作者：余晓平（原文于2013年3月8日发表）

编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

　　在这个世界上，只要是智力正常的人都会选择去做有意义的事情，无论是好人坏人。区别在哪里呢？坏人做对自己有意义的事情时一般都让别人付出代价。

　　一个众所周知的常识，当今世界上最著名的几具由国民付出代价来保存的尸体都是无神论者，像列宁、金日成、胡志明、毛泽东等等。人们通常以为尸体膜拜属于唯心主义有神论者的行为，但是我们发现，有宗教信仰的人并不这样做，比如说基督教盛行的美国人觉得上帝面前人人平等。

　　从这一点看，我们知道他们在自己执政期间宣扬唯物主义的目的了，要想让自己有别于其他人，那就一定要消灭那个高于所有人的神。消灭了所有的神，为的是把自己树为神。果然，他们的目的达到了，他们在世的时候受到神一般的膜拜。但他们抗拒不了作为一个人所必然拥有的规律，那就是死亡。

　　这样一来，就给后继者带来很大的麻烦，神死了，神话还要延续。用一句特别通俗的话来说就是，你走了，弟兄们怎么办？我们还要继续获取利益呢。所以我觉得，保存尸体未必是那个尸体生前的愿望，即使是，那也是属于咬牙跺脚为了自己后代着想而作出的牺牲。中国人讲，入土为安，也许正因为这样，一语成谶，他们的后代以及继任者才生活在惶惶不可终日当中。

　　是什么驱使有人不惜重金去保护那些尸体呢？

　　首先是后继者的需求。不同于世袭制的封建社会，推翻帝制以后继任者的合法性受到空前的挑战——凭什么你可以坐在原本那个神的位置上。那个尸体生前的钦点是直接的原因，大兴土木兴建那个纪念堂就是为了提醒人们，那个神还存在，神在，被钦点的人就具有合法性。于是各国发生了基本上雷同的一幕，那就是不惜重金保护尸体，这是继任者最关心的头等大事。

　　其次是继任者所属组织的需求。继任者并不是一个人，而是一个组织。继任者为了自己的利益必须将利益分散给那些拥护辅佐自己的人。但问题是不可能将利益分给所有人。这个道理很简单，每个人都希望自己投入产出比大些，如果付出多少，得到多少，凭什么还拼命支持一个名不正，言不顺的人在台上？于是一部分人的利益被侵害了，某个支持继任者的组织利益得到最大化。而民主制度下，人们靠选票使继任者合法化，这就是独裁统治为什么反人类的原因——因为太浪费资源，侵害大多数人的利益（大约是十三亿减去八千万）。

　　利益的获得者的需求。一次和博友吃饭接触了当年毛泽东的警卫，从他的举止言谈体现出对毛泽东的无限敬仰和感恩。他反复强调的一句话揭示了其中的奥秘，他说，我曾经是个普通的农民，是老人家让我成为现在这个样子。的确，自从他当了毛泽东的警卫以后不但自己的命运发生了改变，而且还惠及了家人和朋友。但是他忽视了有多少人当年从他现在这个状态无缘无故地跌落到地狱里面去。

　　感觉上认为自己是利益获得者的需求。人们觉得自己需要感谢让中国人民站起来的大救星。中国人到底是什么时候站起来的？是在日本投降以后的1945年，那时候中国的国土是一片秋海棠叶子，比现在大不少。在联合国也有合法的席位，所有外国列强都撤出殖民地……然而接下去的内战导致国土缩减，台湾分裂，百姓民不聊生。人们通常觉得是蒋介石导致的内战，那么我问你，要是你组织个政党，控制了广州军区，然后再扩展到四川军区，国家应该怎么办？是谁挑起了内战？这是常识，非执政党控制军队是违法行为。甚至在民主共和国的定义里面，政党控制军队本身就违法。

