진짜 혁명은?

엄상익(변호사)  

한 책에서 조선일보 논설위원이었던 류근일 씨는 이렇게 말하고 있다.

  “인도에 혁명적인 운동을 하던 오로빈도라는 구루(스승)가 있었어요. 그가 어느 날 더 큰 세계에 뛰어들고 싶다고 생각했죠. 예수님이나 부처님처럼 영성의 측면에서 근본적인 혁명가가 되고 싶어서 아슈람이라는 공동체를 만들었어요. 수양 공동체죠. 혁명운동을 하던 사람이 어떤 계기에 본격적으로 근본적인 영성 혁명으로 가는 수가 있어요. 그걸 보고 혁명을 포기했다고 비난했죠. 저는 시간이 갈수록 이것이야말로 위대한 길이라고 생각했습니다. 로베스피에르, 레닌, 마오쩌뚱처럼 폭력혁명으로 세상을 개조하려는 움직임이 있고 예수 부처 톨스토이처럼 인간 자체를 혁명하려는 흐름이 있어요. 하나는 권력투쟁의 방식이고 다른 하나는 진리천명의 방식이죠. 결국 폭력적 정치혁명은 새로운 억압권력이 되어 환멸을 불러 왔어요. 인간세계의 억압과 피억압구조 자체는 바뀌지 않았어요. 미움과 증오에 기초한 혁명은 진정한 인간해방은 아닌 것 같습니다.”(발췌)


----> 둘 다 인간을 개조하려는 혁명인데, 그게 불가능하다는 것은 역사가 증명하고 있다. 그보다는 자유주의적, 자유시장적 혁명을 통해, 정부를 최소한으로 작게 하고, 모든 정치인과 관료와 법관들을 시민들이 감시하는 제도를 만들어야 한다.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
북한 인권은 누구 몫인가?
김수진(탈북자, 자유기고가)


그런데 같은 날 청와대에서 진행된 남북정상회담 준비위원회 2차 회의에서 문재인 대통령은 “남북이 함께 살든, 따로 살든 서로 간섭하지 않고 서로 피해주지 않고 함께 번영하며 평화롭게 살 수 있게 만들어야 한다”고 말했다. 이것은 북한정부의 의도에 따른, 북한정부의 대변인 같은 말이다. 이 말은 북한을 비핵화 할 의지도 없고, 한반도 통일도 필요 없고, 북한인민들의 인권도 알바가 아니라는, 다시 말해 북한 인권상황을 묵살하고 북한정권 유지가 먼저라는 말이다. 차라리 에두르지 말고 “북한인민들이 맞아죽겠음 죽고, 굶어죽겠음 죽고 내가 상관할 바가 아니다, 북한의 독재를 지지한다”라고 말하는 게 훨씬 듣기 좋을 것 같다.
---------------------------------------------------------------


MSNBC’s Bash: ‘The President Is Assembling a War Cabinet’ with Bolton, Digenova, Kudlow


EXCERPT:
BASH: "Willie, I think the President is assembling a war cabinet. To take a war to Bob Mueller he's got Joe diGenova. To take a trade war to China he’s got Larry Kudlow. And now to actually have a real war he’s got John Bolton. And the only question is will we find ourselves in the military conflict vis-à-vis North Korea or Iran or both, because John Bolton's rhetoric has been very clear. He believes the Iran deal should be torn up, that we should engage in the military action in the Middle East, and his view, as you illuminated from that op-ed in the 'Wall Street Journal,' is that we have the legal authority and the military necessity of launching preemptive military strike against the North Korean regime."


