Xu Zhangrun: “Whoever Heard of a Teacher Who Doesn’t Speak”

See Professor Geremie Barmé’s translation of Xu Zhangrun’s article on the China Heritage website at http://chinaheritage.net/journal/and-teachers-then-they-just-do-their-thing/

 

“Whoever Heard of a Teacher Who Doesn’t Speak?”

Xu Zhangrun: Having dedicated myself to a teaching career, I have to repeat what Hu Shih said eighty years ago, “Whoever heard of a teacher who doesn’t speak?”  People must be allowed to hear what is said. This is the only way that we can have dialogue and conversation and be allowed the public spaces that enable us to preserve our humanity. 

Published November 6, 2018 on the Financial Times’s Chinese language website at    http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001080109?full=y

Xu Zhangrun 许章润

Classes for Executive MBA students at the School of Economics and Management have begun. Student had searched on China’s Baidu search engine, hoping to learn something about their instructors and what they had written that related to course topics. Comparing them with the students of a decade ago, today’s executive MBA students average over forty years of age. These men and women are energetic eager to learn.

According my friend Professor Donald Clarke, as of July 29, 2018,  hundreds of thousands of hits that would have come up on a Baidu search on my name had been deleted. Only a dozen or so remained. In the three months since, there have been another bashful twenty or thirty more, mostly incidental mentions in news reports. And so a normal search really wouldn’t come up with anything at all.

What was behind this? The only thing I can come up with is the article I wrote towards the end of July this year entitled “Imminent Fears, Immediate Hopes” [translated in full with commentary on the China Heritage website]  that reflected my concerns about the present and great anxiety about what it means for the future. Emotions come whether we want them or not and our words manifest our feelings and will reveal themselves in the end. I know this well and have the guts to make a stand. I have prepared myself mentally for what may come of it. Therefore I don’t worry about the deleted items and the blocking of searches on my name. “Don’t sweat the small stuff” I say. So I can’t get all worked up about it.

They copy the laws of the tyrannical Qin dynasty: the new aristocrats picking up tricks from the old. Two thousand years have passed since those days. There should be some difference between what went before and what came later, but really there hasn’t been any progress at all. It is all just a matter of making people shut up. No surprise there.

When Economics and Management School students told me about his, I checked Baidu myself and found that there are still thousands of articles about all those high-ranking officials who have “fallen off their horses” in recent years, such as Zhou Yongkang, Bo Xilai, Lu Wei and “Qi Gong Master Wang Lin”. There are more hits on the so-called “Gang of Four”, that evil four-player cabal, than there are droplets on the seas on pebbles on the mountains. There is just all kinds of stuff, both fake and factual, that give the readers something of an opportunity to parse historical truth for themselves.

More important, the articles about these people show from different perspectives, of admiration or of condemnation, the soul-twisting institutionalized evils of our own glorious era. These articles reveal to their countless readers the cruelties and weird paradoxes of history. As tiny driblets of lessons merge from countless stories into a mighty current, they become a moral resource fortifying people who will need the strength to prevent the repetition of these tragedies. Not merely to resist particular instances of arbitrary decisions but all of them, to resist all arbitrary decisions.

The past is never quite over. All these learned facts may crystallize a rational intelligence in individuals that in turn may come to synthesize a rational spirit in the public at large. A rational spirit that spotlights common sense and in particular draws attention to whatever is weak or dark in human nature. A rational spirit that protects human society without which we cannot live even for a short while.

All this matters not only for people who read the Chinese language but for the entire world. This affects first of all the Chinese-speaking world. If this were truly self-evident, then the Internet will open up to all, its waters would not be fouled, and my nation and my people would be invigorated.

 One of the terms applied to the “Gang of Four” echoes the verdict of the Chinese Communist Party that accused them of “bringing calamities on the country and the people” and that their crimes were “countless”.  All this brings to mind some frightening days of my childhood and the scary days that followed of big show trials while millions of people held their collective breaths. One feels joy more intensely for having known great sorrow so I truly do appreciate that we are not living in a time that, like those frantic days, in which the waves of the class struggle swept over us, “each wave higher than the last”.

They “brought calamities upon our country and our people” and committed “countless crimes”. There are still tens of thousands of articles online that depict their lives, lists their actions, and even publishing their writings online. I have been a teacher for the past thirty years, and, although I have striven to make a decent living, I have also been “fighting on the front lines of education”.  Why would there ever be any reason to erase me from the Internet?   What indeed could be the reason unless someone thinks that somehow by doing this I could simply be evaporated out of this world.

The only explanation I can think of is that somehow we who make our career in education, we people who don’t like to fight and have no weapons at all, are even worse than that “Gang of Four” that “brought calamities upon the country and its people.”

Once a secretary wrote a draft speech and an official delivered it. The joke goes that in the draft there was a that was a mistake on the last page. Due to a printing error, an auxiliary particle and question mark “me-?” were printed at the bottom of the page. When the official read that page, looked down at his audience, and after a moment, turned the page and read it with as a question and an emphatic tone that gave his audience the impression that he was saying “Zhou Yongkang / Wu Yongkang / Zheng Yongkang / Wang Yongkang / Sima Yongkang were not bad people???

Inspired by this official’s example, I must too make a sentence for myself.

“Am I not worse than the Gang of Four?”