　　还有就是借尸还魂的既得利益者。一个国家发展的过程当中肯定会遇到各式各样的问题，执政党为了自己的执政利益不愿借鉴西方人实践了几百年的民主选举制度，因为那样足令某些人权力不保。但那种既没有完整理论依据，又没有实践证明的所谓中国特色根本就经不起实践的考验，所以出现很多问题。病急乱投医的心理导致一些人需要借尸还魂，将原本淘汰的东西照搬回来，这样才能有既得利益，在中央里抢夺一席位置。

　　再有就是人们的禁忌。人类社会有些禁忌是阻碍自己发展的，对尸体的处理就是禁忌之一。往往很多后来的执政者为了平衡多方面的关系而不愿意触及某些人的心理，比如说俄罗斯对列宁尸体的态度。正因为这样导致很多独裁的思想阴魂不散，让普京迷恋那个手握大权的位置。因此我们说，民主的进程实际上就是人类与贪婪争斗的过程，将权力关进笼子的本意是将贪婪关进笼子里。

　　最后我们说说中国人常见的心理，这也是很多社会主义国家常有的心理，那就是搞不清楚国家的钱到底是哪里来的。记得过去人们常说的一句很不负责任的话——反正那是共产党的，其实你错了，因为政党不产生财富。而政府的作用不是领导，而是保护财富的产生和交换，残酷的洗脑使大家搞不清楚财富的来源，认为自己的财富被人无节制地收走是一件天经地义的事情。要知道，西方民主社会政府从老百姓手里收走的税率不是政府定的，花钱的人根本就没资格确定收多少钱。

　　现在我们说到从百姓手里收上来的钱如何处置了——一笔将近100万美元的费用来保存那个尸体，当然还有那个纪念堂的维护成本。这笔巨款可以用来改善人民生活，可以解决失学儿童上学的问题，可以配置安全一点的校车，可以让看不起病的人多维持自己的生命……..但实际上只是维护了少部分人的利益，让所有人都付出了代价。

Why Preserve Their Bodies?

Author: Yu Xiaoping (Originally published on March 8, 2013)

Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Starting from the perspectives of the legitimacy of power and vested interests, this article analyzes the political and institutional logic behind the system of body preservation and commemoration, critiquing how it perpetuates symbols of rule and contributes to the unequal distribution of resources.

　　In this world, any person of sound mind will choose to do meaningful things, whether they are good or bad. Where does the difference lie? When bad people do things that are meaningful to themselves, they generally make others pay the price.

It is a well-known fact that the most famous corpses in the world today—those preserved at the expense of their nations—are all atheists, such as Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, and others. People usually assume that the worship of corpses is the behavior of idealistic theists, but we find that people with religious faith do not act this way. For example, Americans, where Christianity is prevalent, believe that all are equal before God.

From this perspective, we understand the purpose behind their promotion of materialism during their time in power: to distinguish themselves from others, they must eliminate the God who stands above all. By eliminating all gods, they aim to elevate themselves to the status of gods. Sure enough, they achieved their goal: while alive, they were worshipped as gods. Yet they could not resist the inevitable law of human existence—death.

This, in turn, created a major problem for their successors: the god is dead, but the myth must continue. To put it in very plain terms: now that you’re gone, what are we supposed to do, brothers? We still need to keep reaping the benefits. So I believe that preserving a corpse may not have been the deceased’s wish; even if it was, it was a sacrifice made through gritted teeth and clenched fists, all for the sake of their descendants. The Chinese say, “Rest in peace in the earth.” Perhaps precisely because of this, the saying became a self-fulfilling prophecy, and their descendants and successors have lived in constant fear and anxiety.

　　What drives people to spend vast sums of money to preserve those bodies?

First and foremost, it is the need of the successors. Unlike feudal societies with hereditary systems, after the overthrow of the imperial system, the legitimacy of successors faced unprecedented challenges—on what grounds can you sit in the seat once occupied by that deity? The late leader’s personal endorsement was the direct cause; the massive construction of that memorial hall was intended to remind people that the deity still exists—and as long as the deity is present, the designated successor possesses legitimacy. Thus, a strikingly similar scenario unfolded across nations: the preservation of the body at any cost became the successor’s foremost priority.

