From National Legislation to Social Cooperation

In the view of the English historian J. C. Davis, as a type of ideal society, “utopia does not idealize nature, nor does it demand the idealization of human nature; rather, it idealizes the mode of organization through rational design.” In other words, compared with other types of ideal society, utopia possesses a stronger sense of reality; it is “another world within this world.” Regarding the relationship between these two worlds, many commentators believe that utopia is a mirror image of the real world, the two standing in opposition to each other, with no possibility of crossing over. John Milton remarked with some disappointment: “To withdraw from the real world and place one’s hopes in Oceana and utopia is utterly useless; it will not improve our situation.” For the utopian authors of the early modern period, however, their works were guides to action for realizing an ideal society. How, then, in their conception, was the ideal mode of social organization to be transformed into political practice? Engels offered a penetrating discussion of this question. In his essay *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, he pointed out: “Undeveloped theories correspond to undeveloped conditions of capitalist production and undeveloped class conditions.” The immaturity of the theory is manifested in the attempt to solve social problems through the thinking intellect—that is, by inventing a new and more perfect social system and then “imposing it upon society from without by propaganda, and, where possible, by the example of model experiments.” In his view, “propaganda” and “model experiments” were the means by which utopian socialists sought to realize the ideal society before the emergence of scientific socialism. This discussion briefly summarizes the mode of political practice of utopian authors before scientific socialism, but Engels did not delve deeply into the historical connotations of these two means—propaganda and model experiments—nor into the relationship between them. The scholarly world has rarely addressed this either, so further exploration remains necessary.

在英国史家J.C.戴维斯（J.C.Davis）看来，作为一类理想社会，“乌托邦不是将自然理想化，也不要求人性的理想化，而是通过理性的设计将组织方式理想化”。换言之，相较于其它类型的理想社会，乌托邦有更强烈的现实感，“是此世中的另一个世界”。对于这两个世界的关系，许多评论者认为乌托邦是现实世界的镜像，两者相互对立，无法逾越。约翰·弥尔顿（John Milton）不无失望地说：“脱离现实世界，寄希望于大洋国和乌托邦，是毫无用处的，不会改善我们的处境。”但对近代早期的乌托邦作者们而言，其作品是实现理想社会的行动指南。那么，在他们的构思中，理想的社会组织方式如何转化为政治实践呢？恩格斯对此问题有精辟的论述，他在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》一文中指出：“不成熟的理论，是同不成熟的资本主义生产状况、不成熟的阶级状况相适应的”，而理论的不成熟体现在，企图以思维着的理性来解决社会问题，即通过发明一套新的更完善的社会制度，并且“通过宣传，可能时通过典型示范，从外面强加于社会”。在他看来，“宣传”与“典型示范”就是乌托邦社会主义者实现理想社会的方案。这一论述简要概括了科学社会主义产生之前乌托邦作者的政治实践方式，但对于宣传和典型示范这两种手段的历史内涵以及两者之间的关系，恩格斯并未深究，学界也鲜有论及，因此仍有进一步探讨的必要。

I. Realizing the Ideal Society through National Legislation

一、以国家立法实现理想社会

The 16th and 17th centuries were a period of transition for England toward modern society. In this era, social differentiation intensified by economic development challenged the traditional social order. At the same time, a perspective on the possibility of social reform also emerged, and utopian thought was one of its expressions.

16、17世纪是英国向现代社会转型的时期。在这个时代，由经济发展引发的社会分化加剧，传统的社会秩序受到挑战。与此同时，一种关于社会改革可能性的观点也应运而生，乌托邦思想便是其中之一。

Thomas More’s *Utopia* was written in 1515, when he was serving as Under-Sheriff of London. In the book, he attacked the English society of his time, pointing out that private property and the psychology of pride (superbia) were mutually reinforcing, giving rise to social crises such as theft, robbery, rebellion, and insurrection. His critique was thorough and penetrating. In a letter from Erasmus to Guillaume Cop, it is said: “If you wish to understand the root of almost all the evils of a state, read More’s *Utopia*.” But unlike the works of other humanists of the time, after dissecting society’s ills, More did not correspondingly prescribe a “remedy.” Instead, he paradoxically invented a traveler, Raphael Hythloday, through whose mouth he described to the reader an ideal commonwealth set in contrast to the English society of the day. In this commonwealth, private property is abolished, relations among people are equal, and it is regarded as “the best state of a commonwealth.” Was the social system of Utopia, then, the prescription More offered for English society? At the end of the book, Hythloday praises the institutions of Utopia lavishly, but the attitude of the character “More” is quite ambiguous. He says: “some of the laws and customs of the Utopians are quite absurd… I can hardly agree with everything he said, yet I willingly admit that the Utopian commonwealth has many features that I wish to see in our own society, though I do not expect to see them.”

托马斯·莫尔的《乌托邦》写作于1515年，此时他正担任伦敦市副司法官。他在书中抨击当时的英国社会，指出私有制和骄狂（pride）的心理互为表里，造成盗窃、抢劫、起义、暴动等社会危机。他的批判可谓全面而深入，在伊拉斯谟写给纪尧姆·科普的一封信中谈到：“如果你想了解一个国家几乎全部罪恶的根源，去读读莫尔的《乌托邦》”。但与当时人文主义者的作品不同，莫尔在剖析社会弊病后，并未相应地开出“处方”，而是吊诡地虚构了一位旅行家希斯拉德，借他之口向读者描述了一个与当时英国社会相对的理想国。在这个国家，私有制被废除，人与人之间关系平等，被视为“共和国的至善状态”。那么，乌托邦的社会制度是否就是莫尔为英国社会开出的处方呢？在书的结尾，希斯拉德对乌托邦制度大加赞赏，但书中人物莫尔的态度却十分含糊，他认为“乌托邦人的一些法律和传统甚为荒谬……我很难认同他所说的一切，可我情愿承认，乌托邦共和国有很多特征，我希望能在我们的社会里看到，但并不指望能看到”。

