齐景公问政于孔子，孔子对曰：“君君，臣臣，父父，子子。”公曰：“善哉！信如君不君、臣不臣、父不父、子不子，虽有粟，吾得而食诸？”
这段毫无疑问是论语中极具争议性的一段，也是当今批判儒学的一大焦点，我是一名初学马克思列宁主义的解放神学者，今天发表一下关于这段的拙见，若有错误，请各位同志批判指正

不是，我三到四楼全干吞了？

补档三到四楼

百度给我吞麻了……

怎么，你也喜欢读论语吗？

报告如下：
现在我只要发一张图片百度就给我吞一张，战局已然进入相持阶段

A Marxist, clear and correct view is that in class society, there is no universal morality and justice, and everything expressed in this form is only the morality and justice of a certain class and era. A friend of mine questioned my opinion: "If a ruler does well and all social classes support him, then he is the ruler. In this case, it is understandable that scholars and officials should follow his instructions." So please allow me to reply to each item. First of all, "doing well" is also indicating that it conforms to a political criterion that is considered good. In the context of Confucius, this political criterion is manifested as the Zhou ritual. However, in the Spring and Autumn period, the Zhou ritual no longer has the more or less good attributes it originally had - it is no longer a criterion that conforms to the times, and the development of the times requires it to be destroyed within it, which is what Confucius believed. The saying "rulers do well" is essentially "rulers do not do well"

Afterwards, "all social classes supported him", and I speculate that this person may be trying to express the concept of "class" （阶层）through the category of "class"（街机）, which is included in "class"（街机）? However, regardless of the meaning, they all express the same tendency: rulers should be universally supported by society in order to become rulers. Firstly, fundamentally speaking, this is impossible. The concept of rulers itself only represents the individuals or groups who occupy the highest position in the state machinery in an exploitative society, and the state is a tool for class oppression rather than class easing. We should be faithful to Lenin's discourse in "The State and Revolution": "If class harmony is possible, the state will neither emerge nor be maintained." So, as a representative figure of the ruling class, can rulers be universally supported by all classes and social classes? The contradictions between classes and the contradictions arising from uneven distribution of spoils within the exploiting class have been eliminated in a transcendent and absurd way

第二，即使就這一論斷的最低限度，即“貌恭而不心服”式的擁護而言，在春秋時代，也已經成為一種純粹的空想了，由一係列的奴隸起義、官僚鬥争可以看出，上述的兩種矛盾，已經激化到頗高的程度，禮崩樂壞並非個別諸侯的現象，而是極普遍地存在於各國，這兩個現象顯然不是統治者忽然一致不依照周禮來治國導致的，相反，這是由於上文已經提到過的——周禮作為一種剝削製度，已然不再合宜了，生產活動的變革要求有適應它的政度，必須要改換到另一種與周禮不同的形式了（盡管它依然將保持其剝削的本質，但從它之中將孕育有繼續發展到下一個社會階段的胚胎），在這種狀況下，即使有人能嚴格依照周禮的要求治國，他所迎接的也僅能是滅亡，孔子“克己複禮，天下歸仁”的要求，僅是對周禮最後的悼念而已

孩子们，百度不仅吞我的消息，连带着你们的也吞，也是无敌了