China, 2007) with the current situation, especially at this critical moment when our foreign exchange reserves soared above $3 trillion at the end of March this year, looking into the statistics and figuring out the truth.

  The most widely accepted “fact” is Chinese people robbed Americans of their jobs in a blink of an eye. Except that Zhen pointed out people worked in traditional low-end light manufacturing merely accounted for 1.7% of total American employment in 1990, and it is exactly the fastest developing section in China’s exports to U.S. which seems of little importance to present America. Besides, early in August 2005, an officer in World Bank, Neil C. Hughes, opposed against this viewpoint via potent proofs. Almost 60 percent of Chinese exports to the United States are produces by firms owned by foreign companies, many of them Americans. These firms have moved operations overseas in response to competitive pressures to lower production costs and thereby offer better prices to consumers and higher returns to shareholders. Thus, the truth is American people themselves triggered the large amount of exports due to their needs.

  Technically speaking, Sino-US trade relationship directly creates tens of thousands jobs for Americans each year, let alone support millions opportunities indirectly. The Fact Sheet: U.S.-China Commercial Relations, which prepared for President Hu’s visit, released on White House website in January, 2011, recorded distinctly that a Boeing Airplane Sales order can offer 100,000 positions, and other 16 cooperation programs will definitely bring enormous profit margins. Therefore, China is not stealing U.S. jobs or engaging in unfair trade practices to under cut U.S. economic might and export its way to global power. The truth is nations are increasingly interrelated and interdependent in this age of economic globalization, and all of us are beneficiaries, without a doubt.

  owadays, we still can hear voices expressing their dissatisfaction toward the degree of Chinese markets’ openness. American companies are frequently shut out of entire industries or forced to give up proprietary information. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made a comment ahead of annual meetings of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in January, 2011. “The imbalance of opportunity is a major barrier to continued improvement of the United States and China’s commercial relationship,” he said. Yet, looking back into the past few years’ figures, one experienced researcher from Peterson Institute for International Economics illustrated that Chinese imports accounted for 30% of its total GDP in 2005 from only 5% in 1978, which was three times higher than that in Japan, and twice America. During 2000 to 2006, China contributed more than 25% to the American exports business. Therefore, we are placing ourselves in the midst of a sweeping progress, which have to be made gradually no matter in developing or developed countries. Even in WTO treaties, developing countries are given special priorities, American have no right to wield the big stick in the name of “Super 301 provisions” that gave them an excuse to impose economic sanctions against other closed markets or unfair trade partners, of course, according to their standards and interests.

  esides, faulty trade statistics exaggeration doubled the US trade deficit with China on the ground of western interest groups’ and political parties’ consideration. What we call “Made in China” is indeed assembled in China, but what makes up the commercial value of the product comes from the numerous countries that preceded its assembly in China in the global value chain. So, the growing belief that the practice of assuming every product shipped from one country is entirely produced by that country is antiquated, and no longer reflects the complex reality of global commerce. If trade statistics were adjusted to reflect the actual value contributed to a product by different countries, the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China ---$226.88 billion, according to U.S figure in 2010 --- would be cut in half, which means the political tensions over trade deficits are probably larger than they should be. As we can see, the statistical bias created by attributing the full commercial value to the last country of origin can pervert the political debate on the origin of the imbalances and lead to misguided, and hence counterproductive decisions.

  Another instance epitomizes the political concerns: some major Chinese investment overtures into the U.S. have foundered, such as state-owned CNOOC’s 2005 bid to buy U.S. oil and gas producer Unocal Corp. Some American lawmakers had complained that the sale might jeopardize national security. Technology giant Huawei has also struggled to gain a foothold in the U.S., yet the investment review mechanism rejected a Huawei takeover of another computer company, which seemed like did an effective job of protecting American “security interests”. The truths arouse us to get our ideas into shape that instead of pointing out and making a big fuss about others’ imperfectness, American people have to check themselves at the first place.

  All kinds of trade barriers breach the most optimistic trading condition, whereas the misleading opinions toward either side will undermine fairness and hurt our people virtually.