Was *Utopia* merely a jeu d’esprit by More, or did it carry deeper meaning? This is a question that cannot be empirically settled, but More’s contemporaries took *Utopia* seriously. In a letter to Lupus Setta, the French humanist Guillaume Budé wrote bluntly: “Thomas More wrote the book *Utopia*, and we cannot but express our gratitude to him. In that work he has set before the world a model of the happy life. Our age and posterity will regard this work as a treasure-house of profound truths and excellent counsels, which all nations should take as a pattern and establish institutions accordingly.” Erasmus, in his marginal notes to *Utopia*, repeatedly praised More, considering Utopia “a holy commonwealth that Christians should imitate.” In the view of scholars of the time, *Utopia* had practical value and possibility.

《乌托邦》究竟是莫尔的游戏之作，还是另有深意？这是无法实证的问题，但莫尔的同时代人以严肃的态度看待《乌托邦》。法国人文主义者比代写给卢普塞塔的一封信中直言：“托马斯·莫尔写了《乌托邦》一书，我们不能不对他表示感谢，他在那部书里给世人描写出幸福生活的典型。我们这个时代和我们的后代将把这部著作看作是至理名言嘉谟良规的宝典，世界各国都应当奉为模范，并依此树立制度。”伊拉斯谟对《乌托邦》一书所加的旁注中多次称赞莫尔，他认为乌托邦是“基督徒应该仿效的神圣共和国”。在当时学者看来，《乌托邦》是有实践的价值与可能。

How, then, was the system of Utopia to be put into practice? More did not answer this question directly. However, from the fictional history of Utopia that he constructed, we learn that Utopia was once called Abraxa, and its people were initially in an uncivilized, simple state. It was only when the foreign conqueror Utopus led his army to occupy the land and promulgated laws that the inhabitants of Abraxa became civilized and cultivated. In other words, the initiation of social reform depended on Utopus, this foreign leader, who advanced the process of Abraxa’s civilization through legislation. This conception of More’s is echoed in many later utopian works. For example, in Francis Bacon’s *New Atlantis*, it is written: “Nineteen hundred years ago, a king ruled there… his name was Solamona, and we revere him as the lawgiver of our nation.” Robert Burton, in *The Anatomy of Melancholy*, tells the reader: “I will build a personal utopia, a new Atlantis, a poetic republic of my own. There I will rule freely, building cities and making laws and regulations according to my will.” James Harrington’s *Oceana* also invents a legendary lawgiver, Olphaus Megaletor, through whose mouth the author writes: “The lawgiver need be but one… just as the creation of a book or the construction of a building cannot achieve perfection unless completed by a single author or a single architect.”

那么，如何实践乌托邦的制度呢？莫尔没有正面回答。不过从他虚构的乌托邦历史中，我们得知乌托邦曾名阿布拉克萨，它的人民一开始处于未开化的淳朴状态。当外来的乌托帕斯率军队占领此地后，颁行法律，才使阿布拉克萨的居民变得文明而又有教养。换言之，社会改革的发动有赖于乌托帕斯这位外来的领导者，他以立法的方式推进了阿布拉克萨文明的进程。莫尔的这一设想，在后世乌托邦作品中多有体现。例如，培根在《新大西岛》中写道：“一千九百年前，一位国王统治着那里……他的名字是所罗蒙那，我们尊称他为国家的立法者”。罗伯特·伯顿在《忧郁的解剖》中告诉读者：“我要建造一座个人的乌托邦，一处新的亚特兰蒂斯，一个属于我的诗意的共和国。在那里我要自由地统治，按我的意愿来建造城市，制定法律规章。”哈灵顿的《大洋国》也虚构了一位立法者奥尔弗斯·麦加利托，作者借麦加利托之口写到“立法者只须有一人……正如一本书的创作或一栋大楼的建造，如若不是由一个作者或一位建筑师完成，就不可能臻于完美”。

Explaining changes in social order through the invention of a legendary lawgiver was a widespread phenomenon in the ancient world. The Manuels [Frank E. Manuel and Fritzie P. Manuel] argue that from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, many Christian utopias benefited from the ancient Greek tradition; the imaginary commonwealths they created “were either Lycurgus’s Sparta, whose image was ascetic and communist, or Solon’s Athens, whose image was a loose democracy and tolerance of sensual pleasure… For centuries, every European utopian work tended to choose one of these two lawgivers as its model.” Yet, unlike the ancient Greek tradition, the utopian authors of the Renaissance sought not only to explain the social order but also to transform it. The means by which they aimed to achieve this end was not to seize power themselves, but rather to offer counsel to monarchs through their works, thereby seeking opportunities to guide the ruler in governing the state. This gave utopian works the character of the “mirror for princes” genre of the Renaissance.

