理论可分两类，一类是在已有的经典体系中钻研和发展；一类是另立一套概念与逻辑。前者受学术体制的供养、约束和保护；后者只是边缘人的独自思考。其实经典最初也往往是从边缘走出。单从解释世界的角度，我同意现今大部分领域已经有了各自的经典体系，代代学者的耕耘浇灌使其能满足大部分需求，另立体系并无必要。但若是为改变现实世界提供方法，当那方法构成完整的操作体系时，便不可能不对现实世界有全新的认识。或者说，能改变世界的操作体系背后，必然少不了重新诠释世界的体系，由此才能支撑其推动的变革。否则，传统的经典体系既不能提供对这种变革的解释，更无法提供支持这种变革的佐证。新体系的问世便成为必不可少的。
There are two types of theories, one is to study and develop within the existing classical system; the other is to establish a new set of concepts and logic. The former is nourished, constrained and protected by the academic system; the latter is just the solitary thinking of the marginal people. In fact, the classics often also come out from the margins. From the perspective of explaining the world, I agree that most fields today have their own classical systems, and the cultivation and irrigation of generations of scholars make them able to meet most needs, and there is no need to establish another system. But if it is to provide methods for changing the real world, when that method constitutes a complete operating system, it is impossible not to have a new understanding of the real world. Or to put it another way, behind the operating system that can change the world, there must be a system that reinterprets the world, which can support the changes it promotes. Otherwise, it is impossible, because the traditional classical system can neither provide an explanation for such a change, nor can it provide evidence to support it. The emergence of a new system becomes indispensable.
我将本书命名为“权民一体论”，不掺杂任何学术野心，也无意挑战经典体系，只是为我多年思考的操作体系——递进自组织——进行解说，论证其何以正当，何以可操，何以能解决当今社会面对的问题。“问题”在先，“主义”在后。此书的目的和兴趣，在方法而非理论，并始终以感恩之心从经典体系汲取养分。
I have named this book "The Unity of Power and People", without any academic ambition, nor intend to challenge the classical system, but only to explain the operating system that I have been thinking about for many years, "recursive self-organization", and demonstrate why it is legitimate, how it can be operated, and how it can solve the problems facing society today. "Problems" come first, and "isms" come last. The purpose and interest of this book is in the method rather than the theory, and always draws nourishment from the classical system with a grateful heart.
不过谈方法可能会触碰到学界忌讳的“开药方”。在二十世纪的各种社会改造失败后，学界对任何“总体性”——尤其对关于社会的设计和操作唯恐避之不及。哈耶克（Friedrich August von Hayek）认为追求社会正义是通向奴役之路，因为事先树立“理想”就必定会同时确定通向“理想”的路径，从而剥夺人的自由选择和行为，“理想”的确立者也就成为当然的指路人和裁判者，奴役由此而生。哈耶克所赞成的出于人的活动而非人的“明确意图”形成的“自生自发秩序”，这已基本成为中国学界的共识。的确，以往的社会设计及操作体系多数会造成灾难。然而社会发展既然受人类能动的强烈影响，设计就不会不起作用。处处进行设计的人类怎可能不设计社会？面对层出不穷有“明确意图”的干涉，坚持“自生自发”等于拱手让那些“明确意图”自行其是。“老大哥”们不会因学界否定而放弃“总体设计”。我们哪怕只为避免纳粹、文革、红色高棉一类灾难重演，也不能不从总体的角度应对。况且人类目前面临的生态危机，族群冲突，科技奇点等，都离不开总体性解决。发展可以自发进行，节制却不能自发实现；经济活动可以自发运转，价值与正义却不能自发降临。当社会前途越来越取决于普遍正义与共同节制时，放任的自由不可能胜任，在原框架内的“零星工程”或“自生自发秩序”也无法超越，除了进行转换体系的总体变化，别无他途。
However, talking about the method may touch on the academic taboo of "prescription". After the failure of various social transformations in the 20th century, the academia is afraid of any “totality” - especially the design and operation of society. Hayek (Friedrich August von Hayek) believes that pursuing social justice is the road to slavery, because setting up an “ideal” in advance will inevitably determine the path to the “ideal” at the same time, thus depriving people of their freedom of choice and action, and the establisher of the “ideal” will become the natural guide and judge, from which slavery is born. Hayek's "spontaneous order" formed by human activities rather than human "explicit intentions" has basically become the consensus of Chinese academic circles. Indeed, most of the social design and operating systems of the past have caused disaster. However, since social development is strongly influenced by human initiative, design will not be ineffective. How can human beings, who design everywhere, not design society? Faced with endless interference with “explicit intentions”, insisting on “spontaneous” is equivalent to giving up those “explicit intentions” to do whatever they want. The "big brothers" will not give up the "overall design" because of the denial of the academia. Even if we just want to avoid a recurrence of disasters such as the Nazis, the Cultural Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge, we cannot but deal with them from a holistic perspective. Moreover, the ecological crisis, ethnic conflict, technological singularity, etc. that humans are currently facing cannot be solved without a holistic solution. Development can be carried out spontaneously, but restraint cannot be achieved spontaneously; Economic activity can run spontaneously, but value and justice cannot come spontaneously. When the future of society increasingly depends on universal justice and common restraint, laissez-faire freedom cannot be competent, and the “piecemeal projects” or “spontaneous order” within the original framework cannot be transcended, except for the holistic change of the transformation system, there is no other way.
