公务员考试轻松学中公2020公务员录用考试轻松学系列行测必做5000题资料分析 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：公务员考试轻松学中公2020公务员录用考试轻松学系列行测必做5000题资料分析在线阅读

在线听书地址：公务员考试轻松学中公2020公务员录用考试轻松学系列行测必做5000题资料分析在线收听

在线购买地址：公务员考试轻松学中公2020公务员录用考试轻松学系列行测必做5000题资料分析在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：久阿远远远远远 发布时间：2018-06-04 10:57:38

  一般般，翻译的也不好，而且有几处错误

• 作者：沁云 发布时间：2020-07-01 00:54:25

  壹心理读书会听书，虽然讲得抽筋扒骨很简洁，但还是能感觉到这是一本会对初学者极为有用的好书。

• 作者：Vickijt 发布时间：2016-06-18 21:35:10

  浦东图书馆借。

• 作者：Perserkatze 发布时间：2020-05-10 11:40:39

  补标，适合入门。

• 作者：Hier Tanze 发布时间：2020-05-31 23:20:14

  霍妮写作质量最高的一本，清晰流畅。每一章节对应精神分析的一个重要概念，并对弗洛伊德语境的概念涵义做了清晰的描绘，之后表达自己对概念的批判。虽然并不同意霍妮对弗的大多数批判，但喜欢这种直接的反驳和干练的重构。文化、母亲、性格结构，这些方向都是霍妮拿来批判弗洛伊德的精神分析基本概念缺失的要素，但霍妮缺乏一种解释学阅读的深度（相反，拉康极为擅长这一点），这种解释学的深度可以使对弗洛伊德的阅读不是literal的，可以挖掘出弗著作中解剖学与社会学的关联、对父权的洞察等深刻之域。

• 作者：啦啦啦啦啦 发布时间：2020-02-06 20:47:47

  学习下，软考风格

• 解决了我不少关于金融的疑问

  作者：错误引导 发布时间：2015-06-03 15:36:16

  这本书以通俗易懂的方式解决了我长久以来不少的疑问。

  1）

  货币的发展史

  贸易是互惠的，或者说至少一方有利，另一方不损失，否则交易没法达成。譬如，在某个原始的村落里，张三是一名樵夫，李四是一名渔民。为了改善伙食，张三有时候也去捕鱼，但这不是他所擅长的，一天下来都没什么收获。而李四为了解决住房问题需要大量木材，可惜他不擅伐木。于是，张三把他砍伐的一部分木材跟李四捕捞的鱼交换，从此两人生活水平大幅改善。但是，随着交易的繁荣，问题也随之出现…..王二是一名农民，种了很多水稻。一天他去找李四，想用稻米去换李四的鱼，但是李四不喜欢吃稻米，他喜欢王二用稻米发酵的米酒，于是提出用鱼去交换王二的米酒。在全村人尝过王二的米酒后，个个都喜欢那种喝酒后飘飘然的感觉，于是所有人都争相去交换王二的酒，于是所有物品和资源都有了一个以米酒来衡量的价值，比如，一杯酒可以分别换一篮子鱼、两根木材、三斗大米….. 因为米酒是大家都喜欢持有的东西，渐渐地，米酒成为了一种硬通货。后来由于米酒不便携带、容易变质等缺点，逐渐被其他有价值的物品代替，如贵重金属等。对于商人来说，金属仍旧很重，也不方便携带，而且流通过程中有磨损，造成不少损失。于是，在一些古老的商业城市，负责兑换各国金银货币的中介（银行的前身）开始发行纸币，这些纸币实质上是一种价值凭证，每张纸币都对应着一定面额的黄金或白银，纸币持有者可随时凭纸币去银行那里兑换等额的黄金或白银，所以这些银行一开始发行纸币时都是非常克制的，如果银行发行的纸币总价值超过其贵金属储备，当纸币持有人都来兑换金银时，银行就会破产。相反，那些克制、讲信用的银行发行的纸币会收到大众欢迎，个个都喜欢持有，因为银行靠谱，纸币不易贬值，这种机制叫“金本位”。

