美国应该从中国的历史中学到什么经验教训？
正文翻译
What lessons should Americans draw from China''''s history?
美国应该从中国的历史中学到什么经验教训？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：回复奖励 转载请注明出处
What lessons should Americans draw from China''''s history?
美国应该从中国的历史中学到什么经验教训？
评论翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：回复奖励 转载请注明出处
Feng Xian, former Research Associate at Eurasian Center (2017-2018)
One example is good enough:
Since the Anshi rebellion, the Tang Dynasty experienced a strategic contraction due to the increasing external threat from the Tibetan Empire, Khitan Confederation, Nanzhao country. The Tang Dynasty hence formed a complex relationship with the military zones and legions. On the one hand, the Tang government needed the military zones and legions to confront the external threats. On the other hand, the unreasonable annual salaries and expensive rewards to earn the loyalty of those often disobeyed professional soldiers had become a tremendous financial burden for the central government.
(The soldiers during the period of the mid Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties Ten Kingdom were known for disobedience, arrogance, aggression. The armors, artifacts and paintings in this period vividly captured the military class’s characteristics and behaviors).
Nowadays, we see a similar trend in the US. Trump is pushing for a strategically global contraction due to the decline of the US hegemony in contrast with the rise of foreign powers (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, India…). The US is experiencing a great transformation from a universal empire into a nationalist state. However, Trump had to announce a huge increase in the defense budget, including both upgrading & purchasing weapons and increasing the salary of soldiers.
This seems to be controversial and could be interpreted by the liberals as if Trump is going mad once again. Nevertheless, this reflects not Trump’s insanity or “China’s threat” but the political and economic reality of the US.
The reality is American political leaders must earn the support and loyalty of the increasingly influential military faction and class (and the corporate behind). The global Empire with the accumulated history, internal and external interests, has made the military a huge profit craving industry and popularised group which, in my opinion, is strong enough to make the President or any politician get shot by a veteran with “mental issues”. On the other hand, the US’s financial hegemony and “mandate of heaven or manifest destiny”, since manufacturing is gone, are built upon the military hegemony. The US needs the military to preserve its hegemony but the ecosystem of that service and industry do not come for free.
Hence, the US is facing the same dilemma the Tang did with regard to the military faction and class. Soon and later, once the US economy and the government’s budget cannot support that huge spending, the structural conflict would erupt. How to deal with them would be a difficult task for Trump and futural leaders. The good news is at least for now Trump can fire John Bolton and the mad dog when he feels the gap of security policies.
While it is true that one happened in the 8th- 9th centuries, another 2019, there shouldn’t be the discredit to the former as if the experience and lesson are useless. The Tang Dynasty also had a carefully designed and sophisticated bureaucracy, law, monitor, check and balance to restrain the army, generals and soldiers. It was not the institution but obedience to the rule and institution, triggered by internal corruption and external accumulations and environment, went wrong.
The US military already has that trend. The US military not only has a close relationship with the arms industry and lobbyists but experience also a tremendous level of internal corruption. The loose punishment of the Courts-martial on war crime, corruption and sexual assaults of American soldiers also show the institution does not always function as the institutionalism and military nationalization promised (and imagine how will that look like in 10 years later?).
After all, if the institution can magically solve all the problems, then Liberia and Philippines that duplicated the American political system 70 or less than 200 years ago should become developed countries already rather than struggle with poverty or the civil war.
When the military is so capitalized, structurally speaking soldiers’ loyalty and discipline in the long run are questionable. To prepare for the future, I recommend the American scholars and politicians to study the history of the mid-late Tang Dynasty and the period of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, immediately.