------------------------------------------------------------------
아래는 뉴스위크 기사


President Donald Trump’s recent appointments to his legal team and administration were described as the formation of a “war cabinet” with the intent of not only taking on the special counsel’s office but also North Korea and Iran, according to a former top Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency official Friday morning.
Jeremy Bash, who respectively served as chief of staff at both agencies between 2009 and 2013, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that Trump systematically tapped attorney Joe diGenova and former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton for national security adviser in recent days. DiGenova, Bash said, would take on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election meddling and collusion, while Bolton would take the fight to the two nations viewed as the country’s biggest threats abroad.
Bash also mentioned incoming director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow, a replacement for Gary Cohn, as Trump’s sword for a potential trade war with China.
“I think the president is assembling a war cabinet,” Bash said. “To take a war to Bob Mueller, he’s got Joe diGenova. To take a trade war to China, he’s got Larry Kudlow.”


모두 같은 내용인데, 트럼프가  Joe diGenova를 이용해 밥 멀러를 견제하고, 래리 커드로를 임명해 중국과의 무역전쟁을 진행하고, 존 볼턴을 안보보좌관으로 앉혀서, 북한 및 이란과 싸우려 하고 있다는 것이고, 이것은 결국 전쟁 내각이라는 주장이다.
하지만 미국이 이란 및 북한과 두 군데에서 동시에 전쟁을 수행한다는 것은 말이 쉽지 그리 용이하지 않다. 또 동시에 중국과 무역전쟁을 한다면 더욱 그렇다. 구체적인 정책은 좀더 지켜보아야 할 것이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 장혜리 - 내게 남은 사랑을 드릴께요 (1988年)


https://youtu.be/3kHqys8r0-Q


가사, 작곡, 가수가 모두 일류인 명곡의 하나.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Love story - Andy Williams with lyrics


https://youtu.be/7jEaIDqHl74


이렇게 금싸리기와 같은 가사로 만들어진 노래는 만나기 힘들다.
아래는 나나 무스쿠리의 노래


https://youtu.be/kiTL5A4_zWM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

계산과 지식

 

미제스의 계산 논쟁에는 2가지 차원이 있다. 첫째는, 순수 사회주의 사회에서는 중앙의 계획자가 산술적인 손익 계산을 할 수가 없다는 것이고, 그로 인해 손익에 의미를 부여하는 기업가적인 평가를 할 수 없다는 것이며, 따라서 합리적으로 생산의 요소를 분배할 수 없다는 것이다.

사회주의자들은 계산 문제를 회피하기 위해, 동일 종류의 계산을 화폐에 의한 계산으로 대신하려 한다. 하지만 이는 사과의 숫자를 오렌지의 숫자와 비교하는 일처럼 무의미하고 불가능한 일이다.

하나의 상품에 대한 효용은 주관적이므로, 사람과 사람 사이에 그것들을 비교할 수는 없다.

노동 시간, 강철, 석탄, 모든 종류의 건축재료, 기계, 또 철도의 건설과 유지에 필요한 기타 등을 공통의 단위로 표현할 수 없다면, 계산이 불가능하다.

사회주의 국가의 감독관이 집을 지으려 한다. 그는 어떤 방법을 선택할 것인가? 그는 사용되어야 할 다양한 재료와 또 다양한 노동을 공통 분모로 환원할 수가 없다.

따라서 그는 그것들을 서로 비교할 수 없다. 그러므로 그는 지출되는 비용과 들어올 수입을 비교하는데 있어, 산술적인 계산을 할 수가 없다.

시장 경제에서는 모든 가격은 돈이라는 공통의 표현방식으로 표시될 수 있다. 하지만 사회주의에서는 생산수단의 가치를 돈이라는 단일한 표시로 환원할 수 없다.

단지 시장의 과정만이 요소의 가치와 소비자 상품의 가치를 의미 있는 방식으로 연결한다.

투기나 투자는 연극으로 할 수 없다. 투기꾼과 투자가들은 그들의 재산, 그들의 운명을 건다.

 

Calculation and Knowledge

 

•Jeffrey M. Herbener

 

 

The view that Ludwig von Mises had more in mind in his calculation critique of socialism than the Hayekian knowledge problem has recently been attacked by Leland Yeager. This article addresses Yeager's central claim that,

 

I cannot believe Mises was merely saying that if the socialist planners possessed in some remarkable way all the information normally conveyed by genuine market prices, they still would be stymied by inability to perform calculations in the narrow arithmetical sense, an inability that advances in supercomputers might conceivably overcome.