  所以，一开始，纸币是所有银行都可以发行的，后来，在英国，一家银行通过贿赂等政治手段让政府确立它的垄断地位，也就是说，政府规定，只有一家银行允许发行纸币，市场上只允许流通一种纸币，这家独揽大权的银行慢慢演变成英国的中央银行，然后各国也开始效仿这种制度，话说哪国政府不想拥有印钱的权力呢？

  其实，垄断的货币发行制度也还好，毕竟那时候还是金本位制度，各国政府也相当克制。由于大部分国家都是金本位制度的，所以各自发行的货币对应的汇率是恒定的。

  到了“一战”和“二战”，为了筹集军费，各国政府开始拼命印钞票，推翻了金本位，各国物价普涨，民不聊生（参见民国）。

  美国本土幸免于战争，反而靠出口军需品赚了不少钱，“二战”后拥有的黄金储备量达到了世界的四分之三。为了重建战后的金融系统，美国召集了各国财长，确立了著名的“布雷顿森立体系”，其内容是，美元仍然实行严格的“金本位”制度，而西欧各国货币则与美元设立固定的汇率，相当于西欧各国也间接实行了“金本位”制度。

  这个金融体系维持了几十年，直至美国拼命印钞，消费无道（试想，中国政府拼命印钞，是透支中国人民的荷包，而美国政府印钞，是透支全世界人民的荷包）

  各国忍无可忍之时，时任总统尼克松才正式宣布推翻了“金本位”。

  从此，货币本质上成为了一张张纸片，各国政府可以肆意印刷，世界金融系统开始陷入暗无天日之境况。

  2）

  为何经济会崩溃？

  以前，历史书、经济教科书总是说，经济危机是不经规范的自由市场造成的。

  奥派经济学家则认为，经济崩溃的根源是政府印钞过多，那些本应被自由市场淘汰的企业因为有了更多热钱得以存活下来，人民也因为手中钞票变多了而作出不理性的投资，比如房产投机。这些问题在政府停止刺激之时会集体显现：那些运作不良的企业陆续倒闭，人民手中的房产因为价格大跌，放弃还房贷成为理性选择，银行付出了贷款，却收回大量不值钱的房产，于是银行破产，金融系统崩溃，经济进一步下滑。

  3）

  中国房价为何这么高？

  一，

  政府印钞过度，存款利率又过低，尤其是2008年以后，为了刺激经济，四万亿救市。为了防止手中现金贬值，人民开始大量购买不动产。到后面，由于房价上升太快，人民哄抢心理严重，购买欲望更强烈。

  二，

  政府不允许土地自由买卖，政府成为土地的唯一供应者，靠拍卖土地赚取财政收入的政策令地产发展商开发成本大大提高。

  4）

  欧洲为何衰退？

  四个字：债务危机，或者说，社会主义。通俗点说，消费太多，生产太少。

• Division of Labor: Solidarity or Collapse?

  作者：MrVeritas 发布时间：2012-11-01 12:12:31

  Foundations of modern social theory的final，纪念某个清晨，一个睡眼朦胧的女孩被涂尔干的思想醍醐灌顶而清醒无比的感觉。

  ——————

  As two of the three greatest sociologists in the 20th century, Durkheim and Marx have different interpretations of division of labor in modernity. In this essay, I will discuss their views on the role of division of labor in modernity and whether pathologies resulting from division of labor can be resolved within capitalism.

  I. Role of division of labor in modernity

  Both Durkheim and Marx did vertical (historical) and horizontal analysis on the role of division of labor. They both admit that division of labor is a vital momentum in social structural changes, though they have different attitudes on it-Durkheim is more positive about future social structural adjustment while Marx regards it as an ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism.

  A

  In vertical analysis, Durkheim describes the social structural evolution as mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, with analogy of biological evolution from lower organisms to higher organisms. And it was the division of labor that forced the change. In mechanical solidarity, people were united by similarity, with lower level of division of labor. However, demographic and technological factors, as well as heightened social interactions all made contributions to the development of division of labor. Because of the division of labor, the original work was divided into different pieces, occupied by different persons – people became more specialized and concentrated on narrower fields. Such specialization weakened the similarity among mechanical solidarity, which is the basis of collective consciousness. People feeling alienated from each other and the binding of society being loose, mechanical solidarity was finally deconstructed.