 Now we are in the windy season.  They want to make everybody shut up. All I can do is go along. What a foolish and idiotic situation! After all, teaching has been my life’s work. Just as that gentleman said over 80 years ago, “Whoever heard of a teacher who doesn’t speak?!” If they speak people must be allowed to hear them. That is the only way to have dialogue and conversation. We need to step out of our solitudes and create public spaces so that we can hold on to our humanity. Moreover, it is the very existence of public spaces, and only the existence of those public spaces, that can make us free. That is why this is so important.

How could we ever pretend ignorance of that monstrous spirit that bans mention of us from the Internet and forces us to have no alternative but to use Baidu?

How can this not leave marks on my heart?!

I do not hate those who, on behalf of the abusers, carry out orders to delete or block information and especially not for those who give orders to implement these policies. I can only sympathize with them.

I would just say to those very talented young people, why not get out of this dirty business and find a better job?

We don’t realize it but we are all of us caught together in the same dark nether-world. There is only one way we’ll be able to get through its many difficult and narrow passages and be rescued.  We will do that by walking together hand-in-hand in sympathy and understanding.

The predicament of our country stirs deep feelings of love for China and worries about its future. Both the sword and the zither are busy these days. The coming of autumn brings a rush of emotions. For myself, I am not greedy – one scoop of water from the many rivers is enough for me.

My friends, what a wonderful world it is that we live in.


 

Hu Shih’s poem remembered 80 years later

The title of the article is inspired by Hu Shih’s doggerel poem. The fashion at the time was to write fancy literary poems that peasants wouldn’t understand. Hu Shih much  preferred writing much closer to popular speech.

At the meeting,  Hu Shih’s friend, the Dongfang Ribao newspaper editor Hu Jianzhong, dashed off doggerel at a 1937 conference at Lushan that poked fun at the speakers at the conference who were repeating the same worn out phrases at that very dangerous time.

The conference was held in 1937 just before the outbreak of war with Japan.

The first there speakers were

  • Republic of China President Chiang Kai-shek
  • Wang Jingwei
  • Hu Shih

In the sweltering heat a grand gathering opened in Lushan,

Famed scholars from the eight points of the compass all struggled upstream to attend.

Our country’s scholars truly have vast knowledge

One after another, they argue passionately their outmoded views!

 

Feeling the same way, Hu Shih wrote his own doggerel in response:

Was there ever cat in heat that did not yowl in the Spring?

Was there ever a cicada that did not chirp in the Summer?

Was there ever a frog that did not croak at night?

Was there ever a teacher who did not speak?

 

Hu Shih’s doggerel was later published shortly thereafter in the official KMT newspaper the Central Daily News.  The story goes that  as Chiang Kai-shek’s secretary told the story,  “the old man just laughed and laughed” even though CKS was not known for his sense of humor.  Later that July when Zhou Enlai came to Lushan as head of a Communist Party delegation for talks with CKS, he ran into Hu Jiangzhong, Hu Shih’s poem came up. Hu Jianzhong said that the poem won a big laugh from Zhou Enlai.

ref http://www.chinanews.com/cul/2014/10-23/6710271.shtml

胡适写白话诗“那有先生不说话” 逗笑蒋介石

2014年10月23日 14:45 来源:人民政协报 参与互动(0)

  一首白话诗逗笑两个大人物

“那有猫儿不叫春,那有蝉儿不鸣夏,那有蛤蟆不夜鸣,那有先生不说话。”胡适写的白话诗,曾经逗得蒋介石与周恩来都一展笑颜。

七七抗战前夕,蒋介石和汪精卫联名,邀请一批社会名流,到庐山来,一面避暑,一面共商抗战大计。出席会议的,几乎全是社会名流,蒋介石的侍从室安排座次时,很动了一番脑筋,最后决定把同姓的人安排坐在一起。当时出席庐山谈话会的有四个姓胡的:胡适、胡安定、胡次威、胡健中。胡健中是《东南日报》的社长,座位刚好紧挨在胡适的右手。谈话会开始后,先是蒋介石讲话,下来汪精卫,第三个是胡适。胡适慷慨激昂地说了一通。胡健中听了,感受颇深,当即在座位上,写了一首诗递给胡适。诗是这样的:“溽暑匡卢盛会开,八方名士溯江来。吾家博士真豪健,慷慨陈辞又一回。”胡适看了,随手写了本文开头的那首白话诗回赠。等于说,国家都到了这个时候了,我这当先生的,怎能不坦陈我的看法呢?

这首白话诗,后来在《中央日报》上刊出。抗战爆发后,蒋介石心情一直很沉重,侍从室人回忆说,很少见到“老头子一笑”。据说蒋介石平素不苟言笑,缺乏幽默感,美国总统罗斯福曾评价蒋介石“古板,极其乏味”。可蒋介石从《中央日报》上读到胡适的这首诗后,不由得笑了起来。1937年7月中下旬,周恩来作为中共代表,到庐山与蒋介石谈判。胡健中在庐山碰到周恩来,交谈中,谈到了胡适的这首诗,念到“哪有先生不说话”时,周恩来也忍不住大笑。

李永军

 

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/33618050

胡适回应友人打趣:哪有先生不说话?

一友人看胡适演说起来兴致勃发,风头十足,写了一首打油诗揶揄他:

溽暑匡庐胜会开,

八方名士溯江来。

吾家博士真豪健,

慷慨陈词又一回!

胡适也不生气,开心地写了一首打油诗回赠:

那有猫儿不叫春?

那有蝉儿不鸣夏?

那有蛤蟆不夜鸣?

那有先生不说话?

 

 


http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001080109?full=y

言论自由关注

“哪有先生不说话?!”