通过虚构一位传奇立法者来解释社会秩序的变迁，是古代世界普遍存在的现象。曼纽埃尔夫妇认为，从文艺复兴到法国大革命期间，许多基督教乌托邦受益于古希腊传统，他们虚构的国度“要么是来库古的斯巴达，其形象是禁欲主义和共产主义的；要么是梭伦的雅典，其形象是松散的民主制度和对感官愉悦的宽容……几个世纪以来，欧洲每一部乌托邦作品都倾向于从这两个立法者中选择一个作为它的榜样”。然而与古希腊传统不同的是，文艺复兴时期的乌托邦作者不仅对社会秩序进行解释，更意图改造社会秩序，而他们实现目的方式，不是指望自己掌握政权，而是通过作品向君王提出忠告，进而谋求机会指点君王治理国家。这使乌托邦作品具有文艺复兴时期君王宝鉴类作品的特征。

Related to this, there was another category of utopian authors who were more direct: they presented the blueprint of an ideal society to parliaments or to the powerful. In *A Description of the Famous Kingdom of Macaria*, the author Gabriel Plattes wrote in the dedication: “Before this Parliament adjourns, I am full of confidence that the foundation for the happiness of the world can be laid, and I am willing to risk contributing my modest efforts… I humbly pray that this honorable Parliament will adopt the suggestions contained herein.” Gerrard Winstanley dedicated *The Law of Freedom* to Oliver Cromwell, hoping that the latter would put it into practice. He wrote: “Now I set the candle at your door, and if you are willing, the power in your hands will increase the opportunity for achieving public liberty.” In Winstanley’s view, “Cromwell, not Jesus Christ, was the agent of change.” Clearly, the intention behind this type of utopian writing was more explicit, and the will to transform society was stronger.

与此相仿，还有一类乌托邦作者更加直接，他们将理想社会的蓝图呈献给议会或有权有势者。在《记一个著名的王国玛卡里亚》中，作者加布里埃尔·普拉特在献词部分写道：“在这届议会休会前，能为世界的幸福奠定基石，我对此满怀信心，愿意冒险贡献我的绵薄之力……我卑微地祈求荣耀的议会采用其中的建议”。杰腊德·温斯坦莱将《自由法》献给克伦威尔，并期望后者将它付诸实践。他写道：“此刻，我将蜡烛放在您的门口，只要您愿意，您手中的权柄将为实现公共自由增加机会。”在温斯坦莱看来，“克伦威尔而非耶稣基督，才是变革的推动者。”显然，此类乌托邦的写作意图更加明确，改造社会的意愿更加强烈。

Whether through the method of “mirroring” or “petitioning,” these utopian works converged in their approach to realization: they relied on monarchs or parliaments holding political power to legislate and achieve a fundamental transformation of social life within a single country. It was precisely from the perspective of political practice that the utopian authors of this period had no intention of mobilizing the masses to transform British society; their works were not even written for the masses. In their view, the masses had nothing to do with legislation, and concentrating political power in the hands of a single person was undoubtedly a more realistic approach. In contrast, a new type of utopia emerged at the end of the 17th century, which compressed the many elements of an ideal society into a small community. This community existed in the form of an enterprise or a settlement, embedded within the state and accepting the institutions of real society. Therefore, this type of utopia no longer sought institutional change at the national level but instead called on all social strata to cooperate and establish a “pilot project” for an ideal society.

无论是用“镜鉴”或是“上书”的方式，这些乌托邦作品在现实化的构想上殊途同归，即指望掌握政治权力的君主或议会以立法的方式，在一国范围内实现社会生活的根本变革。正是从政治实践的角度考虑，这一时期的乌托邦作者并无动员大众改造英国社会的意图，他们的作品甚至不是为大众而作。在他们看来，大众与立法无关，将政治权力集中于一人之手无疑是更加现实的做法。与之不同，17世纪末叶出现了一类新的乌托邦，它将理想社会的诸多要素压缩进一个小共同体中，这个共同体以企业或是社区的形态存在，嵌入国家中并接受现实社会的制度。因此，这类乌托邦不再寻求国家层面的制度变革，而是号召社会各阶层进行合作，建立理想社会的“试点”。

II. The Rise of the “Little Commonwealth” Model

二、“小共和国”模式的兴起

After the Restoration [n1], British utopian writing gradually declined, not only in quantity compared to before but also in content, which was less profound than that of previous generations. British historian Christopher Hill wrote: “After 1660, the utopian longing of religious rationalists for a better world was completely shattered”; “the golden age was no longer a future in millenarian anticipation, but an irretrievable past.” A. L. Morton believed that the utopian works of this period were “of low quality and contributed little positive development to utopian thought.” However, during this period, a “little commonwealth” model emerged in utopian writing, which became the main method of utopian practice thereafter.

王政复辟后，英国的乌托邦写作渐入低谷，不仅在数量上不如从前，内容上也不如前代思虑恂达。英国史学家克里斯托弗·希尔写道：“1660年以后，宗教理性主义者对更好世界的乌托邦向往完全破灭了”，“黄金时代不再是千禧年憧憬中的未来，而是一去不复返的曾经。”亚瑟·莫顿认为这一时期的乌托邦作品“质量低下，对乌托邦构想的发展几乎没有积极作用”。然而，这一时期的乌托邦写作中兴起了一种“小共和国”模式，成为之后乌托邦实践的主要方式。

In 1659, the Dutch scholar Peter Cornelis Plockhoy, then residing in England, published *The Way to the Happiness of the Poor*. This book, written in English, analyzed English society and intended to be implemented in England, making it the first utopian work to adopt the “little commonwealth” model. The book begins by condemning the inequality and chaos of contemporary society, arguing that “evil governments or rulers, greedy big merchants and retailers, lazy, idle and negligent teachers, and such like, put all people under the bondage of slavery.” Under such oppression, “many ordinary craftsmen or laborers act with lies and fraud, and for the honest and good people who are heavily oppressed, their consciences cannot bear such practices.” Plockhoy felt that people like himself, who were committed to the common good, had a duty to remove “the shackles that the Pharaohs, both worldly and spiritual, have placed on the masses.” [n2] But unlike the responses of his predecessors, he no longer sought overall reform at the national level. Instead, he used a joint-stock company (which he called a “little commonwealth”) as the model for an ideal society, attempting to select a limited population within a limited territory and participate in market competition through collective production. His utopia is therefore also considered “an attempt to solve some social ills by very realistic means, without any fiction or adventure.”