  Nonetheless, the advanced division of labor, leading to the destruction of mechanical solidarity, is exactly the force to shape the society into organic solidarity and the binding to maintain the organic solidarity. People realized that the more solidary they became, the more interdependent they are. For example, in the streamline construction of car, every worker is in charge of a tiny part of the car, which would drastically improve the work efficiency. Also, without any one part, they would fail to build a perfect and complete car. Therefore, a new form of social structure has generated. In the organic society, people are so specialized that no one can be an “encyclopedia”. On the contrary, it is the specialization that leads them to self-realization, achieving greatness in their own fields. Besides, interdependence brought up by division of labor makes it impossible to be a real solitary, thus maintaining the organic solidarity.

  However, Marx has a bitter interpretation of division of labor, instead, quite contrary to Durkheim’s. Although Marx admit the division of labor is the force to change the social structure, unlike Durkheim’s positive interpretation of it, Marx regards it as evil but functional. His invention of class analysis helped him extract two classes from the society, the oppressor and the oppressed. Capital accumulation was based on division of labor, which drastically improves the work efficiency. It is because the estranged labor in the streamlining manufacturing process can produce much more productions, thus giving rise to the genesis of bourgeoisie and supporting their political powers. The intensified tension between bourgeoisie and the lords finally let all that is solid melt into air.

  Nonetheless, division of labor, which serves as supportive power in the social structural change from feudalism to capitalism, in turn generates the ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism. The division of labor was necessarily followed by alienation of the workers, which finally triggers a new form of class struggle: bourgeoisie versus proletariat. In this struggle, the proletariat must win, Marx stated, for the bourgeoisie is dependent on the labor, the majority of the society. The appropriation of property, which attributes most part of property to small amounts of capitalists, is the terminal illness of capitalism. Therefore, just as the way capitalists united together to overthrow feudalism, the tense contradiction between capitalists and workers brought up by division of labor - or we can say, alienation - leads capitalists to the road of self-destruction.

  B

  In horizontal analysis, Durkheim and Marx have very different methodologies. Durkheim’s analysis is labor-labor based while Marx is person-person based. Let me illustrate it:

  Durkheim knows that in the organic solidarity with highly developed division of labor, people and labor slots are separate. Occupation is stable while people in the slots change over the years. Because Durkheim focused on the stable labor slots, he can easily find from them the collective consciousness, which is based on the interdependence of each labor slots. From the social structural perspective, such interdependence driven by division of labor is the gluten of organic solidarity. Besides, from the aspect of individual, he states that normal form of division of labor is good for everyone to exert himself. Specialization would help each individual to explore deeper in his or her own field, which would in turn benefit the society and make the collective consciousness even stronger.

  While Marx’s horizontal analysis is individual based. Instead of focusing on the advantages of divided slots filled with different workers, Marx lays more emphasis on the individuals. He pointed out that the workers were alienated from the object of production, the act of production, species being as well as fellow man. The alienation from the object of production makes workers not able to enjoy the fruits of labor – the appropriation of property occurs; the alienation from the act of production makes them not able to freely develop his physical and mental energy and enjoy their jobs; the alienation from species being dehumanizes them into machines; the alienation from fellow man makes them lose the communication with each other as well as their employers. Such alienation won’t last too long for workers will finally stand up to fight against it, thus shaping the society into communism where class struggle disappears forever.

  The divergence between Durkheim and Marx in terms of horizontal analysis results from their different perspectives and methodologies on division of labor, which also lead to their opposite predictions of capitalism.

  II. Whether pathologies can be resolved within capitalism

  Durkheim pointed out that organic society is more complex than mechanical society where similarity serves as the foundation of collective consciousness to unite the human beings - whereas the organic solidarity is based on division of labor. Division of labor will automatically generate two forces: centripetal force versus centrifugal force. Centripetal force is the unifier of the solidarity, based on interdependence, forming collective consciousness; centrifugal force is the alienating workers from labor and the whole social vision, which could be strong enough to generate pathologies. Durkheim pointed out three pathologies: anomic division of labor (such as bankruptcy), force division of labor and mismatch.