许章润:身役教书匠,如八十多年前胡适之先生所言,哪能不说话!而说话就得让人听见,才能构成对话与交谈,让我们获得公共存在,保持人性。

在经管学院为EMBA学员上课。他们搜索百度,希望多了解授课教师,阅读与课程相关的教师著述。跟十来年前相比,今天学员年龄多在四十上下,男女搭配,精力充沛,尚存求知问道的热情。据好友郭丹清教授(Donald Clarke)相告,时惟2018年7月29日,我在百度上的词条从数十万被删到仅剩十条,算是悉数除祛。迄而至今,三月已过,犹有二三十条,羞羞答答,多为新闻报道,而牵连在下名字而已。如此,自然搜索不到任何信息。

揣摩原因,当是缘于今年七月下旬,我撰写《我们当下的恐惧与期待》一文,为当下计,作千岁忧。情非得已,情见乎辞,而终究仿佛情见势屈。我对此心知肚明,对于可能的横逆也早有心理准备,故而对于删除词条、屏蔽姓名一类的“和风细雨”,根本不曾留意,更不会往心里去。秦制妙法,新贵旧招,虽两千年往矣,前后有别,却了无进步,总不外钳口二字,何足为奇。

经学员提醒,遂查百度,发现凡近年落马的高官伶优,如周永康、薄熙来、鲁炜与“王林大师”等三教九流,均有数万词条。所谓的“四人帮”,万恶的四人帮,更是词连山海,条接云天,多到数不过来。它们林林总总,虚虚实实,多少给予读者拼联历史真相的机会。更为重要的是,这些有关他们的词条内容,从不同视角,讨伐抑或崇仰,展示了酷烈时代的灵魂扭曲和体制罪恶,等于在向亿万读者时时提示历史的吊诡与无情,从而也就是在为避免悲剧重演,于涓滴汇流中积攒抵抗的精神资源。不只是抵抗某一种专断,而是对于一切专断的提防与抵抗。今昔流连之际,孤单的个体理性方始可能串联并合成公共理性,于烛照人性中遵守常识,特别是明了人性的脆弱与幽暗,而护持我们生息其间、须臾不可离易的人世家园。而且,此非仅只惠及汉语读者,而实具普世意义,但首先沾溉汉语世界,自是不言自明,则网开一面,流水不腐,吾族吾民,生机活现也。

其中关于“四人帮”的一个词条,重述当年中共的表述,指斥其犯行“祸国殃民”,而罪恶“罄竹难书”,令我不禁回想起少年时代的觳觫岁月,以及后来审判大戏登场时的万众屏息,悲喜交加,更加珍惜此刻这个不搞“一浪高过一浪”阶级斗争运动的喘息时光。

他们“祸国殃民”,进至于“罄竹难书”,尚有数万词条展示其生平,罗列其行止,甚至刊布其作品。在下一介教书匠,三十多年里,但求温饱,“奋战在教学第一线”,何至于将我从网上抹掉,或者,似乎认为如此这般就能将我从人间蒸发。

唯一的解释是,我这个底层教书匠,不嗜打架,也不会任何一件兵器,竟然比“祸国殃民”的“四人帮”还坏。

秘书写稿子,官员念稿子。有一个笑话说的是,讲话稿的页末一句是个疑问句,因排版原因,语助词连同疑问号“么?”印在了下一页。这位官员念完这句,环视台下,少顷,庄重翻页,再补充上语助词,音调铿锵,致使现场效果成了“周永康/吴永康/郑永康/王永康/司马永康不是一个坏人﹫#$%&……么?”转借此例,在下接续而来的造句作业是:“我比‘四人帮’还坏﹫#$%&……么?”

只是值此八面来风时节,欲令天下无声,惟剩诺诺,何其愚妄,何其滑稽。毕竟,身役教书匠,如八十多年前适之先生所言:“哪有先生不说话?!”而说话就得让人听见,才能构成对话与交谈,让我们摆脱孤立的私性状态,获得公共存在,保持人性。进而,我们的公共存在状态,也唯有这种公共存在状态,才赋予我们以自由。职是之故,对于网络上的封杀,对于造成我们无奈只能用百度而无所选择的那个巨灵,岂能不留意?!又岂能不往心里去?!

因而,对于助纣为虐而下手删除、屏蔽信息的,特别是做出类此决策下达指令的,我并无仇恨,只有满腔的同情!再说了,年纪轻轻,身怀长技,为何不另找一个干净营生?

我们同处幽冥之中,不见熹微,唯以同情援手,手牵手,才能穿过这重重关隘而获救。

暮云朝雨,琴剑匆匆,秋意烂漫,千江一瓢,朋友,人间是多么的美好。

(注:本文仅为作者个人观点。本文编辑王昉 fang.wang@ftchinese.com)

Advertisements
Posted in History 历史, Literature 文学, Society 社会 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Student Reported on Me!

我被学生举报了!

 凡人钒语 凡人钒语

 

A student reported me on Monday morning!

We were discussing in class whether rich people or poor people made greater contributions to society.  One girl got very angry, and spoke up, saying that I was advocating discrimination against poor people and that she would report me!

first photo from posting

Discussion on Social Media

This semester, I taught “Practical Writing.” I made my “plan” for the chapter on “Business Writing” according to the objectives identified in that chapter. The first objective is to “strengthen the study of policy learning and build global awareness.”

I told the students that policy should be interpreted according to law and common sense. Sometimes some policies go against common sense. For example, the Cultural Revolution campaign to “Smashing the Four Old Things [old customs, cultures, habits, and ideas] and Establishing the Four New Things [new customs, new culture, new habits, new ideas]” was contrary to common sense, damaging both traditional culture and cultural relics.