 

Yeager then asserts that Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, and I (SRH) claim that this is what Mises meant. If Yeager means by this assertion that we believe that this is Mises's entire calculation argument, then Salerno is correct in responding that, "it is wholly beside the point, because it rests on a gross misinterpretation of the meaning explicitly attached to the term 'calculation problem' by SRH." In response to Yeager, Salerno says,

 

 

it does not follow that, for SRH, the calculation problem as Mises conceived it refers narrowly to the mathematical techniques employed for manipulating the given quantitative data; it refers, instead, to the origination and meaningfulness of the data them­selves. It is, in short, a problem of "appraisement" and not of "arithmetic."

 

From this beginning point, he proceeds to cogently rebut Yeager's claim by demonstrating that entrepreneurial appraisal is not subsumed under market information.

 

Yet Yeager seems to imply something else in his claim that by its nature goes untouched by Salerno's rebuttal. Yeager seems to imply that the arithmetic facet of Mises's calculation argument is trivial. This claim is not only false but is odd coming from a student of Mises's work; for Mises made several true and non­trivial arguments based solely on arithmetic or mathematics and statistics, more generally: the impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons (lack of a unit of subjective value), the impossibility of economic calculation (inability of comparing heterogeneous units of factors of production), the impossibility of mathematical equations in economic theorizing (lack of constants in human action), and the impossibility of statistical analysis in economic theory (lack of a probability density function for the data of human action). Acceptance of these merely arithmetic, mathematic, and statistical points destroys several major branches of orthodox economic theory: utility and welfare, socialist, mathematical, macroeconomics, and econometrics. Together these constitute a significant portion of what passes for economic thought today.

 

While it is true that Mises's calculation argument is not merely arithmetic; it is also true that it is not merely appraisement. Mises argued that economic calculation is a problem of both arithmetic and appraisement. More precisely, Mises's calculation argument has two dimensions: the impossibility of central planners performing the arithmetic of profit and loss computation in pure socialism which, in turn, makes it impossible for them to engage in entrepreneurial appraisals necessary to give meaning to profit and loss, and, thus, rationally allocate factors of production. Although information enters into the latter, it cannot enter into the former.

 

The arithmetic facet of Mises's argument deals with the existence, or lack thereof, of a format in which information can be put and appraisals can be made. A format is necessary because the "raw data" required to answer relevant economic questions posed by the operation of a social process of exchange and division of labor are denominated in incommensurate units. Unless these units can be converted into a common standard, they cannot be compared; unless they can be compared the economic questions cannot be answered. As Mises said of one socialist scheme of economic calculation, "Calculation in kind is to be substituted for calculation in terms of money. This method is worthless. One cannot add or subtract numbers of different kinds (heterogeneous quantities)." The impossibility of comparing the number of apples to the number of oranges is an arithmetic problem; and a fundamental, not trivial, problem of arithmetic. Without its solution, no arithmetic operations can be conducted at all.

 

The profit and loss calculation solves the arithmetic problem inherent in answering both economic questions posed by the operation of a social process of exchange and division of labor: what consumer goods should be produced and which combination of factors of production should be used to produce each consumer good. The arithmetic problem of the first question is the incommensurability of the subjective values of different individuals who participate in the social process of exchange and division of labor. There are two dimensions to the impossibility of making interpersonal comparisons of utility: no unit can be defined for preferences since they are subjective and even if units of subjective value existed for each person, they would not be comparable from one person to another.

 

The solution to the problem of the incommensurability of the subjective values of individuals and the answer to the question of what consumer goods should be produced to satisfy them lies in the possibility of market prices denominated in money. Consumers demonstrate their preferences for some goods relative to others by purchasing and refusing to purchase. Since all preferences are demonstrated using the same standard, viz. money, the effects of action based on these preferences, viz. money prices, are commensurate, and, therefore, formatted for meaningful economic calculation.