　　Second is the need of the organization to which the successor belongs. The successor is not an individual but an organization. To secure their own interests, the successor must distribute benefits to those who support and assist them. But the problem is that it is impossible to share the benefits with everyone. The logic is simple: everyone wants a higher return on their investment. If they receive only what they put in, why would they fight tooth and nail to keep someone in power who lacks legitimate authority and moral standing? Consequently, the interests of some are infringed upon, while the interests of a specific organization supporting the successor are maximized. Under a democratic system, people legitimize the successor through their votes. This is why dictatorship is anti-human—because it wastes too many resources and infringes upon the interests of the majority (roughly 1.3 billion minus 80 million).

　　The needs of those who have benefited. Once, while dining with a blog friend, I met a former bodyguard of Mao Zedong. His demeanor and speech revealed boundless admiration and gratitude toward Mao. A phrase he repeatedly emphasized revealed the secret behind it all: “I used to be an ordinary farmer; it was the Old Man who made me what I am today.” Indeed, ever since he became Mao Zedong’s bodyguard, not only did his own fate change, but his family and friends also reaped the benefits. But he overlooked how many people, back then, fell from his current position into hell for no reason at all.

　　The perception that one is a beneficiary of the system. People feel they need to thank the great savior who made the Chinese people stand up. When exactly did the Chinese people stand up? It was in 1945, after Japan’s surrender. At that time, China’s territory resembled a hibiscus leaf—considerably larger than it is today. It held a legitimate seat at the United Nations, and all foreign powers had withdrawn from their colonies… Yet the ensuing civil war led to a shrinking of the national territory, the separation of Taiwan, and the people struggling to make ends meet. People generally believe that Chiang Kai-shek caused the civil war, so let me ask you: if you were to organize a political party, take control of the Guangzhou Military Region, and then expand into the Sichuan Military Region, what should the state do? Who instigated the civil war? This is common sense: it is illegal for a non-ruling party to control the military. In fact, even within the definition of a democratic republic, a political party controlling the military is inherently unlawful.

Then there are the vested interests seeking to resurrect the past. In the course of a nation’s development, it is inevitable to encounter all sorts of problems. The ruling party, for the sake of its own political interests, refuses to adopt the democratic electoral system that Westerners have practiced for hundreds of years, because doing so would threaten the power of certain individuals. However, this so-called “Chinese characteristic”—which lacks both a comprehensive theoretical foundation and empirical validation—simply cannot withstand the test of practice, which is why so many problems have arisen. Driven by desperation, some resort to resurrecting the past, blindly reimporting ideas that have long been discarded, solely to preserve their vested interests and secure a seat at the central leadership table.

Then there are societal taboos. Certain taboos in human society hinder progress, and the handling of corpses is one such taboo. Often, subsequent rulers are reluctant to touch upon certain psychological sensitivities in order to balance various relationships—take, for example, Russia’s attitude toward Lenin’s body. It is precisely this that allows the specter of authoritarianism to linger, fueling Putin’s obsession with clinging to absolute power. Thus, we say that the process of democracy is, in essence, a struggle between humanity and greed; the original intent of “putting power in a cage” was to cage greed itself.

　　Finally, let’s discuss a common mindset among Chinese people—and one shared by many socialist nations—which is the failure to understand where the state’s money actually comes from. I recall a rather irresponsible saying people used to repeat: “It’s the Communist Party’s money anyway.” In reality, this is incorrect, because political parties do not generate wealth. The government’s role is not to lead, but to protect the creation and exchange of wealth. Brutal brainwashing has left people confused about the source of wealth, leading them to believe that having their wealth taken away without restraint is only natural. It is important to understand that in Western democratic societies, the tax rates levied on the people are not set by the government; those who spend the money have no right to determine how much is collected.

　　Now let’s talk about how the money collected from the people is being spent—a sum of nearly $1 million to preserve that corpse, not to mention the maintenance costs of the memorial hall. This enormous sum could be used to improve people’s lives, to provide schooling for children who cannot afford it, to provide safer school buses, or to help those who cannot afford medical care extend their lives… but in reality, it only serves the interests of a small minority, while everyone else pays the price.