The villagers in Zhuge Village, Lanxi, Zhejiang Province were very wise. They pasted mud on old buildings to cover up the fine wood carvings. After the reform and opening began, these exquisite wood carvings were uncovered. They preserved a valuable cultural heritage for humanity. There is a precious woodcut long couplet in the Liu Bowen Emperor Temple of Wencheng Nantian. The villagers feared that the couplet would be destroyed. So they painted revolutionary slogans on the back of the woodcut and rehung it. It was saved and now the town treasures it in the town temple.

Therefore, there are some things that are just common sense and don’t require an advanced education to make decisions about. Just as the question as to whether who contributes more to society, the poor or the rich, it is a question we can resolve through our own common sense.

“The poor are barely able to afford their own food and clothing and even sometimes rely on welfare from the state to survive. What about the rich? What do they contribute to society?” I asked the students.

“Do the rich contribute to society?” Some students said that they pay taxes. I said yes, this is just one part of their contribution. The rich can use their wealth to expand production and create more jobs for workers. When people’s material life is satisfied, they will have more time to pursue their hobbies and values. They get involved in and support things like scientific research, literary and artistic creation, engaging in philanthropy, building beautiful buildings, accumulating material and spiritual wealth for society. However, a civilized country must be kind to the poor. We must use public policies to provide welfare for the poor so that they will live in dignity.

I was being straightforward about my views.  Suddenly, a girl stood up and said, “Teacher, you are advocating discrimination against poor people! I will make a public report about you.”

I said: “We can discuss different view. When I finish, you can talk about the contribution of the poor to society.” She blushes and says indignantly: “I don’t want to discuss this with you. You are advocating discrimination against poor people. I will make a public report you!”

photo from posting

“Okay! Making a public report about people is your right. I give you fulsome praise for reporting on me by name! You are glorious and upright.” I gave her two thumbs up and praised her!

Some students report anonymously. I think of that as a secret report. In the university classroom, many problems and ideas can be discussed and argued about. Academic independence and freedom of thought will cultivate innovative talents. Having students act like spies does not foster a positive outlook.

Last year, students reported on me anonymously. In the classroom, I told students that they need to develop their capacity for independent thought. Don’t let anyone tell you that the wind is rain or you will suffer for it. I told that that during the Cultural Revolution there were many Red Guards younger than yourselves who died gloriously while they were still very young. Both fighting Red Guard factions declared that they were fighting for Chairman Mao and swore to fight to the death to defend Chairman Mao. After they died, they are neither heroes nor villains. Their parents are still asking the government to account for the deaths of their children.

Can you imagine how painful this has been for their families? The Cultural Revolution occurred largely due to a cult of personality. The Communist Party learned this lesson and wrote a prohibition against cult of personality into the Party Constitution. I was astonished to see some students blushing and saying: “Teacher, you are saying bad things about Chairman Mao!” I said, “I have reasons for this. The disaster caused by the decade of the Cultural Revolution to our country were discussed in the in the “Resolutions on Certain Historical Issues of the Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China”. The prohibition against cult of personality is stipulated in the current party constitution.

I never expected that the next morning I would get a phone call from the school leadership calling me to a meeting in the principal’s office. I had heard that the reporting process goes like this: the student reports to the department head, the department head reports to the school, and the school reports to the Academic Affairs Office, and the Academic Affairs Office reports to the school’s Communist Party Committee.

I don’t hold anything against students who make reports. I don’t ask questions to find out is reporting on me. The practice disgusts me. When as a class teacher working with students, I never relied on used an informant. I often talk with students and learn from what they have to say. I listen to people with various opinions, and am always reading more books in order to expand my horizons, improve my mind and improve my knowledge. However, there will always students who cannot tolerate different views and thoughts. Although the Cultural Revolution took place over 50 years ago, the ideology of the Cultural Revolution is still out there and there is always the danger that it might recur.

That girl even made a report to express her dissatisfaction with me. But she was honest enough to do so openly so I much prefer her to those who report secretly. She may be concerned about the poor due to simple sympathy with people from her own class or out of a feeling of responsibility for the country and worry about the future of the nation. She may be afraid that teachers will say bad things and broadcast bad ideologies in the classroom that poison young people. Therefore, I did feel any anger at all towards her but I do feel sad for her.

What makes me particularly disturbed is that the Party Secretary, who had studied abroad, was also alarmed. Just after class, the Party Secretary called and asked me,

“What happened? Why have you been reported by your students?”

“I said in class, ‘let’s discuss whether the poor or the rich have contributed more to society.'”

The Party Secretary said that reports from all students who file a public report must be investigated.

The next day, many students were called in for a talk. Now many teachers in colleges and universities have been reported by students. Some had to move to a different position. Others were laid off or even fired from public employment. A lot of friends called me on WeChat asking me to be careful and be sure to protect myself. Teachers has become a high-risk occupation. As a teacher, one will always some personal opinions and opinions when one is explaining something. If we just taught to the text, the students would complain that class is very boring. All textbooks need to be enriched with extracurricular content to make class more lively and interesting.

However, as to what should be said or should not be said, I don’t know where that invisible line really lies!

-END-

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Jv2haHKMbgxL81gRZhCtrQ

我被学生举报了!

 凡人钒语 凡人钒语 3天前

日瓦戈医生孔祥玉 – 钢琴恋曲2002

周一上午,我被学生举报了!

 

我在上课时讨论穷人对社会贡献大,还是富人对社会贡献大。有个女生很愤怒,说我歧视穷人,要举报我!