  Anomic division of labor can be attributed to the excess strong centrifugal force. In the huge global market, we get lost because we cannot see or even imagine the market. The only thing that we are sure about is our own labor slot. Such blindness leads to inefficient production – it’s one form of market failure. But Durkheim thinks such situation is abnormal, rather than natural feature of division of labor. Normally, workers are able to realize their roles in the society without getting lost.

  Force division of labor and mismatch are similar with Marx’s interpretation of alienation. Because the distribution of property is routinized to form classes, we lack absolute freedom to choose the job that we really want and be able to do. And Durkheim prescribes a solution – it’s the only and final solution – we should eliminate external inequality to maintain a free and equal condition for making contracts. “The ideal of organic society is to inject an even greater equity into our social relationships, in order to ensure the free deployment of all those forces that are socially useful.” His attention to justice is based on social function rather than morality. (His morally neutrality would attract high praise from Weber, I guess.)

  Anyway, Durkheim posited that all these are pathologies that can be resolved within capitalism. He conceived of a social system that can automatically adjust its operation in response to extrinsic factors and feedback. He assumed that these pathologies are common and normal to the social operation, just like illness and malfunctions occasionally occurring in our body. Actually, after overcome the pathologies, the social structure would be refreshed and more stable.

  However, Marx made a pessimistic interpretation of these pathologies. He focused on individuals’ reactions – such alienation would finally burst into destructive power to capitalism. He regards these pathologies as terminal illness that would necessarily occur, which capitalism would finally fail to devour them. His incisive observation of capitalistic economic operation let him believe that the deep contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat will finally lead to radical social structural change. Like the triad thesis – antithesis – synthesis, proletariat would someday unite to fight against bourgeoisie and reach harmonious communism where no class struggle exists. Whether the bourgeoisie would remain antagonistic to proletariat and whether proletariat, as alienated workers, could communicate and unite are two questions that only time could tell. One thing to clarify, division of labor itself is not always a bad thing – even in communism, there exists division of labor, which is the indispensable feature of modernity. But in capitalism, division of labor would necessarily goes to extreme to alienation, which will destroy capitalism in the end.

  III. Comments

  First, Durkheim’s analysis is based on social level instead of individual’s. His advocating eliminating the external inequality may just be wishful thinking, because the contemporary capitalism is dependent on inequality. Take American criminal law for example. Although consciously, people believe the equality before law, the truth is, the poor, the minority and the uneducated burden more liabilities than the privileged – they would be sentenced to death because they cannot afford excellent lawyers to defend for them. The formal justice of law would be distorted into double standard in the administration of criminal justice system due to the economic and social inequalities. Without inequality, the privileged cannot enjoy their constitutional rights on minimal cost. And they also lack the motives to reform the social system to realize true equality before law. This is capitalistic intrinsic contradiction. For the purpose to maintain their privileges, capitalism may adopt different methods to alleviate the contradiction between classes, while I think ultimately eliminating the equality is impossible. On the other hand, Durkheim’s analogy of biological structure also has bugs. He ignores the individual characters. In our body, we know that some organs are more important than others, such as brain. But our organs lack consciousness and humanity, so they would not complain the equalities and still work together for the whole body. While human beings have the instinct to compare with each other so the unequal levels of their roles and functions can spur a huge problem in the society. So I think his social based analysis absent individual level’s attention is the Achilles heel.

  Second, I think Durkheim and Marx can be complementary. Marx focused on the ultimate effects of class struggle while contemporary capitalism proves that it has the elasticity to adjust to the contradiction in class struggles. Durkhiem can explain the social state of peace; Marx can explain the radical reform of social structure. We can see after every economic crisis, capitalism is refreshed instead of destroyed. It processed in an upward spiral and that’s the best routine of social structural evolution ever. It is still unknown whether the society will radically change its form into communism.

  Third, the reason why we cannot tell the future of social structural evolution is that we cannot predict the war of centripetal force versus centrifugal force generated by division of labor. Division of labor has pros and cons. Durkheim believes pros - centripetal force will be the winner while Marx the opposite. And the result of war will decide whether pathologies would be resolved within capitalism.