设计不是问题，设计了什么才是问题。美国从一片荒原变成超强大国，那几十个集聚费城的人类头脑殚精竭虑的设计正是决定因素之一。需要区分的是两种设计，一种是对目标的设计，即过去那些造成惨痛教训的乌托邦；另一种是对方法的设计，即哈耶克所说 “会产生秩序的规则”——美国宪法是这种规则，递进自组织也是这种规则。主义着眼应该怎样，方法却着手于能够怎样。不同的社会形态归根结底在于采取了不同方法——使用奴隶、封地建邑、代议制、三权分立、竞选、国有化……正是不同方法的出现与实施，造就了不同的社会与时代。
Design is not the problem, what is designed is the problem. The transformation of America from a wilderness to a superpower was partly determined by the design of those dozens of human minds who gathered in Philadelphia with painstaking efforts. What needs to be distinguished are two kinds of design, one is the design of the goal, that is, the utopias that caused painful lessons in the past; the other is the design of the method, that is, what Hayek called “the rules that produce order” - the American Constitution is such a rule, and recursive self-organization is also such a rule. Isms focus on how things should be, but methods focus on how things can be. Different social forms ultimately depend on different methods - using slaves, fiefdoms, representative system, separation of powers, elections, nationalization… It is the emergence and implementation of different methods that create different societies and eras.
当然，可以划时代的方法一定会触及本质，因此必会蕴含解释世界的主义。没有主义的方法只是雕虫小技，不可能划时代。主义与方法的相辅相成一直是人类社会进步的源泉。今天，从东方到西方，人们普遍丧失信心，四顾茫然。相互竞争的旧体系在各自的困境中步履蹒跚，难以自拔。面对这种方向迷失和穷途末路，故步自封的学术只会变着花样老生常谈，冷冻在边缘的思想只能顾影自怜或孤芳自赏。足以开辟新时代的大方法和新主义最终能否问世并造就新社会，谋事虽然在人，成事却需在天。
Of course, a method that can be epoch-making must touch on the essence, and therefore must contain an ism that explains the world. A method without an ism is just a petty skill, and cannot be epoch-making. The mutual complementarity of ism and method has always been the source of human social progress. Today, from East to West, people generally lose confidence and look around in confusion. The old competing systems are faltering in their own predicaments. In the face of this kind of disorientation and despair, the self-contained academia will only talk about the same old things in different ways, and the frozen thoughts on the edge can only be self-pity or self-appreciation. Whether the great method and new ism that can open up a new era can eventually come out and create a new society, although it's Man proposes, but God disposes.
追溯下来，这些年我对本书所谈的方法有过三种称谓。1998 年出版的《溶解权力》（明镜出版社）称之为“逐层递选制”——源于我从 1975 年开始构想并在 1991 年出版的《黄祸》一书（明镜出版社）中描述过的选举方法。迄今围绕其的内容已扩大许多，但是“逐层递选制”仍占据一通百通的位置。《溶解权力》为其建立了理论框架，这个称谓却被认为有些狭窄，容易被理解为只是关于选举的技术调整，缺少引向新型社会的想象。
Looking back, I've had three names for the methods discussed in this book over the years. The 1998 book "Dissolving Power" (Mirror Books) called it the "Layered Selection System", derived from the electoral method I conceived since 1975 and described in the book “The Yellow Peril” (Mirror Books) published in 1991. So far, the content surrounding it has expanded a lot, but the "layer-by-layer selection system" still occupies a perpetual position. "Dissolving Power" establishes a theoretical framework for it, but this name was considered somewhat narrow, and easily understood as just a technical adjustment of the election, lacking the imagination of leading to a new type of society.
我在 2006 年出版的《递进民主》（大块文化）一书中改称“递进民主”。定义扩展为“逐层递选制+递进委员会制”。这个概念增加了涵盖性。问题在于“民主”是当今谁都要戴的帽子，专制政权也如此标榜，从而被搞成了含义模糊的形容词，让人对其不加深思，甚至把“递进民主”理解为民主需要循序缓行，和我的本意背道而驰。
In the book “Recursive Democracy” (Locus Publishing) published in 2006, I changed the name to “recursive democracy”. The definition was expanded to “the Layered Selection System + the recursive committee system”. This concept increased the inclusiveness. The problem is that “democracy” is a hat that everyone wears today, and even authoritarian regimes boast of it, so that it has been made into a vague adjective, which makes people not think deeply about it, and even understanding “recursive democracy” as democracy needs to proceed gradually, or progressive democracy, which is contrary to my original intention.