 

Entrepreneurs then impute market value to each factor of production according to its marginal value product via their demand for the factors. Factors prices are then determined by the intensity of entrepreneurial demand relative to the opportunity cost placed on them by their owners. These prices make the different units of the factors commensurate and therefore, permit entrepreneurs to efficiently allocate factors across the production of consumer goods.

 

As a student of Mises's work, Yeager is surely familiar with his account of the relationship between the subjective values of consumers and market prices as well as the impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons. Even for those economists, few in number and among whom one should not expect to find Yeager, who disagree with the latter claim, it would seem strange for them to characterize the problem of interpersonal utility comparisons as anything but an arithmetic problem. You can only add or subtract items of like units. This fact is both arithmetic and non-trivial. An entire branch of economics (welfare economics) crashed to the ground on this point and another branch (utility economics) was completely revamped because of it. The arithmetic dimension of Mises's calculation argument is based on the same arithmetic truth that makes interpersonal utility comparisons impossible; and recognition of this fact helps clarify and strengthen instead of, "caricature and trivialize," Mises's argument as Yeager claims.

 

Mises understood that the question of what consumer goods should be produced can be answered by the central planners and therefore, is not a barrier to the establishment of a centrally-planned economy. The planners can do this by simply substituting their preferences for the unknowable and incomparable preferences of consumers. They produce, or attempt to produce, the goods they themselves value. This solution, however, is arbitrary with reference to the preferences of consumers. These, the central planners cannot know and even if they did they could not make the relevant comparisons to determine what subset of valuable goods should be produced to the exclusion of other goods consumers find valuable. Central planners with perfect information of consumer preferences still could not calculate what to produce to satisfy such preferences because they are ordinal rankings and therefore, cannot be compared. Even if central planners had perfect information of the subjective values of each individual denominated in units, they could not perform economic calculation because it is impossible to compare any items that are denominated in dissimilar units. Only if the central planners knew how to convert the subjective units of each individual into a common standard would they be able to perform this part of economic calculation.

 

The central arithmetic facet of Mises's calculation critique is the incommensurability of the different factors of production that could be combined in different ways to produce each consumer good. Hours of labor cannot be compared to acres of land nor can these units be compared to units of each capital good. As Mises, discussing his example of central planners contemplating building a railroad, wrote in 1920, "Where one cannot express hours of labor, iron, coal, all kinds of building material, machines and other things necessary for the construction and upkeep of the railroad in a common unit it is not possible to make calculations at all. The drawing up of bills on an economic basis is only possible where all the goods concerned can be referred back to money." Nearly thirty years later, he wrote,

 

The director wants to build a house. Now, there are many methods that can be resorted to.... Which method should the director choose? He cannot reduce to a common denominator the items of various materials and various kinds of labor to be expended. Therefore he cannot compare them.... In short, he cannot, in comparing costs to be expended and gains to be earned, resort to any arithmetical operation.

 

Concerning the pricing process of the market by which economic calculation solves the problem of incommensurability, Mises concluded that socialism cannot reduce the value of the means of production to "the uniform expression of a money price." In a market economy, "all prices can be referred back to a common expression in terms of money."

 

If there were no arithmetic facet of this "common expression in terms of money," (contrary to Mises's explicit statement that there is) then the problem of economic calculation would not exist since the planners could discover the value of each factor in each use by withdrawing it.