本学期,我上《实用文体写作》。教“事务文书”一章的“计划”时,按书本内容讲写作要求。其中的第一点讲写计划要“加强政策学习,树立全局意识”。我跟学生说,解读政策要用法律和常识去解读。有时,有些政策会背离常识,比如“破四旧立四新”运动就背离了常识,致使文化和文物遭受破坏。浙江兰溪诸葛村的村民就很有智慧,他们把古建筑糊上泥巴刷上灰浆,把精美的木雕巧妙地掩藏起来。改革开放后,这些精美的木雕重见天日,为人类遗留了宝贵的文化遗产。文成南田的刘伯温帝师庙,有一副珍贵的木刻长对联。当时村民怕对联被打砸毁坏,在背面刷上革命标语,倒过来挂在墙上,得以保存,如今成为镇庙之宝。

 

因此,有些常识性的东西是无需用高深的知识去判断的。就像穷人对社会有贡献,还是富人对社会有贡献这样的问题,就是常识性问题。

 

穷人,勉强维持温饱,甚至要靠国家的福利保障维持生活。而富人呢?我问学生:富人对社会有啥贡献?有学生说,纳税。我说是的,这仅仅是一个方面。富人可以利用财富扩大生产,为工人提供更多的工作岗位。当人们物质生活满足了,就会有更多的时间追求自己的兴趣爱好和人生价值。他们从事科学研究、文艺创作,从事慈善事业,建造精美建筑等等,为社会积累了物质财物和精神财富。但是,一个文明国家,要善待穷人。要利用公共政策,为穷人提供福利保障,让穷人过体面有尊严的生活。

我侃侃而谈,突然,有个女生站起来说:“老师,你这是歧视穷人!我要实名举报你!

我说:“有不同观点可以讨论,等我说完,你可以说说穷人对社会的贡献。”她涨红着脸,愤愤地说:“我不想讨论,你这是歧视穷人,我要举报你!”

 

“好吧!举报是你的权利。对你的实名举报,我给你点一百个赞!为你的光明磊落。”我伸出大拇指为她点赞!

 

有些学生匿名举报,在我看来就是个告密者。大学课堂,很多问题观点思想都是可以相互交流探讨碰撞的。学术独立思想自由,才会培养出创新型人才。学生搞得像间谍暗探似的,不利于培养学生的阳光型人格。

 

去年,我被学生匿名举报过。在课堂上,我告诉学生要养成独立思考问题的能力,不要听到风就是雨,否则要吃亏的。我说,文革中有不少红卫兵,年纪比你们还小,年纪轻轻地就光荣牺牲了。武斗的两派都宣称自己是毛主席的好战士,要誓死保卫毛主席。他们死后,既不是英雄也不是狗熊。他们的父母至今还希望政府对他们死去的儿女有个交代,这对于一个家庭是多么伤痛的事啊?文革发生的原因很大程度上是因为个人崇拜,所以我们党吸取教训,把禁止个人崇拜写入党章。想不到有好几位学生红着脸:“老师,你说毛主席的坏话!”我说,我讲的都是有依据的。十年文革给我们国家造成的灾难,在《建国以来党的若干历史问题的决议》里有阐述。禁止个人崇拜,在现行党章中就有规定。

 

想不到,第二天一早,校领导就电话通知我到校长室谈话了。从谈话中得知,举报流程是这样的:学生向班主任反映,班主任反映到学院,学院上报到教务处,教务处向校党委报告。

 

我对举报的学生没有任何成见,也不想刨根问底去深究举报者是谁。我非常厌恶这种做法,我担任班主任管理学生工作时,也从不用线人。我常常跟学生讲,兼听则明,要学会倾听不同的声音,要多读好书,拓展视野,训练思维,提高认识。但总有学生容不得不同的观点和思想,文革已经过去了五十多年,文革的思维依然存在,时时有死灰复燃的危险。

 

这位女生,尽管也采取举报的方式来表达对我的不满。但光明磊落,比起告密者要高尚许多。她也许是怀着朴素的阶级感情,为穷人着想,为国家负责,为民族担忧。亦或是怕教师在课堂上散布不良言论和思想,毒害青年。因此,我没有丝毫怨恨她,只是心底里感到悲哀。

 

尤其让我深感不安的是,这事竟然还惊动了在外学习的书记。刚一下课,书记就打来电话,问我怎么回事?你怎么又被学生举报了?我说,就说了穷人和富人谁对社会贡献更大?书记说,凡是学生实名举报的,一律要立案调查。

 

第二天,果然有好几个学生被叫去谈话。现在多所高校的教师被学生举报导致换岗、下岗甚至开除公职。好多朋友发来微信叫我小心,注意保护好自己。看来,教师也是个高危职业。作为教师,讲解时总难免有些个人的见解和观点。照本宣科,又可能会被学生轰下讲坛。所有的教材,都要充实课外的内容,课堂才会生动有趣。但是,到底哪些话该说,哪些话不该说,心里真的没底呢!

-END-

 

Posted in Ideology 思想, Politics 政治, Society 社会 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zhang Weiying: The Future World Order Depends on What China Does

Peking University Economics Professor Zhang Weiying’s early October 2018 (and promptly erased by net censors) article “Understanding the World Economy and China” (excerpted in translation on Andrew Batson’s blog) argued that China’s economic development has occurred in spite of rather than because of the so-called Chinese economic model. Prof Zhang stated that “The China economic model theory doesn’t fit with the facts.  China’s high growth over the past 40 years has come from marketization, entrepreneurship and the technological accumulation of the West for three hundred years, rather than the so-called “Chinese model”.