1659年，旅英荷兰学者彼得·科尼利斯·普洛霍伊出版《穷人的幸福之道》，此书以英语写作，以英国社会为对象进行分析，并意图在英国落实，是乌托邦作品中“小共和国”模式的首创。此书开篇即谴责当时社会的不平等与混乱，认为“邪恶的政府或统治者，贪婪的大商人和零售商，懒惰、闲散和疏忽的教师，诸如此类人，将所有人置于奴隶制度的束缚下”，在这样的压迫下，“许多普通的手艺人或劳动者以谎言和欺诈做事，对于备受压迫的诚实善良的人，他们的良心不能忍受这样的做法”。普洛霍伊感到像自己以及同样致力于共同福祉的人，有责任解除“世俗与精神上的法老加诸给大众的枷锁”。但与前辈的应对之道不同，他不再寻求国家层面的总体改革，而是以股份制公司（他以小共和国“little commonwealth”相称）作为理想社会的模型，企图在一个有限的地域内，选定有限的人口，以集体生产的方式参与到市场竞争中。他的乌托邦因此也被认为是“在没有任何虚构或冒险的情况下，试图以非常现实的手段解决部分社会弊端”。

Plockhoy’s plan began with funding from the rich: “that some capable men lay the foundation, first invest a sum of money for the common welfare, raise a stock, and with this money purchase a piece of land.” On this land, he planned to build two large buildings. One, in the city, could house 20–30 families and also serve as a warehouse for storage and a shop selling necessities such as cloth, linen, and stockings; the other, located in the countryside by a river, was built for convenience of living, equipped with rooms for dining, storage, a library, and the sick. In the “little commonwealth,” the rich did not need to engage in production and could still enjoy public welfare and some products. The residents engaged in production were recruited; Plockhoy required them to be four types of people: farmers, craftsmen, sailors, and teachers, preferably unmarried, to ensure work efficiency. Among them, residents living in the city engaged in trade, responsible for selling goods such as cloth, linen, and stockings; residents living in the countryside engaged in production, including farming, fishing, raising livestock such as cattle, sheep, chickens, and ducks, planting fruits and vegetables, and making necessary beverages and snacks to supply the community. This conception already attempted to integrate agriculture and manufacturing, enabling the “little commonwealth” to become a self-sustaining group.

普洛霍伊的计划始于富人出资，即“由一些能干的人奠定基础，先为共同福祉投入一笔钱，筹集一支股票，并以这笔钱购买一片土地”。在土地上，他计划建造两座大型建筑。一座在城市，可居住20—30户人家，兼做储物的仓库以及商店，销售布匹、亚麻布、长袜等生活必需品；另一栋位于乡村河畔，以方便生活为目的修建，配有用餐、储物，藏书和病人使用的房间。在“小共和国”中，富人不需要从事生产，还能享用公共福利和部分产品，从事生产的居民通过招募而来，普洛霍伊要求他们是农夫、手艺人、海员以及教师四类人，最好还未婚，以保证工作效率。其中，居住在城市的居民从事贸易，负责销售布匹、亚麻布、长袜等商品；居住在农村的居民从事生产，包括耕种，捕鱼，饲养牛、羊、鸡、鸭等牲畜，种植果蔬，制作必要的饮料、点心，以供应共同体之需。这样的构思已有整合农业与制造业的企图，能使“小共和国”成为一个自我维持的团体。

In Plockhoy’s vision, through rational planning of the production process, the “little commonwealth” would achieve high production efficiency. Moreover, because the goods produced were priced at the lowest profit margin, their selling price was not high. At the same time, residential rents were low, and the cost of living was low, ensuring the price advantage of the goods. Therefore, he believed that the goods produced by the “little commonwealth” would be highly competitive, its scale would continue to expand, and the ideal social order would gradually spread. In this way, English society would approach an ideal society.

在普洛霍伊的设想中，“小共和国”通过对生产过程进行合理规划，生产效率将会很高，加之生产的商品按最低的利润定价，售价不高，同时住宅租金低廉，生活成本较低，保证了商品的价格优势。因此，他认为“小共和国”生产的商品将极具竞争力，它的规模将不断扩大，理想的社会秩序随之普及开来。通过这种方式，英国社会将臻于理想社会。

More than 30 years after the publication of *The Way to the Happiness of the Poor*, the scholar John Bellers published *Proposals for Raising a College of Industry*. Like Plockhoy’s little commonwealth, Bellers’ college was also a community organized on the principle of a joint-stock company (which he called an “epitome of the world”). From a practical perspective, Bellers’ work reads like a prospectus, detailing the benefits of participating in the plan to raise funds and recruit people to start building the College of Industry. To persuade the rich to invest, Bellers listed three reasons. First, morally, the rich have an obligation to relieve the poor. He quoted Sir Matthew Hale: “The rich, as stewards of (God’s) wealth, must fulfill their duty, and the best way to do this is to employ those who need relief and reformation.” Second, the investment would yield returns. For example, investors would receive high-quality wool, linen clothes, shoes, and stockings from the college each year, and their children would receive a good education. As the college’s scale expanded, its wealth would also increase. Finally, the rich necessarily depend on the poor. He wrote: “The rich have no other way to live but by the labor of others, just as landlords depend on tenants, and big and small merchants depend on machinery, unless they all become Levellers [n3] and work together with the poor.” In other words, without a diligent poor workforce, the rich would have to labor themselves. “It is as if a man, though he has 100,000 acres of land, money equal to the value of the land, and livestock worth as much, but has no labor, what can this rich man do then? He can only become a laborer.”