 

Mises summed up the problem of calculation in socialism by saying, "In the main, socialist production might only appear rationally realizable, if it provided an objectively recognizable unit of value, which would permit of economic calculation in an economy where neither money nor exchange were present." If this problem has no merely arithmetic facet, then why did socialists struggle to employ the labor theory of value to solve it? Mises finished the quote above by saying, "And only labor can conceivably be considered as such." But, why not perform economic calculation in all factors of production at once claiming each of them to have intrinsic value and thereby dispense with the search for a "socially necessary" amount of labor, i.e., a common unit of labor in which all factors can be rendered? The existence of cardinal units is not sufficient for economic calculation to be performed. One cannot add together factors denominated in incomparable cardinal units, nor compare the efficiencies stated in cardinal numbers, e.g., the average product of labor with the average product of capital, of different factors of production. The task of economic calculation requires, in addition to cardinal units, a method by which the different units can be transformed into a common cardinal unit. If it is not necessary to have a common objective unit in which all factors can be meaningfully compared, then a large part of the debate about the labor theory of value was so much spilled ink.

 

Yeager's contention about the arithmetic facet of Mises's argument makes it neither erroneous nor trivial. To the contrary, it is both correct and devastating to naive socialists who believe that the economic problem of factor usage can be solved by central planners in the absence of profit and loss calculation based on monetary prices, i.e., in pure socialism, including those who think the problem could be solved by "advances in super-computers."

 

It is only to defeat those socialists who wish to enter the debate on economic theory that Mises moves to more complex dimensions of his calculation argument. To the assertion that socialism can overcome the incommensurability of different factors by having central planners set monetary prices for all goods and factors, Mises responds that the problem is calculation of objective value, not objective units per se. Such a procedure would not solve the allocation problem since it leads to a "solution" that is arbitrary even from the viewpoint of the central planners, let alone that of consumers. The problem of factor usage cannot be solved by having the central planners assign a monetary wage to be multiplied by labor hours, and so on for each factor, so that the monetary costs of different combinations of factors capable of producing a given consumer good can be compared and the least cost method selected. Such cost calculations have no relationship to the preferences placed on the consumer goods and therefore, are useless for economic calculation. Only the market process can connect the value of factors to the value of consumer goods in a meaningful way.

 

Mises demonstrates this point by allowing that a socialist state could have a medium of exchange, limited in its scope to trading in some consumer goods. But, as he said,

 

where the means of production are state controlled ... because no production good will ever become the object of exchange, it will be impossible to determine its money value. Money could never fill in a socialist state the role it fills in a competitive society in determining the value of production goods. Calculation in terms of money will here be impossible.

 

To the assertion that the central planners can overcome the arbitrary nature of prices set by their own decree by having the managers of state-operated production facilities act as if they were entrepreneurs engaged in trade, Mises argues that one cannot "play" market. For entrepreneurial competition to perform the function of factor evaluation, the possibility of bearing the opportunity costs of different factor allocations must be real. Only with private property can entrepreneurs and capitalists risk their own wealth in the process of social production and therefore be in a position to make accurate appraisals of factor values. To argue that play acting could mimic the results of the market was to confuse the functions of management with those of entrepreneurship.

 

 

One cannot play speculation and investment. The speculators and investors expose their own wealth, their own destiny. This fact makes them responsible to the consumers.... If one relieves them of this responsibility one deprives them of their very character. They are no longer businessmen, but just the group of men to whom the director has handed over his main task, the supreme direction of the conduct of affairs. Then they—and not the nominal director—become the true directors and have to face the same problem the nominal director could not solve: the problem of economic calculation.

 

To the assertion that the central planners can overcome the "game-playing'' nature of market socialism by using the pre-existing market set of prices, i.e., those prices existing in the capitalist system just prior to socialization, Mises argues that the transition from capitalism to socialism is too fundamental for the old prices to bridge the gap and that pricing must be "dynamic" since underlying economic phenomena are constantly changing. By destroying the differences in wealth in the existing market economy when expropriating private property, socialism disconnects the prices that correspond to those inequalities with the different conditions now prevailing for which calculations must be made. Moreover, any changes in conditions that underlie the economic allocation off actors makes the existing set of prices obsolete, and all the more so the greater the extent of such changes.

