我在创立我自己的理论过程中，也经常比较大家比较熟悉的马克思的理论。所以，我在我写的一本书Language and State: An Inquiry into the Progress of Civilization, Revised Edition的后记部分加上一段本人的说法与马克思的政治理论的比较，也算是对其错误理论的批判。如果感兴趣，能读懂英文的网友可看。本人的英文不太好，但中国人应该能懂。
This monograph postulates that humans speak and write a language, extending the distance of, and expand the scope of, their communication, culminating in the dissolution of the tribes of the primitive society and the birth of the states of the civilized society. It postulates that a tribe is a small living community formed because of kinship while a state is a large living community mainly formed because of language. As humans use language, they develop and utilize various media in support of their linguistic communication performed to help men associate together. They finally form their state and dissolve their tribes. Then a change takes place in the organization of human community. In a tribe, men tend to interact with one another face-to-face. As men are not large in number within each tribe, their direct mutual interaction is the method of forming their society. If we say that blood relationship is an inborn relationship between one and another in a tribe, such blood relationship represents immediacy between one and another. People form their tribe without the consciousness of the unity of the tribe. As Charles Roberts Aldrich wrote, “Among primitives, it is to be remembered, the unity of the group is primarily and almost exclusively an unconscious value, just as the herd-unity is a concern of unconscious animals.”1 Yet, after humans expand their community in linguistic communication, it is often impossible for people to perform face-to-face interaction. Self-organization of human society fails with all being unable to communicate with all even though men use language. Then the society expanded in linguistic communication needs to be organized by a powerful man who can issue orders and have men carry out such orders in the organization of the society. The consciousness of the unity of the society is required. Then people promote their collective consciousness, the common memory of the community, and the common idea of people, etc. The state is born.
In other words, by postulating that language underlies the formation of the state and the dissolution of the tribe, this monograph is intended to elucidate the operation of three juxtaposing communities—political community, economic community and cultural community—in the building of a theory of the formation, growth and future of the state. It does not intend to differentiate these three communities in order to identify one as a base and other two as superstructures. It treats these three communities equally because it holds that language is a base of all such three entities. It does not intend to adopt the theoretical mode of mutual interaction between base and superstructure initially ideated and conceptualized by Karl Marx when he constructed his social theory. This is because the author believes that setting the role of language in the formation of the state as a premise, one inevitably needs to view politics, economy and culture equally. If one does not set this premise while studying the building of the state, he is apt to find out whether politics determines economy or culture or economy determines politics or culture or culture determines politics or economy. This is because they determine each other mutually. The method of study of relationship between base and superstructure ideated and conceptualized by Marx falls into the trap of circular argument. For example, in Marxist theory, human society consists of two parts: the base and the superstructure, used as metaphors. The base comprises the forces and relations of production, which include employer—employee relation, while others such as legal and political institutions, ideology, culture, ritual and government constitute the superstructure. As it considers culture to be part of the superstructure, it holds that the base determines the superstructure if in the last instance. Marx wrote in the following in his work, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in 1859 that:
In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society—the real foundation, on which rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they had been at work before. From the forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformation the distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic condition of production which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic, or philosophic—in short ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social forces of production and the relation of production.2
Marx clearly pointed out his view about the relationship between the base and the superstructure. According to him, men’s social existence determines their consciousness. Yet one can also argue that men’s social consciousness determines their existence. Men sometimes design their society according to their idea. According to him, forces and relations of production condition the construction of the superstructure. Yet one may also argue that, in some sense, the superstructure can determine the forces and relations of production. Men sometimes reform their relations of production in order to facilitate the development of productive forces. There is a reciprocal relationship between the base and the superstructure. I believe that such argument can become circular. Circular argument can shed light on nothing. If we argue about the formation of the state from the perspective of language, we can find out the relation between language and media. As language serves as a basis for the development of media and the development of media is the course of the growth of the state, language determines the formation of the state. Language underlies the birth of civilized society. Therefore, language underlies all constructs in the state. This monograph tries to prove this point of view. Then, considering language to be a base for all forms of societal organization, I present my argument concerning the formation of political, economic and cultural communities as follows.
First of all, concerning the formation of the political community, I argue that people originally live in the tribe. The tribe is a self-organized human community. Kinship is the basic element in the formation of the tribe. After humans commence to use language, they extend the distance of linguistic communication and expand the scope of linguistic communication gradually. They enlarge the scale of their community. Then along with an increase in population, kinship attenuates. Then language plays a role in the formation of civilized society. Then, all need to speak and write the same language in order to form the state. Then there appears an interaction between language and medium. As men need to perform linguistic communication on a large scale, they need a medium. They cannot communicate with one another directly so as to discuss the matter of the organization of the state in a very large community—the state. Then a small number of people discuss the matter of the organization of the state because it is easier for a small number of people to communicate with one another than for a large number of people to communicate with one another. A handful of people seek power in control of the state. They may get power without consent from ordinary people. They seek their own interest. But as they also need to provide minimum public service in order to keep power, and perhaps need to seek ruling legitimacy, they can also be deemed as a medium in the organization of the state. They seek their own special interest while they seek power. Yet such special interest can also serves as a medium. Without this medium, they may not seek state power. Thus, throughout human civilization history, it is always a small number of people that organize the government and then organize the state. There are several different ways of the organization of the government and the state.
Firstly, a horde of people who found a military group or an armed gang, establish a regime through conquest. Then they build the state. The people who are dispersed are unable to get together to directly organize th