《穷人的幸福之道》出版30余年后，学者约翰·贝勒出版《建议成立一所工业学院》。如同普洛霍伊的小共和国，贝勒的学院亦是按照股份制公司原则组建的共同体（他称之为世界的缩影“epitome of the world”）。从实践的角度看，贝勒的著作像是一份招股说明书，通过详细阐述参与该计划的好处，以募集资金、招募人手，启动工业学院的建设。为了说服富人投资，贝勒列举了三方面的理由。首先，在道义上，富人有接济穷人的义务。他引用黑尔爵士的话说：“富人作为（上帝）财富的管家”，“必须担负起自己职责，其中最好的做法便是雇佣那些需要救济和感化的人”；其次，投资将获得回报。例如：出资人每年都能从学院获得品质上好的羊毛、亚麻衣服、鞋子、丝袜，出资人的子女将受到良好的教育。随着学院规模的扩大，其财富也会不断增值。最后，富人必然要依赖穷人。他写道：“富人没有别的生存方式，只能依赖别人的劳动，就像地主依赖佃户，大小商人依赖机器，除非他们都成为平等派，才会与穷人一同劳动。”换言之，如果没有一支勤于劳动的穷人，富人就得亲自劳动。“就好像一个人，虽然拥有10万英亩土地，拥有与土地等值的货币，还有值这么多价的牲畜，但却没有劳动力，那么这个富人还能做什么呢？他只能成为一个劳动者。”

To employ the poor, Bellers also listed various reasons. First, the college provided comprehensive welfare: “Whether healthy or sick; single or married; women or children, all can enjoy necessities. If parents die, the orphans will receive education and care, and their future marriages will also be encouraged.” Second, life in the college saved many mental worries. Bellers wrote: “At present, besides physical labor, men have two additional worries: first, he must maintain his own and his family’s livelihood; second, he must guard against the schemes of those around him in buying and selling. In the college, these worries are unnecessary; all he needs to do is simple daily work.” Therefore, “compared to the outside world, life in the college is more agreeable.” Finally, college life was a form of salvation. He said: “Many people lose heaven because they care too much about this worldly life… The daily life in the college makes them restrain their attachment to the secular world. By engaging in simple and honest labor and receiving religious guidance, the college will become a college of virtue.” In short, Bellers intended to tell both the rich and the poor that, from a short-term, long-term, or even an otherworldly perspective, college life was attractive and served the interests of both parties.

为了雇佣到穷人，贝勒也列举了各种理由。首先，学院提供完善的福利。“无论健康还是生病；单身还是结婚；妇女还是儿童，都能享有必需品。如果父母离世，遗孤将得到教育、照顾，他们将来的婚姻也将得到鼓励”；其次，学院的生活省去了许多精神上的烦恼。贝勒写道：“当下，男人们除体力劳动外，还有两重担心，第一，他要维持自己以及家庭的生活；第二，他要在买卖中防范周围人的阴谋。在学院中，这些担心是多余的，他需要做的只是每日简单的工作”，因此“比起外面的世界，学院的生活更加顺心”；最后，学院生活是一种拯救。他说：“许多人因为在乎此世的生活而失去了天堂……学院里的日常生活，让他们克制了对世俗的迷恋，通过从事简单正直的劳动以及获得宗教的指导，学院将成为一座美德的学院。”总之，贝勒意图告诉富人和穷人，无论从短期、长期甚至来世的角度看，学院生活都富有吸引力，符合双方的利益。

Apart from the form of the joint-stock company, utopian visions of the late seventeenth century also featured small republics in the form of communities, which shared many similarities in conception with the small republics in the form of joint-stock companies. In terms of writing style, both included a main body of argument followed by a question-and-answer section. In terms of practical methods, both began with the steps of raising funds, purchasing land, and recruiting members. However, these two types of small republics also differed in several respects: community utopias were generally located in rural areas, with agriculture and handicrafts as their main productive sectors; they emphasized self-sufficiency and neglected economic competition; and they used faith rather than interest as the means of linking individuals. Their representative is a work published in 1698 under the pseudonym Philadephus, titled *An Essay on the Adepts*. Philadephus called the ideal community a "kingdom or little world." It consisted of four adjacent parishes that cooperated with one another, equivalent in scale to a small town. Each parish had a lord, who lived with his family in the parish manor, managing the town like a king among his tenants. The community's economic activities were primarily agricultural, supplemented by various handicrafts, and could be self-sustaining. According to his conception, "each parish has a sufficient number of carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, plowmen, weavers, and other occupations necessary for society." Everyone, in addition to their specific work, was to share in agricultural labor. For goods the community needed but could not produce, such as food and ammunition, "they would trade with the world outside the community using public funds." In terms of governance, the community strictly controlled residents' daily life, diet, and forms of entertainment, in order to achieve a simple and temperate common life. According to Philadephus's vision, once social morality had improved, adepts who grasped the secret of the philosopher's stone would appear; they would serve society with their knowledge, bringing "wealth, satisfaction, virtue, health, and strength."

除了股份制公司的形态，17世纪后期的乌托邦构想中还出现了社区形态的小共和国，它与股份制公司形态的小共和国在构思上有诸多相似的地方。写作模式上，它们均包括了正文部分的论述以及之后的答疑。实践方式上，均始于集资、买地、招募几个环节。不过，这两类小共和国也存在几处不同的地方，社区乌托邦一般位于农村，并以农业、手工业为主要生产部门；它强调自给自足而疏于经济竞争；以信仰而非利益作为联系个体的手段。其代表是署名为菲拉德普特的作者出版于1698年的《一篇关于秘术师的文章》。菲拉德普特将理想社区称为：“王国或小世界”。它由四个毗邻的堂区组成，它们相互合作，在规模上相当于一个小城镇。每个堂区都有一个庄园主，他与家人居在堂区的宅邸内，就像佃户中的国王一样管理着这个城镇。社区的经济活动以务农为主，兼及各种手工业，可以自我维持。按照他的构想，“每个堂区都有数量充足的木匠、石匠、铁匠、犁工、织工以及其它一些社会必需的职业”。所有人除了从事特定的工作，都要分担农事。对于社区需要但不能生产的食品、弹药等，“会用公共基金与社区外的世界贸易”。在管理上，社区对居民的饮食起居，娱乐方式进行严格控制，以实现简朴、节制的共同生活。按照菲拉德普特的设想，当社会道德改善之后，掌握哲人石奥秘的秘术师将会出现，他们将以知识服务社会，带来“财富、满足、美德、健康以及力量”。