 

Furthermore, as Salerno pointed out, Mises understood that answering the economic questions of what and how to produce requires entrepreneurs to correctly project appraisals of goods and factors into the future. Since the data are continually changing, static modeling cannot be substituted for entrepreneurs to perform economic calculation. Comparative statics serves no better since it cannot determine how human action moves the solution from one point to another.

 

Moreover, general equilibrium is irrelevant to the actual problem that economic calculation must solve and that can be done so only by entrepreneurial activity. Neither the actual prices, both present and future, nor the preferences necessary for factor allocations to be made have any relationship to those of equilibrium. As Mises said, "what impels a man toward change and innovation is not the vision of equilibrium prices, but the anticipation of the height of the prices of a limited number of articles as they will prevail on the market on the date at which he plans to sell."

 

General equilibrium equations are formed by knowing the constants of those equations, under the assumption that no further change in the data is permissible. Without the assumption of no further changes, no constants exist and no equations can be formed. Yet, the economic system cannot achieve, or move toward, the equilibrium without changes from the existing set of data. The equations are, thus, useless for the task of allocating factors of production toward their general equilibrium uses. As Mises said, "What acting man needs to know is not the state of affairs under equilibrium, but information about the most appropriate method of transforming, by successive steps, [the total supply of produced factors allocated as they are today] into [the total supply of produced factors allocated as they need to be in equilibrium]. With regard to this task the equations are useless."

 

Even if the central planners had full knowledge of the state of general equilibrium and could see how to move production from original factors to the final equilibrium state, this would not suffice to circumvent the problem that only economic calculation can solve. The existing state of production does not correspond to any state of this perfect-knowledge production process. Existing capital goods embody past allocation errors relative to their perfect knowledge uses. Since these capital goods can neither be freely transferred into other uses nor transferred efficiently without taking account of their existing characteristics, central planners with perfect knowledge would still need to resort to economic calculation to properly allocate them. Mises concludes his discussion of economic calculation at this step where no recourse is made to the arithmetic facet of the argument when viewed in its entirety.

 

Instead of realizing the logical construction of Mises's argument—beginning with its arithmetic facet and then in turn allowing, for the sake of argument, that the central planners can overcome progressively more difficult aspects of the calculation problem—Yeager implies that SRH assume that Mises was conceding that the central planners could solve these problems. Yeager says,

 

The necessary preparations for the vast central calculation, let alone the calculation itself, could not be accomplished; they are, to use Mises's word, "impossible." It seems perverse, then, to interpret Mises as nevertheless conceding the possibility of all those preparations and of balking only at the possibility of the calculation itself.

 

But Mises did not concede that a "preparation" or "information" problem could be solved by the central planners in the actual operation of socialism. He conceded the solution to these problems, for the sake of argument, for the very purpose of demonstrating that his calculation argument proved the impossibility of economic calculation, even if these problems were solved. The fact that he chose this method of argumentation is proof that his calculation argument has more to it than just the lack of information available to central planners.

 

In fact, Mises "concedes" much more than the solution to the "information" problem, in the final step of his argument. If Yeager has this perfect-information scenario in mind in his quote at the beginning of this article, then he misstates Mises's hypothetical conditions (under which there is no arithmetic facet of the argument). Mises is not, here, assuming that the central planner has perfect information and therefore, can perform economic calculation, as Yeager implies in his quote. Mises is assuming that the central planner has "miraculously" solved the problems of economic calculation—not just information but calculation itself—and could therefore construct a perfect production structure over time, starting without any capital goods, to achieve some final equilibrium state. Even if the central planners had perfect information and the ability to calculate with that information, however, they still could not calculate how to effectively operate any actual existing economy they are attempting to control.

 

If Yeager means what he seems to say—that Mises could not have meant that a central planner with perfect information about preferences and factor conditions could not perform the arithmetic operations necessary to calculate—then he is wrong; for this is precisely the first step of Mises's argument demonstrating the impossibility of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth.