  Granted all this disputations, what is truly deserved to notice is another side of Chinese market, as Gary Locke mentioned, which concerns the business world and do harm to our own development potential: our lax intellectual property protection and enforcement, lack of transparency in government decision-making and numerous indigenous innovation policies that often preclude foreign companies from vying for Chinese government contracts. Based on their experience of intellectual property protection and development, Gary Locke put forward five steps to help China turn her promises as a member of WTO into reality. It starts with a statement of principle from Chinese officials that action will be taken to solve a market access issue. Next, that agreement has to be codified into binding law or regulations. Third, the law or regulation needs to be faithfully implemented by the central government. And forth, it needs to be implemented at the local and provincial levels. Only after all these things have happened can we arrive at the fifth, final and most important step, which is where this new law or regulation becomes a norm --- an accepted way of doing business in China’s commercial culture. In the United States, for every $1 in computer hardware sales there is about 88 cents in software sales. But in China, for every dollar in hardware sales there is only 8 cents in software sales. According to the Business Software Alliance, that discrepancy is largely explained by the fact that nearly 80 percent of the software used on computers in China is counterfeit.

  I would concede that it is the status quo in current Chinese market, which we have known and been familiar with for enough long time. At the initial period, the cheap counterfeit software and other infringements upon intellectual property did relieve many enterprises’ burden when their empires just started from the cradle. But in long turn, this distorted market environment will undoubtedly drain brains, ideas, and various human resources. The detrimental, even fatal consequences are not we can afford. It’s high time for us to take the initiatives instead of being found fault at the international stage, let alone being capitalized to bolster their chances in negotiations.

  Ranging from employment issue to market openness, all discussions relate to our international trade condition, relate to our foreign exchanges, and relate to our domestic controversial problems, such as the general inflation, the high price of real estates, the survival of export industries and appreciation of RMB. Large amounts of dollars or other currencies we earned equivalent to the same amounts of the RMB counterpart of foreign exchange reserves in the national market, which is in fundamental to the exceeding cash flow, in other words, inflation. During last 12 months, the central bank, People's Bank of China, has raised the rate of reserves against deposit 9 times, which mounted to 21% till May 12, 2011. Yet, the negative influence is that high interest rate absorbs international money, especially hot money, to invest in China’s capital market or virtual economy, becoming a hidden trouble to the stability of the whole system.

  However, a practical problem confronted to us is how to spend such astronomical amount of money? Instead of keeping a big chunk of our reserves in boring American government securities, we could buy all of the outstanding sovereign debt of Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece, solving the euro area’s debt crisis in a trice. Alternatively, we can choose to abandon debt altogether and buy equity, gobbling up Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Google for less than $1 trillion. Another favored sink for the world’s riches is property. So we could buy some exclusive Manhattan addresses, even the whole Manhattan which is worth only $287 billion calculated by the island’s taxable real estate, according to the New York City government. The properties of Washington, DC, are valued at a piffling $232 billion. China is accustomed to being Washington’s banker, what about its landlord?

  Actually, we could also allay our fears about energy, food and military security. Three trillion dollars would buy about 88% of this year’s global oil supply. It would take only $1.87 trillion to buy all of the farmland in the continental United States. And China could theoretically buy America’s entire Department of Defense, which has assets worth only $1.9 trillion, according to its 2010 balance-sheet.

  These frivolous calculations illustrate the vast scale of China’s reserves but also the great difficulty we face in diversifying them. Yet we also fret about how much those dollars will be worth should America succumb to inflation or depreciation. And any purchase big enough to warrant China’s attention will also move against it. We can buy almost anything for a price --- but almost nothing for today’s price.

  Earning and spending our foreign exchanges are not mutually exclusive, and, precisely, spending is for better facilitating our development and motivation to earn more. Therefore, the strategies of international trade need to put emphasize on laying out a step-by-step recipe for striking a balance between these two accounts first, improving the insufficiency in the institutions and export structure, underpinning the knowledge economy, and enlarging the scale of invisible trading account after that. Relying on American National Debts to support the value of dollars carries its own risks, and won’t bring much benefit to our people. China is pressing on with not only adjusting its strategies to the game rules of WTO but also taking advantage of it to protect ourselves from outrageous criticism; moreover, we have to take the compulsory course of managing our finances as well. Irrational financing results in a seemingly stronger country with its even more miserable people, which is absolutely not we, 1.3 billion people, are struggling for.

  2011.6

评价:

[匿名评论]登录注册

评论加载中……