Unlike the mirror-for-princes type of utopian works, in the "small republic" utopias that emerged in the late seventeenth century, the realization of utopia depended on cooperation among different strata rather than on the impetus of political power. Furthermore, in the former setting, utopia was often closed off, isolated overseas, existing as a parallel world alongside the real world; in the latter setting, utopia was embedded within real society, accepting its traditions and institutions as a component of that society and participating in real life. Finally, compared to comprehensive reform plans, the practical method of the "small republic" model was to reform society gradually through pilot projects and demonstration. After the eighteenth century, the small republic model became the main form of the utopian movement; according to incomplete statistics, 134 small-scale utopian communities were established between 1825 and 1914.

与君王宝鉴类的乌托邦作品不同，在17世纪后期出现的“小共和国”乌托邦中，乌托邦的实现有赖于各阶层之间的合作而非政治权力的推动。此外，在前者的设定中，乌托邦往往是封闭的，它孤悬海外，是与现实世界平行存在的另一个世界；在后者的设定中，乌托邦被嵌入现实社会中，作为一个社会的组成接受其传统与制度，参与现实生活。最后，相较于总体性的改革方案，“小共和国”的实践方式是通过试点与示范，渐进地改革社会。18世纪后，小共和国模式成为乌托邦运动的主要方式，据不完全统计，1825—1914年期间建立的小规模乌托邦社团就达到134个。

III. Reasons for the Shift in Thought

三、思想转轨的原因

The transformation of utopian thought in the late seventeenth century was, on the one hand, related to the specific religious beliefs of the utopian authors. For example, Plockhoy was closely associated with the Mennonites, and the Mennonite characteristics of passive obedience to government and emphasis on the religious community were reflected in his writings... Bellers, as a member of the Quakers, suffered persecution, which may have prompted him to shrink his imagination back to the community. Philadephus, meanwhile, showed tendencies toward Hermeticism in his work, believing that government had become corrupt and that the hope for reform lay with the adepts. But more importantly, changes in the socioeconomic conditions of this period provided the material for the utopian authors' conceptions. After the mid-seventeenth century, England's economic situation steadily improved, while social differentiation also became increasingly severe. The poor of this period were mostly peasants who had lost their land in the process of commercialization. When they "broke away from the traditional agricultural order, perhaps unwittingly, they were swept into the modernization process of English society. Outside the stable rural parish, the lower-class Englishman entered a world of scarce patrons and uncertain employment." Compared to the impact of climate changes on farmers, the rise and fall of markets was even more volatile for urban workers; once the economy turned bad, they faced the danger of unemployment and became paupers dependent on relief. Professor Paul Slack argues that the number of people in extreme poverty decreased during this period, while the number of those living in poverty did not fall but actually rose. The 1662 Poor Law began by stating: "The number of poor people in need of relief in the two cities of London and Westminster is constantly increasing, and the poor throughout the Kingdom of England and the Dominion of Wales are so numerous as to be unbearable." At the time, some scholars estimated that in 1696, the number of poor and beggars in England approached a quarter of the total population. Against this backdrop, discussions on the problem of the poor proliferated.

乌托邦思想在17世纪后期的转变，一方面与乌托邦作者特殊的宗教信仰有关，例如，普洛霍伊与门诺派过从甚密，而门诺派消极服从政府，重视教派共同体等特征反映在他的著作中……贝勒作为贵格派成员遭到迫害，这可能促使他将想象收缩回共同体。菲拉德普特则在著作中表现出赫尔墨斯主义的倾向，认为政府已经堕落，改革的希望在于秘术师。但更重要的是，这一时期社会经济状况的变化，为乌托邦作者的构思提供了条件。17世纪中叶以后，英国的经济状况持续改善，社会分化也日趋严重。这一时期的穷人，多是在商业化过程中失去土地的农民，当他们“脱离了传统的农耕秩序，或许在不知不觉中，就被裹挟进英国社会的现代化进程。在安稳的农村堂区外，底层英国人便进入了一个主顾稀少、就业不确定的世界”。相较于气候冷暖对农民的影响，市场兴衰对城市工人而言更加波谲云诡，一旦经济效益不好，他们就有失业的危险，沦为依赖救济维生的贫民。保罗·斯莱克教授认为，这一时期处于赤贫状态的穷人有所减少，而生活贫困的人数却不降反升。1662年的济贫法开篇即指出：“伦敦和威斯敏斯特两座城市中需要救济的穷人数量不断增加，整个英格兰王国和威尔士领地的穷人如此之多，难以负担。”当时有学者估算，1696年时英国穷人与乞丐人数接近总人口的四分之一。在这样的背景下，有关穷人问题的讨论不断涌现。

To address the problem of the poor, the Poor Law enacted by the government in 1662 authorized justices of the peace to expel poor people who had moved into a parish; the Poor Law of 1697 followed the same line of thinking, authorizing parish churchwardens and overseers of the poor to send poor outsiders residing or staying in the parish back to their birthplace or the parish where they had previously received relief. Such measures did not resolve the increasingly severe problem of the poor. Unlike the government's response strategy, the mercantilists of the time opposed both providing endless relief to the poor and prohibiting their migration. In their eyes, the poor were a potential resource, and poverty itself had its uses; they argued that "the interest of the state lies precisely in keeping the majority of the population in a state of poverty." This argument was based on "conventional wisdom," namely, that wealth breeds laziness while poverty cultivates industriousness. Scholars of the time put forward various proposals, including lowering wages, raising prices, creating employment opportunities, and emphasizing the education of poor children, all aimed at forcing the poor to develop industrious habits; they had little sympathy or compassion for the plight of the poor.