This June 2018 article by Professor Zhang does argue that the so-called China model does seriously harm China’s international relations but does not directly attempt to discredit the “China model”.

Zhang Weiying is not alone in his concerns.  Another economist, Shen Hong of the currently-being-strangled-by-the-Party Unirule Institute, a private economics think tank, makes similar points in an article translated by Andrew Batson on his blog  in the article The US-China trade war as a conflict of values.

One of Professor Zhang’s arguments is that China needs to built a truly rule-by-law and democratic political economic system if it is ever to displace the United States as the world leader.  This argument, which harnesses nationalism to the cause of promoting democratic reform, may be calculated to win more minds to the cause of reform but may well be true.

Interesting too is Professor Zhang’s article what might be perceived as an overly assertive in-your-face style of US leadership rather than the fact of US leadership is a major part of the problem as seen from China.

It reminds me of an article that Chinese General Liu Yazhou wrote about ten years ago arguing that “China needs to become a much more democratic country — only then can it be a strong country that western powers will not dare try to push around.”  General Liu Yazhou, once a senior commander of the PLA Second Artillery (missile forces) and now an academic at the PLA’s National Defense University has written many intriguing articles, some available online such as an examination of the cultural roots of Chinese politics in “Re-Commemorating 1644: The 360th Anniversary of the Jiashen Year” and Great Critics are Often Great Patriots  and John Garnaut’s 2010 article “Chinese general backs the American dream”.

General Liu Yazhou,  unusually out-spoken, has some protection (what the Chinese call a backstop houtai) as the son-in-law of former PRC President Li Xiannian.  Professor Zhang Weiying perhaps not so much, although the lines of the permissible are often changing and vague, though more tightly drawn over the past few years.

When I lived in China, sometimes people told me that the US was always trying to keep China down.  My answer was that if that were so, the US should encourage Chinese to keep their Communist Party in power and for the Party to take a harder line on dissidents.   If Professor Zhang and General Liu are correct, perhaps the US is not being clever enough (if it really wants to keep China down).

Zhang Weiying: The Future World Order Depends on What China Does

http://finance.qq.com/original/caijingzhiku/zhangweiying.html

June 26, 2018

Sino-US relations are the most important bilateral relationship in the world. This year, the United States launched a trade war. The two countries have been bickering for a long while about economic issues. Many worry how this will affect global stability. These days a big picture perspective on Sino-US relations is especially important to prevent things from descending into chaos.

Famed economist Zhang Weiying in his speech at the Symposium on Sino-US Relations at the Institute of World Politics and Economics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences discussed the fundamentals of Sino-US relations. This article was published in the International Economic Review. Zhang Weiying revised and authorized its publication here.

[photo]ZhangWeiying

Zhang Weiying, Economist, and Professor in the National Development Research Institute at Peking University

Zhang Weiying: Over the next twenty to thirty years, the United States will not be overthrown in its world leadership role. For the very reason that today China is incapable of assuming world leadership, US global leadership position is in China’s interests. The demands that world leadership responsibility places on a country in various areas are enormous. China is now incapable of assuming them.

Throughout modern world history, the United States is the country that has exercised global leadership the most. This happened because the American society is vigorous and is very capable of correcting its own mistakes. Moreover, the United States attracts the world’s most talented people. This melting pot laid the foundation of American strength.

I have on several occasions suggested to American politicians that they read two books.

The first book is Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations published the same year that the American Revolutionary War broke out. The shape of the world these past two hundred years is basically the extension of the ideas in The Wealth of Nations to the entire world. The reason American politicians should read this book is because the United States is now becoming more protectionist. No country, if it were closed rather than open, could lead the world. A closed United States would lack legitimacy as a world leader.

The second book is Laozi’s Tao Te Ching. The United States is gradually changing from a country with uniform or roughly similar leadership values to a country in which coexist multiple or even differing leadership values. Under these circumstances, the US needs to understand how “the powerful state is inferior”. Assuming a lower profile is the best way for the United States to lead the world. The current US leadership style is to support freedom and democracy at home, autocracy abroad, and is characterized by an overbearing style. No country can challenge the leading role of the United States, but the U.S. does need to changes its leadership style. What China cannot accept is not the world leadership of the United States but the way the United States conducts itself as the world leader.

The last two centuries utterly transformed the entire world as the world went through a Great Divergence and then the current Great Convergence. Demographic and economic data show that up to two hundred years ago, the correlation coefficient between the population and the GDP of a country was essentially one. The correlation between the two fell sharply during the 19th Century (the Great Divergence), reaching its lowest level in the 1970s. Then it gradually rebounded to around 0.55 in the early 21st century (the Great Convergence). Whether this trend towards convergence continues will greatly affect what leadership in international relations will be like in the world to come.

My point is that the structure of international relations and the position of the United States within it largely depend on what China does. If China continues to make mistakes, the status of the United States will be become even stronger. During the past two or three years, my attitude toward China’s development has changed from optimism to cautious optimism. This is first of all because some things that were originally considered irreversible have now been reversed. This includes reversals in the economic system. The government has been intervening more in the economy. There are even new price controls, the return of the economic planning system, and the “advancing of state-owned enterprises and the regression of private enterprises”. In government during the 1980s, everyone competed to take charge and to be a trailblazer. Now, everyone wants to avoid taking responsibility and to keep quiet. The whole spirit of the country has changed fundamentally.