 

On the importance of the arithmetic aspect of the economic calculation, Mises said,

 

 

every action can make use of ordinal numbers. For the application of cardinal numbers and for the arithmetical computation based on them special conditions are required. These conditions emerged in the historical evolution of the contractual society. Thus the way was opened for computation and calculation in the planning of future action and in establishing the effects achieved by past action. Cardinal numbers and their use in arithmetical operations are also eternal and immutable categories of the human mind. But their applicability to premeditation and the recording of action depends on certain conditions which were not given in the early state of human affairs, which appeared only later, and which could possibly disappear again ...

 

Modern civilization is above all characterized by the fact that it has elaborated a method which makes the use of arithmetic possible in a broad field of activities. This is what people have in mind when attributing to it the—not very expedient and often misleading—epithet of rationality.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

법외(法外)의 음모와 술책으로 권좌를 차지한 저들 민중민족진영은 그 태생과 성장의 과정에서 몰(沒)역사와 반(反)근대의 저(低)지성을 체질화한 집단이다. 지난 1년간 저들이 보인 갖가지 통치행태는 그 점을 숨김없이 폭로하였다. 저들은 우리의 건국사를 모독했으며, 우리의 동맹을 조롱했으며, 우리의 기업가를 가두었으며, 우리의 시장을 억압하였으며, 우리의 역사를 날 것으로 조작했으며, 자연과학을 미신으로 대체하였다. 이제 저들은 저 위선의 남북공동선언이 약속한 “낮은 단계의 연방제”를 실행할 채비를 하고 있다. 저들은 세계가 전율하는 반인권 노예국가에게 비굴한 웃음으로 대화를 구걸하고 있다.

자유인 선언 전문(이영훈 전 서울대 교수 작성) 발췌

-----------------------------------------

----------------------------------

贾六金名老中医经验

 

发表者：张旭烨

 

 

贾六金（1941～），男，汉族，山西省昔阳人。主任医师，全国第三批老中医药专家学术经验继承工作指导老师之一。2008年被评为山西省著名中医专家。1961年9月毕业于山西省中国医学研究所及山西省中医学校，留所工作五年，后师从山西名医李翰卿、张光煜。1966年之后近20年，于山西省绛县人民医院工作，先后任业务副院长、院长，绛县第六届、第七届人大常委等职。1988年调至山西中医学院附属医院，先后任儿科主任、内科主任、儿科教研室主任、门诊部主任等职。松原市中医院推拿按摩科赵东奇

 

 

学术思想

纵横识病中西贯通动态辩证纵横识病：是指把西医的诊断理论，融入到中医学中，充分利用其诊疗技术、方法和手段，明确西医诊断，再按中医理论辨别疾病的病因、病位、病性、病势以及病机等，得出证候类型，把中西理论有机的结合起来。动态辩证：指在辩证时牢牢掌握证的动态发展演变。就认识疾病而言，现代医学主要是从纵的方向进行，特别是对传染病和感染性疾病。从一种病的病因病源、发病机制、病理解剖、临床表现、发展演变，最后到预后结局。中医认识疾病主要是从横的方向展开，对疾病过程中某一阶段的本质属性和内部联系，以及证与证之间的区别与联系，认识的比较清楚。在西医辩病的基础上中医辩证，要注意证的动态变化：《内经. 阴阳应象大论》曰：“阴阳者，天地之道也，万物之纲纪，变化之父母，生杀之本始，神明之府也，治病必求于本”。此处所谓 “本”,就是阴阳变化，治疗疾病必须从它的阴阳变化这个根本上出发。治病“必求于本”，那么诊断和辩证也应该“必求其本”。

 

常用复方为：

1、小柴胡汤合银翘散组成：柴胡、黄芩、银花、连翘、牛子、桔梗、大青叶、地丁、板蓝根、荆芥、淡豆豉、姜半夏、炒三仙、甘草。功用：辛凉解，和解消食。主治：上呼吸道感染。急性起病，发热，鼻塞流涕，轻微咳嗽，咽红，咽部不适感等。属于风热感冒挟滞者，一般服2～3剂即可脉静身凉，屡用屡验。