为了应对穷人问题，政府在1662年出台的济贫法授权治安法官驱逐迁来本堂区的穷人，1697年颁行的济贫法沿用了这一思路，授权堂区的教会执事与济贫官将居住、逗留在本堂区的外来贫民遣回出生地或之前接受救济的堂区。这样的办法并未化解当时日益严峻的穷人问题。与政府的应对策略不同，当时的重商主义者既反对给予穷人源源不断的救济，也不打算禁止他们迁移。在他们眼中，穷人是潜在资源，贫穷亦有其功用，他们提出“国家的利益正在于大部分人口维持在贫困状态”。这一论述基于“传统智慧”，即认为富裕带来懒惰而贫穷培育勤劳。当时学者提出了各式各样的建议，包括降低工资，抬升物价，创造就业机会以及重视穷人孩子的教育等，目的在于迫使穷人养成勤劳的习惯，至于穷人的处境，他们并无多少同情与怜悯。

The utopian works of this period also focused on the problem of the poor, but their solution lay not in restricting the mobility of the poor or exploiting them, but in reshaping social relations, especially in addressing the polarization between rich and poor caused by market activities. Since More, utopian authors had tended to use legislative means to adjust wealth distribution and achieve social relations of equality and mutual aid. However, after the seventeenth century, with economic development and the growth of market society, government supervision over economic life continuously diminished; "the connection between the nation's material resources and the people who depended on them for their livelihood was also severed. Common wealth had become a collection of private wealth." It was against this backdrop that the seventeenth-century mercantilist Gerard Malynes dismissed More's proposals as absurd, because: "Without private interest, there is no common interest." Correspondingly, the voice defending private property rights grew ever louder; even the Levellers during the Civil War opposed the equal distribution of property. Richard Overton declared at the beginning of *An Arrow Shot Against All Tyrants*: "Every actual individual is endowed by nature with a property, which cannot be violated or plundered by anyone. For each person, because he is himself, he acquires his own property; otherwise he would not be himself. No one can deprive him of anything except by open violence, violation of natural rules, or breach of the principles of justice and fairness between people." In such a context, adjusting wealth distribution through legislative means appeared impractical.

这一时期的乌托邦作品同样关注穷人问题，但应对之道不在于限制穷人流动或利用穷人，而在于重塑社会关系，尤其是解决市场活动造成的贫富分化。自莫尔以来，乌托邦作者倾向于用立法的手段调整财富分配，实现平等与互助的社会关系。然而，17世纪以后，随着经济发展，市场社会成长，政府对经济生活的监督不断减少，“国家的物质资源与靠它们维生的人民之间的联系也被切断了。共同财富已成为私人财富的集合”。正是在这样的背景下，17世纪的重商主义者杰拉德·马林斯将莫尔的主张斥为荒谬，因为：“没有私人利益，就没有共同利益”。与之相应，捍卫个人财产权的呼声也愈发高涨，即便是内战中的平等派，也反对均分财产。理查德·奥弗顿在《一只射向所有暴君的箭》开篇就声明：“每一个实际存在的个人，都被自然赋予了一份财产，这是不能被任何人侵犯和掠夺的。对每个人而言，因他就是他自己，所以他获得自己的财产，否则他便不是他自己。若不是凭着公开的暴力，对自然规则的冒犯，抑或违背人与人之间公平正义的原则，别人便不能剥夺他的任何东西。”在这样的语境中，通过立法的方式调整财富分配，显得不切实际。

How can the problem of the poor be resolved while respecting the right to individual property, and how can social relations be reshaped in the process? The rise of joint-stock companies offered utopian authors a new line of thought. In 1662, Charles II approved the “limited liability of all contributors,” marking the establishment of Britain’s earliest modern “democratic” form of joint-stock company. By offering dividends as returns and absorbing idle social wealth, such companies effectively met the need for managing capital in long-distance trade, mining, metallurgy, and other large-scale projects, important innovations, and specialized financial operations. “They could obtain monopoly privileges more conveniently than any private group, thereby protecting fixed investment.” When war disrupted many overseas trade routes in the late seventeenth century and large amounts of capital lay idle, stocks became a popular investment target, and joint-stock companies flourished. In aggregate terms, “between 1689 and 1695, the paid-in capital of British joint-stock companies expanded from £630,000 to approximately £3.5 million, and the number of companies grew from 11 to around a hundred; the capital used for investment had already overloaded the stock market.”

如何在尊重个人财产权的前提下解决穷人问题，继而重塑社会关系呢？股份制公司的兴起为乌托邦作者提供了新的思路。1662年，查理二世批准“全体出资人的有限责任制”，以此为标志，英国建立起最早的近代“民主型”股份公司的形态。它以股息作为回报，吸收社会闲散财富，能有效地解决远距离贸易、采矿、冶金等大型工程、重要的革新项目和专业的金融业务中管理资本的需要，“它比任何私人团体都更便利地获得垄断特权，进而保护固定投资”。当英国在17世纪后期受战争影响，许多海外贸易渠道遭到破坏，大量资本闲置时，股票成为受大众欢迎的投资对象，股份制公司繁荣发展起来。从总量上看，“在1689至1695年间，英国股份制公司的实收资本从63万镑扩增为大约350万镑，公司数量从11家发展为大约百余家，用于投资的资本，已使股票市场的负荷过重”。

Faced with the public’s enthusiasm for investment, utopian authors of this period realized that adopting the form of a joint-stock company made it easier to raise funds for establishing pilot projects of an ideal society. Plockhoy emphasized the high production efficiency of small republics and attracted investment by offering the products of production and the company’s profits as returns, intending to purchase land in London, Bristol, and Ireland. John Bellers recognized: “When there is profit to be made, it is relatively easy to raise £1,000, whereas under the name of charity, it is difficult to raise even £100.”