China made its transformation from one type of economy to another a macroeconomic, monetary and fiscal stimulus issue. But what the transformation of the Chinese economy has really meant is opening up the market and relying on the spirit of economic entrepreneurship. In its domestic market, China’s most notable achievement has been a tremendous development of transportation and the accompanying very large drop in transportation costs. Although this has physically unified the Chinese market, the problem remains that transaction costs are still extremely high.

The Chinese system makes market transaction costs very high. High transaction costs constrain entrepreneurship and prevents the transformation of the Chinese economy from being fully realized. Moreover, the influence of statism is very strong. China’s state-owned enterprises have become an important factor in Sino-US relations. Maintaining the state-owned sector which these state-owned enterprises inhabit will not be good over the long term for China from the international strategic perspective and will constrain China’s opening up to the outside world.

China’s future development will depends to a very large extent on the reform of its political system. The big difference between China and India in terms of development is that India first democratized the political system and then liberalized the economy; China first liberalized the economy and has left reform of the political system as an issue for the future. From a sequencing perspective, I think China’s approach is better. However, it does carry huge risks, because reform of the political system will be essential sooner of later. India has already passed this test. China has not.

I believe that over the next three decades, China should, during the first fifteen years, first focus on judicial reform – on the establishment of a society ruled by law – and then, during the next fifteen years, focus on democratization. Justice should come before before democracy, because the rule of law is the foundation of social stability. In the long run, China needs to explore new pathways. These explorations may be inspired by the example of Hong Kong. China should also study the experience of Taiwan and Vietnam. China can start with political reforms in areas such as functional constituencies (professional groups), with democracy within the Chinese Communist Party and perhaps then it may be able to gradually complete the transition to democracy over the next 30 years.

There are many disagreements between the US and China. These are mostly bilateral disagreements. There are conflicts of interest arising from competition over resources and in geopolitics. There are also conflicts of values. Sino-US relations generally revolve around these two kinds of conflicts. For example, the Taiwan issue is a matter of interests. The United States often competes for its interests in the international arena under the pretext of defending values.

Sometimes the United States also faces conflicts in its own interests and values. For example, United States supported people like Mubarak who were dictators and stood for things that were contrary to American values. If a problem arises in those countries, there is certainly too a conflict between US interests and US values. From what I can see, the United States has finally chosen to subordinate its interests to its values in order to solve problems in the Middle East. It will no longer blatantly support those dictators. This conflict within the United States itself disturbs the entire international community and also affects Sino-US relations.

As far as conflicts of interest go, many US entrepreneurs, economists, and leaders all fundamentally believe that the economic benefits that can be attained through mutually beneficial cooperation are much greater than what can be gained by clashing. Our economic interests still largely depend upon cooperation. Therefore, the main differences between the two countries arise from differences in their politics and in their core values. How should these conflicts be resolved? Some solutions might simply resolve conflicts at the level of international relations, but these solutions might be very difficult for people domestically to accept.

From this perspective, many problems in Sino-US relations ultimately come down to the establishment of a democratic government in China and the reform of China’s political system. The path that China takes towards true democratization is both very important and very dangerous. It may move toward the rule of law and democracy as we expect, but then again, it may slip backwards into something ever worse than before.

We now face two major challenges, one is populism (including socialist egalitarianism) and the other is nationalism. By now the legitimacy of China’s leaders, after decades of economic development,can longer be based on its conquest of state power. Continuing economic reforms too are no longer an adequate support for its legitimacy. The only way to legitimate China’s political leadership is by promoting reform of the political system. If sufficient courage, determination and political authority is not put behind political reform, and the leadership instead resorts to populism and nationalism, the situation could become very dangerous. If that happens, major reforms will not be able to be carried out and China may well retrogress. We can well imagine that if lower-level officials feel free to misbehave and commit any crimes they like and higher leaders do not have enough authority to correct them, then a trend that propels China backwards against the tide of history may well prevail. The confluence of the problems of nationalism and populism would make acting rationally much more difficult in China.

Today we often do not address issues neither according to market logic nor in the spirit of the rule of law. Instead, by considering public opinion and other means, we make a moral judgment. Later, we do not consider the legality of the method that we have chosen to handle the issue. In short, reform of the Chinese political system is the critical factor influencing China’s future development.

My conclusion is that the question of whether or not there will be changes in China’s political system over the next decade will have an important effect on China’s future development. As for the United States is concerned, the leadership of the United States will be very difficult to challenge for some years to come. China will very likely economically surpass the United States, but this does not mean that China can challenge the United States and lead the world. The US economy surpassed that of the United Kingdom in 1890, but United States leadership was only established after World War II.

U.S. leaders overly politicize economic issues, making many issues difficult to address. For example, it is still not clear whether the appreciation of the renminbi would benefit the United States. But it would have at least two effects on the United States: first, American consumers would pay higher prices and the United States would face faster price increases; second, it would have a huge impact on the profit structures of large international companies. Especially for multinational companies and companies that have famous brands, because they are in an oligopolistic market, they enjoy relatively high profits. Renminbi appreciation would squeeze out some of the profits that those multinational companies enjoy. This would in turn impact the structure of the entire enterprise.

As to China’s international relations, China has no ally that openly and firmly supports it in the world. Compared this with the United States, which has the open support of many allies in the international community. Thus it would be hard for China to challenge U.S. leadership.

I believe that ideas and ideologies influence history. Therefore my attitude is both pessimistic and optimistic. I am pessimistic because the spread of ideas and ideologies is very slow. I am optimistic because our thinking is changing in subtle ways. The ideas of young people are now already very different from those of their elders.