本文使用“递进自组织”，比“递进民主”偏重体现方法，又比“逐层递选制”涵盖面广，可同时包纳“递进委员会制”，也更适合本文从“自组织”切入的论述。不过这不意味我抛弃了“递进民主”之称。综合而论涵盖性和延展性，我认为最贴切的称谓仍然是“递进民主”。
This article uses “Recursive Self-Organization”, which emphasizes the method more than “recursive democracy”, and covers a wider range than “Layered Selection System”. It can also include “the recursive committee system”, and is more suitable for the discussion of this article from the perspective of “self-organization”. However, this does not mean that I have abandoned the name of “recursive democracy”. In terms of comprehensiveness and extensibility, I think the most appropriate name is still “Recursive Democracy”.
感谢 Jessica Noble 对本文研究写作过程的长期支持。
We would like to thank Jessica Noble for her Long-term support of the research writing process for this article.
感谢多年来与我就递进民主进行思想碰撞的陈宜中、林猛、李晓林、李岚、郭玉闪、王彦、王超华、Perry Anderson、萧瀚、张祖桦、陈子明、刘苏里、刘晓波、吴思、梁晓燕、王维洛、卢跃刚、徐向东、冼岩、海壁、黄渡海、李依燃、王伟、周涛、于奇、陈冠中、潘婧、陈志伟、李宪源、朱建刚、陈越、王凡、杨支柱、朱雨心、邓白洋、刘自立、陈初越、凌幼娟、知原、韩建涛、汪晓涛、楚望台、崔卫平等人士。
I would like to thank them who have had collision of ideas with me on recursive democracy over the years, Chen Yizhong, Lin Meng, Li Xiaolin, Li Lan, Guo Yushan, Wang Yan, Wang Chaohua, Perry Anderson, Xiao Han, Zhang Zuhua, Chen Ziming, Liu Suli, Liu Xiaobo, Wu Si, Liang Xiaoyan, Wang Weiluo, Lu Yuegang, Xu Xiangdong, Xian Yan, Haibi, Huang Duhai, Li Yiran, Wang Wei, Zhou Tao, Yu Qi, Chen Guanzhong, Pan Jing, Chen Zhiwei, Li Xianyuan, Zhu Jiangang, Chen Yue, Wang Fan, Yang Zhuzhu, Zhu Yuxin, Deng Baiyang, Liu Zili, Chen Chuyue, Ling Youjuan, Zhiyuan, Han Jiantao, Wang Xiaotao, Chu Wangtai, Cui Weiping and others.
感谢多年来在我研究和推动递进民主过程提供过帮助的卢红、郝明义、达赖喇嘛、桑东仁波切（Samdhong Rinpoche）、郝维真、吕邦列、闫玫娟、曲辉、刘毅、王江雁、王建军、穆军、史克(Bertha Sneck)、 Carma Hinton 、何频、汤皓全、韩方明、柯银斌、嘉日·洛珠 (Lodi Gyari) 、阿沛晋美、才嘉、次丹旺秋、更特才让、邓仪、王小强、张木生、林培瑞（Perry Link）、Elliot Sperling、萧强、蒋慧娜、王我、冉丽芳、郜华欣、毛向辉、周曙光、侯笑如、徐晓、杨明辉、童屹等友人。
Thank you to all those who have helped me over the years in my research and promotion of recursive democracy, Lu Hong, Hao Mingyi, the Dalai Lama, Samdhong Rinpoche, Hao Weizhen, Lu Banglie, Yan Meijuan, Qu Hui, Liu Yi, Wang Jiangyan, Wang Jianjun, Mu Jun, Bertha Sneck, Carma Hinton, He Pin, Tang Haoquan, Han Fangming, Ke Yinbin, Lodi Gyari, Ngapoi Jigme, Tseja, Tseden Wangchuk, and Geng Tek Tsairang, Deng Yi, Wang Xiaoqiang, Zhang Musheng, Lin Peirui (Perry Link), Elliot Sperling, Xiao Qiang, Jiang Huina, Wang I, Ran Lifang, Gao Huaxin, Mao Xianghui, Zhou Shuguang, Hou Xiaoru, Xu Xiao, Yang Minghui, Tong Yi and other friends.
感谢妻子唯色和去年去世的母亲郑荃在我沉迷思考的寂寞岁月与我的相濡以沫。
I would like to thank my wife, Woeser, and my mother, Zheng Quan, who passed away last year, for being with me during the lonely years when I was obsessed with thinking.
感谢台湾大块文化出版公司、明镜出版社、香港社会科学出版社出版我的有关作品。
I would like to thank Taiwan Locus Publishing, Mirror Books, and Hong Kong Social Sciences Press for publishing my relevant works.
感谢本书编辑张人弘先生。
Thanks to Mr. Zhang Renhong, the editor of this book.
感谢《香港社会科学季刊》、《领导者》杂志发表我的有关文章。
I would like to thank the Hong Kong Social Science Quarterly and Leader Magazine for publishing my article.
感谢多维网、博讯网连载我的有关文章。
Thank DuoWei News, Boxun website for serializing my articles.
感谢互联网，除了作为便捷的交流管道和材料来源，更有众多网友给我带来启发和鞭策。
Thanks to the Internet, in addition to being a convenient communication channel and source of materials, many netizens have brought me inspiration and encouragement.
王力雄Wang Lixiong
2016年8月 北京August 2016 Beijing