面对大众的投资热情，这一时期的乌托邦作者意识到采用股份制公司的形式，更容易获得资金建立理想社会的试点。普洛霍伊强调小共和国的生产高效，并以生产的产品与公司的利润作为回报吸引投资，并意图在伦敦、布里斯托尔以及爱尔兰购买土地。贝勒认识到：“当有利可图的时候，筹集起1000镑是比较容易的，而以慈善的名义，筹到100镑都比较困难。”

Beyond their advantages in raising funds, joint-stock companies also represented a new form of social cooperation. The historian Richard Grassby described the joint-stock company as “a small state,” arguing that larger joint-stock companies often employed a large number of staff, including “secretaries, accountants, naval lieutenants, physicians and surgeons, soldiers, clerks, teachers, and craftsmen,” who did not act as independent merchants but cooperated as employees of the collective body of shareholders. Shareholders were divided into major shareholders and ordinary shareholders according to the amount of their investment; the latter did not participate in enterprise management but existed merely as a rentier group, while the major shareholders, in a democratic manner, exercised the management functions of the enterprise through company institutions such as the board of directors and the supervisory board. Investors, managers, and employees were linked by the bond of interest, cooperating in exchange for profit, effectively eliminating competition among members and imbuing the enterprise with a “public” character. In many joint-stock companies, members were called “brothers,” much like members of a guild, and they even had a guild-style apprenticeship system. In the spring of 1661, Charles II’s charter granted to the East India Company included the statement: “May acknowledge apprentices, factors, and servants as members of the body.” This unique organizational model of the joint-stock company coincided with the communal life advocated by utopian authors, which was another reason for the rise of the small republic model.

除了在募集资金方面的优势，股份制公司还是一种新的社会合作方式。史家理查德·格拉斯比将股份制公司形容为“一个小型国家”，认为较大的股份公司往往雇佣大量工作人员，包括“秘书、会计师、海军中校、内外科医生、士兵、文书、教师和工匠”，他们不是作为商人独立行动，而是作为股东集体的雇员协作行动。股东按照出资额分为大股东和一般股东，后者不参与企业管理，而仅仅作为食利群体存在，大股东则以民主的方式，通过董事会、监事会等公司机构，掌握企业的管理职能。出资人、管理人以及雇员以利益为纽带联系起来，以合作换取利益，有效排除了成员间的竞争，使企业带有“公”的色彩。对于许多股份制公司而言，其成员如同行会成员一般，被称作“brother”，甚至还具有行会式的学徒制度。1661年春，查理二世授予东印度公司的“特许状”中包含这样一句话：“可以承认学徒、经销人和佣人是（团体的）一份子”。股份公司这种独特的组织模式与乌托邦作者倡导的共同体生活不谋而合，这是小共和国模式兴起的又一原因。

Finally, the political instability in Britain since the Civil War also prompted utopian authors to adopt the small republic model. Bellers believed: “States and governments are often subject to revolutions and changes, and individual families even more so. Amidst the ups and downs, who can know whether they will make money or be ruined?” Compared with the state and the individual, he considered the form of the company to be the most stable and enduring: “It is like a single human body, difficult to split apart; no matter what变故 [8]8 The Chinese term 变故 (biàngù) here means “unforeseen events” or “calamities,” rendered as “变故” in the original text; the English translation “calamities” is used in the paragraph above. it encounters (unless the people here are all destroyed), even if it is plundered, it can reorganize itself within twelve months.”

最后，英国自内战以来的政局动荡，也促使乌托邦作者采用小共和国模式。贝勒就认为：“国家和政府常常受到革命和变迁的影响，个别家庭更是如此。在起伏不定中，有谁能知道自己是赚钱还是倾家荡产呢？”相较于国家与私人，他认为公司的形态最为稳固持久，“它像是一个人的身体，很难被分割开，无论遇到什么变故（除非这里的人都被毁灭），即使是被洗劫，12个月以内，它也能再次组织起来”。

In summary, in late seventeenth-century England, the mainstream of economic thought focused on pursuing growth and increasingly understood economic phenomena through a mechanistic worldview, while the necessity of morality was treated only as a background factor. In this context, how to resolve the problem of the poor, or how to defend economic justice in the pursuit of profit, became a new problem facing utopian authors. Thinkers represented by Plockhoy and John Bellers, inspired by the emerging joint-stock company, conceived a utopia in the small republic model, advocating the resolution of social problems through social cooperation. This was undoubtedly progressive in the context of the time, but as capitalism developed and class conflict became more severe, such ideas calling on the bourgeoisie to open their purses gradually degenerated into empty fantasies.

综上所述，17世纪末叶的英国，经济思想的主流聚焦到谋求增长，并日益以机械主义的宇宙观理解经济现象，道德的必要性只被当作背景因素。在这样的语境中，如何化解穷人问题，或如何在追求利润的过程中捍卫经济道义，成为乌托邦作者面临的新问题。以普洛霍伊、约翰·贝勒为代表的思想家受新兴的股份制公司启发，设想出小共和国模式的乌托邦，倡导以社会合作的方式解决社会问题，这在当时的语境中无疑是进步的，但随着资本主义的发展，阶级冲突越发严重时，这类呼吁资产阶级慷慨解囊的想法，就逐渐沦为空想了。

(Author’s bio: Wang Chuangchuang, born in Qu County, Sichuan, is a lecturer at the School of History, Anhui Normal University.)

（作者简介：王闯闯，四川渠县人，安徽师范大学历史学院讲师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心