 

2、麻杏甘石汤合银翘散组成：炙麻黄、杏仁、生石膏、甘草、银花、连翘、桔梗、芦根、浙贝母、荆芥、淡豆豉功用：清热解毒，宣肺平喘。主治：小儿支气管肺炎。发热、咳嗽、气促。重者高热持续，呼吸急促，鼻翼扇动。肺部可听到中、细湿罗音。属于风热闭肺者。

 

3、葛根芩连汤合四苓汤组成：葛根、黄芩、黄苓、茯苓、猪苓、泽泻、炒白术、甘草功用：解表清里，利湿止泻。主治：小儿感染性腹泻。发热或无热，大便次数可达数次或十余次，呈黄绿色蛋花汤样或水样，时有腹痛或恶心呕吐，口渴，尿少，苔黄腻，脉数。属于湿热泻者。

 

4、小柴胡汤、银翘散、透脓散合方组成：柴胡、黄芩、银花、连翘、牛子、桔梗、北豆根、射干、板蓝根、当归、皂刺、穿山甲、漏芦、甘草。功用：清热解毒，消肿排脓。主治：小儿化脓性扁桃体炎。发热，咽部不适，扁桃体及舌腭弓表面粘膜充血，扁桃体实质亦明显肿胀，隐窝口有黄白色脓点。或见扁桃体表面有黄白色突起。属于风热乳蛾者。

 

5、白頭翁湯合芍药汤组成：白头翁、黄柏、黄连、秦皮、黄芩、槟榔、广木香、炒白芍、当归、官桂、甘草。功用：解毒止痢，调和气血。主治：小儿细菌性痢疾。起病急，高热可伴发冷寒战，继之出现腹痛、腹泻里急后重，大便十数次至数十次不等，迅速转为粘液脓血便。白细胞轻至中度增高，粪便镜检有脓细胞或红白细胞，细菌培养阳性。属湿热痢者。

 

6、四君子汤合平胃散组成：太子参、炒白术、茯苓、苍术、厚朴、陈皮、炒三仙、莱菔子、鸡内金、甘草。功用：健脾益气，消食导滞。主治：小儿厌食症。食少便溏，脘腹胀满，恶心呕吐，嗳气吞酸，面黄肌瘦，身高体重落后于同龄均值。苔白厚腻，脉缓。属于脾胃虚弱挟滞者。

 

7、厚朴温中汤合小建中汤组成：厚朴、陈皮、茯苓、草豆蔻仁、广木香、官桂、炒白术、乌药、香附、甘草。功用：温中行气，缓急止痛。主治：小儿功能性腹痛。腹痛以脐周为主，发作无规律，常突发突止，检查腹部无明显压痛，需排除器质性疾病引起的腹痛，才可诊断本病。属中虚里寒之腹痛。

 

8、桑螵蛸散合缩泉丸组成：桑螵蛸、远志、菖蒲、乌药、益智仁、破故纸、菟丝子、白果、生麻黄、甘草。功用：调心补肾，缩尿止遗。主治：小儿遗尿及尿频点滴。尿频、尿急、夜间遗尿。属肾气不足，膀胱虚冷者。

 

9、牵正散合半夏白术天麻汤组成：姜半夏、炒白术、天麻、茯苓、橘红、白附子、白僵蚕、全蝎、甘草。功效：祛风化痰。主治：小儿特发性面神经麻痹。一侧表情肌瘫痪，额纹消失，不能皱额，眼裂不能闭合或闭合不全，口角下垂，鼓腮时漏气。属风痰上扰，口眼歪斜者。

 

10、当归六黄汤合牡蛎散组成：当归、生地、熟地、黄芩、黄连、黄柏、黄芪、生龙骨、生牡蛎、浮小麦、麻黄根、甘草。主治：小儿自汗盗汗。属气阴两虚挟热者。(발췌)

 

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------