应该吸取的经验教训是：
自安史之乱以来，由于吐蕃帝国，契丹联盟以及南诏国等外部威胁的持续加剧，使得唐朝经历了一次战略收缩。因此，唐朝与军区以及军团形成了复杂的关系。一方面，唐朝政府需要军区和军团来对抗外部威胁。另一方面，这些专业士兵相当不服从，所以为了获得他们的忠诚，唐朝政府必须向他们提供不合理的薪水和昂贵的奖励，这就给唐朝中央政府带来了巨大的经济负担。
（唐朝中期和五代十国期间的士兵以不服从，自大和好斗而闻名。这个时期的盔甲，人工制品和绘画生动体现了军人阶级的特征和行为）。
如今，美国出现了类似的趋势。相比于其他国家的崛起（中国，俄罗斯，伊朗，朝鲜，土耳其，印度等等），美国的全球霸主地位在衰退，所以美国的川普在推行全球性的战略收缩。美国正从一个全球帝国向一个民族主义的国家转变。然而，川普不得不提升美国的军费，包括升级和购买武器，以及增加士兵的工资。
这貌似是富有争议的，而且自由主义者会认为川普再次疯狂了。然而，这并不反映川普的疯狂，也不反映“中国的威胁”，而是反映了美国的政治和经济现实。
这个现实就是美国政治领导人必须获得影响力渐长的军事派别和阶级（以及它们背后的企业）的支持和忠诚。美国军事现在变成了一个渴望巨大利润的产业，也变成了一个大众化的群体，在我看来，已经强大到足以刺杀总统或者任何其他政客。另一方面，随着制造业的消失，美国的经济霸权和“天命”建立在了军事霸权之上。美国需要军队来保持自己的霸权地位，但是这种服务并不是免费的。
是的，中国唐朝是八九世纪的事情，现在已经是2019年了，但是我们不应该怀疑前者的价值，不要觉得唐朝的经验和教训是毫无价值的。唐朝也拥有一个精心设计和成熟的官僚制度，法律，监督，牵制与平衡来限制军队，将军和士兵。不是制度本身的问题，而是由于内部腐败以及外部环境的原因，导致军队不遵守规则和制度。
美军已经有了这种趋势。美军不仅与军工产业以及游说团体关系密切，而且内部腐败也非常严重。军事法庭对战争罪行的放纵，腐败以及美军的性骚扰。
毕竟，如果这个制度可以神奇地解决所有问题，那么70年前以及200年前分别复制美国政治制度的利比亚和菲律宾现在应该已经成为发达国家而不是挣扎于贫穷或内战了。
当一个军队变得这么资本化以后，那么从结构上而言，士兵的忠诚度和纪律长远来看是有问题的。为了应对将来，我建议美国学者和政客学习一下中晚期的唐朝历史以及五代十国时期的历史，马上。
One example is good enough:
Since the Anshi rebellion, the Tang Dynasty experienced a strategic contraction due to the increasing external threat from the Tibetan Empire, Khitan Confederation, Nanzhao country. The Tang Dynasty hence formed a complex relationship with the military zones and legions. On the one hand, the Tang government needed the military zones and legions to confront the external threats. On the other hand, the unreasonable annual salaries and expensive rewards to earn the loyalty of those often disobeyed professional soldiers had become a tremendous financial burden for the central government.
(The soldiers during the period of the mid Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties Ten Kingdom were known for disobedience, arrogance, aggression. The armors, artifacts and paintings in this period vividly captured the military class’s characteristics and behaviors).
Nowadays, we see a similar trend in the US. Trump is pushing for a strategically global contraction due to the decline of the US hegemony in contrast with the rise of foreign powers (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, India…). The US is experiencing a great transformation from a universal empire into a nationalist state. However, Trump had to announce a huge increase in the defense budget, including both upgrading & purchasing weapons and increasing the salary of soldiers.
This seems to be controversial and could be interpreted by the liberals as if Trump is going mad once again. Nevertheless, this reflects not Trump’s insanity or “China’s threat” but the political and economic reality of the US.
The reality is American political leaders must earn the support and loyalty of the increasingly influential military faction and class (and the corporate behind). The global Empire with the accumulated history, internal and external interests, has made the military a huge profit craving industry and popularised group which, in my opinion, is strong enough to make the President or any politician get shot by a veteran with “mental issues”. On the other hand, the US’s financial hegemony and “mandate of heaven or manifest destiny”, since manufacturing is gone, are built upon the military hegemony. The US needs the military to preserve its hegemony but the ecosystem of that service and industry do not come for free.
Hence, the US is facing the same dilemma the Tang did with regard to the military faction and class. Soon and later, once the US economy and the government’s budget cannot support that huge spending, the structural conflict would erupt. How to deal with them would be a difficult task for Trump and futural leaders. The good news is at least for now Trump can fire John Bolton and the mad dog when he feels the gap of security policies.
While it is true that one happened in the 8th- 9th centuries, another 2019, there shouldn’t be the discredit to the former as if the experience and lesson are useless. The Tang Dynasty also had a carefully designed and sophisticated bureaucracy, law, monitor, check and balance to restrain the army, generals and soldiers. It was not the institution but obedience to the rule and institution, triggered by internal corruption and external accumulations and environment, went wrong.
The US military already has that trend. The US military not only has a close relationship with the arms industry and lobbyists but experience also a tremendous level of internal corruption. The loose punishment of the Courts-martial on war crime, corruption and sexual assaults of American soldiers also show the institution does not always function as the institutionalism and military nationalization promised (and imagine how will that look like in 10 years later?).
After all, if the institution can magically solve all the problems, then Liberia and Philippines that duplicated the American political system 70 or less than 200 years ago should become developed countries already rather than struggle with poverty or the civil war.
When the military is so capitalized, structurally speaking soldiers’ loyalty and discipline in the long run are questionable. To prepare for the future, I recommend the American scholars and politicians to study the history of the mid-late Tang Dynasty and the period of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, immediately.
应该吸取的经验教训是：
自安史之乱以来，由于吐蕃帝国，契丹联盟以及南诏国等外部威胁的持续加剧，使得唐朝经历了一次战略收缩。因此，唐朝与军区以及军团形成了复杂的关系。一方面，唐朝政府需要军区和军团来对抗外部威胁。另一方面，这些专业士兵相当不服从，所以为了获得他们的忠诚，唐朝政府必须向他们提供不合理的薪水和昂贵的奖励，这就给唐朝中央政府带来了巨大的经济负担。
（唐朝中期和五代十国期间的士兵以不服从，自大和好斗而闻名。这个时期的盔甲，人工制品和绘画生动体现了军人阶级的特征和行为）。
如今，美国出现了类似的趋势。相比于其他国家的崛起（中国，俄罗斯，伊朗，朝鲜，土耳其，印度等等），美国的全球霸主地位在衰退，所以美国的川普在推行全球性的战略收缩。美国正从一个全球帝国向一个民族主义的国家转变。然而，川普不得不提升美国的军费，包括升级和购买武器，以及增加士兵的工资。
这貌似是富有争议的，而且自由主义者会认为川普再次疯狂了。然而，这并不反映川普的疯狂，也不反映“中国的威胁”，而是反映了美国的政治和经济现实。
这个现实就是美国政治领导人必须获得影响力渐长的军事派别和阶级（以及它们背后的企业）的支持和忠诚。美国军事现在变成了一个渴望巨大利润的产业，也变成了一个大众化的群体，在我看来，已经强大到足以刺杀总统或者任何其他政客。另一方面，随着制造业的消失，美国的经济霸权和“天命”建立在了军事霸权之上。美国需要军队来保持自己的霸权地位，但是这种服务并不是免费的。
是的，中国唐朝是八九世纪的事情，现在已经是2019年了，但是我们不应该怀疑前者的价值，不要觉得唐朝的经验和教训是毫无价值的。唐朝也拥有一个精心设计和成熟的官僚制度，法律，监督，牵制与平衡来限制军队，将军和士兵。不是制度本身的问题，而是由于内部腐败以及外部环境的原因，导致军队不遵守规则和制度。
美军已经有了这种趋势。美军不仅与军工产业以及游说团体关系密切，而且内部腐败也非常严重。军事法庭对战争罪行的放纵，腐败以及美军的性骚扰。
毕竟，如果这个制度可以神奇地解决所有问题，那么70年前以及200年前分别复制美国政治制度的利比亚和菲律宾现在应该已经成为发达国家而不是挣扎于贫穷或内战了。
当一个军队变得这么资本化以后，那么从结构上而言，士兵的忠诚度和纪律长远来看是有问题的。为了应对将来，我建议美国学者和政客学习一下中晚期的唐朝历史以及五代十国时期的历史，马上。
Amit Jambhale
Chinese empires had no influence outside China. That situation is not with US.
当时的中国帝国在中国之外是没有任何影响力的。而美国的影响力遍及全世界。
Chinese empires had no influence outside China. That situation is not with US.
当时的中国帝国在中国之外是没有任何影响力的。而美国的影响力遍及全世界。
Ben Tover
But the Tang dynasty cannot print money like the US can. Tang didn’t have a currency everyone
used.
但是唐朝无法像美国这样印刷纸币。唐朝的货币并不被所有国家使用。
But the Tang dynasty cannot print money like the US can. Tang didn’t have a currency everyone
used.
但是唐朝无法像美国这样印刷纸币。唐朝的货币并不被所有国家使用。
Jevin Liu
The United States cannot print money willy nilly either. If they did, they would increase the supply of money, generating inflation, which decreases trust in the currency. Thus, less people demand it and thus its value goes down. It’s a vicious cycle of inflation.
美国也无法随意的印刷纸币，如果美国这么做了，那么货币供应会增加，导致通胀，从而降低美元的信任度。那么人们就会更少使用美元，美元价值就会下降。这是通胀的恶性循环。
The United States cannot print money willy nilly either. If they did, they would increase the supply of money, generating inflation, which decreases trust in the currency. Thus, less people demand it and thus its value goes down. It’s a vicious cycle of inflation.
美国也无法随意的印刷纸币，如果美国这么做了，那么货币供应会增加，导致通胀，从而降低美元的信任度。那么人们就会更少使用美元，美元价值就会下降。这是通胀的恶性循环。
Jansen Junaedi
He is not talking about the money, but budget allocations and its political impact.
他说的不是金钱本身，而是预算分配及其所产生的政治影响。
He is not talking about the money, but budget allocations and its political impact.
他说的不是金钱本身，而是预算分配及其所产生的政治影响。
Peng XiangPing
Tang Dynasty last about 280 years. It was one of the golden era of Chinese history. Now PRC is trying to return to that level of success in 21st century.
唐朝持续了大约280年。是中国历史上的黄金时期。现在中国也想回归到那个时候的成功水平。
Tang Dynasty last about 280 years. It was one of the golden era of Chinese history. Now PRC is trying to return to that level of success in 21st century.
唐朝持续了大约280年。是中国历史上的黄金时期。现在中国也想回归到那个时候的成功水平。
Jansen Junaedi
This looks similar to Late Roman Empire don’t you think?
这看起来很像罗马帝国后期，不是吗？
This looks similar to Late Roman Empire don’t you think?
这看起来很像罗马帝国后期，不是吗？
很赞 4
收藏