The connection between the PRC and the United States began with relations between our governments. Now people-to-people ties play a large role, including the roles of private enterprises, scholars, media. The United States attaches great importance to the power of civil society. These forces in civil society all affect the way that the world views China. They affect Sino-United States relations as well. The diplomatic power of people in civil society had become the track two of international exchanges.

If we compare a country to an enterprise, from the perspective of the Theory of Evolution, any country after it evolves to a certain extent will encounter some force that obstructs its development. No big tree can grow all the way up to heaven! I do not believe in the decline of the United States. However, its international status will begin to decline relative to what it was before. If China can continuously promote market-oriented reforms, steadily carry out political reforms, and adopt appropriate strategies in diplomacy, the U.S. dominance in the world may not last long. However, if China goes the wrong way, then whatever changes there may be the relative statuses of the United States and China, they can only be very insignificant ones.

张维迎:未来世界的格局,取决于中国怎么做

中美关系是国际最重要的双边关系。今年美国发动贸易战,两国在经济问题上龃龉不断,更是让许多人忧心世界稳定。从宏观上把握中美关系,好做到乱中不变,就显得尤为重要。著名经济学家张维迎曾在社科院世界政治与经济研究所关于中美关系座谈会发表演讲,谈中美关系的基本面。本文发表在《国际经济评论》上,经张维迎老师修改并授权发表。

张维迎 经济学家、北京大学国家发展研究院教授张维迎 经济学家、北京大学国家发展研究院教授

未来20-30年,美国的领导地位不会发生巨大颠覆性变化。事实上,目前来说,美国在全球的领导地位也符合中国利益,因为中国在各方面尚不具备领导世界的条件,且国际责任等等的成本是巨大的,中国还负担不起。

在近代史上,美国是最具全球领导力的国家。这是因为美国社会活力旺盛,具有很强的自我纠正和修复能力。另一方面,美国吸引了世界上最优秀的人才,这种大熔炉的特性也为美国的强盛奠定了基础。

我曾在几个场合推荐美国的政治家读两本书。

第一本是亚当·斯密的《国富论》,出版于美国独立战争的同一年,近两百多年来的世界基本上就是《国富论》的理念在全球范围的不断扩展。美国政治家之所以应该读这本书,是因为美国现在有走向保护主义的趋势,而世界上没有哪个国家能以封闭而不是开放的姿态来领导整个世界,一个封闭的美国是不具备领导世界的合法性的。

第二本书是老子的《道德经》,美国逐渐要从领导价值观相同或相似的国家转变为领导价值观多元甚至迥异的国家,在这种情况下应该懂得“大邦者下流”,以一种低的姿态来领导整个世界。现在的美国的领导方式是对内自由民主,对外专制,作风霸道。当下它的领导地位虽然没有其他国家可以挑战,但是其领导方式有必要进行改变。中国不能接受的不是美国在全球的领导地位,而是美国的领导方式。

过去200年,世界经历了一个巨大的变革,从大分流(Great Divergence)到大趋同、大融合(Great Convergence)。数据显示,在200年之前的漫长的历史中,一个国家的人口和GDP的相关系数基本是1,19世纪之后两者的相关性剧烈下降(大分流),20世纪70年代达到最低水平,然后又逐渐恢复到21世纪初的0.55左右(大融合)。这种大融合的趋势是不是会继续下去将会对国际关系的领导格局带来巨大的改变。

我的观点是,世界的格局和美国的地位很大程度上取决于中国在做什么。如果中国不断犯错误,美国的地位就将得到稳固。近两三年来我对中国发展的态度从乐观变为了谨慎的乐观。这首先是因为一些原本被认为不可逆转的事情现在出现了逆转。这其中包括经济体制的逆转,比如政府干预越来越多,甚至出现了新的价格管制、计划体制的回归,还有“国进民退”。政府方面,20世纪80年代大家比的是谁干事、谁有闯劲,现在比的是谁不干事、谁沉得住气,整个国家的气质在发生改变。

中国现在把经济转型变成一个宏观问题,货币政策问题,财政刺激问题。但是经济转型真正要做的是开放市场,靠企业家精神。就国内市场而言,中国近些年最好的成就是交通的发展,交通成本大大降低,在物理上创造了统一市场的条件,但是最大的问题是交易成本奇高无比。

中国的体制使得市场的交易成本非常高,而交易成本高了之后企业家精神就不能得到有效发挥,无法真正完成经济转型。此外,中国强大的国家主义倾向的影响力巨大。现在国有企业已经成为了中美关系中的重要因素,继续维护这些国有企业的国有体制,从长远的、国际战略角度看是不好的,对中国走向世界会带来负面影响。

中国的未来发展很大程度上取决于政治体制改革。中国和印度在发展道理上很大的区别在于,印度是先进行政治体制民主化,再进行经济自由化;中国是先进行经济自由化,未来再进行政治体制改革。从时间序列上来看,我认为中国的做法是更好的,但是也有巨大的风险,因为政治体制改革这一关是早晚必须要经历的,印度已经渡过了这一关,而中国还没有。

我认为,中国未来三十年里,前十五年的重点应该放在司法改革,建立法治社会,后十五年重点进行民主化改革。把司法放在民主之前是非常重要的,因为法治是社会稳定的基础。从长远看来,中国需要探索新的道路,这种探索也许可以从香港地区得到启发,包括台湾地区、越南的经验也非常值得中国研究。中国可以从功能团体、党内民主等等开始着手政治改革,也许三十年内能慢慢地完成向民主化的过渡。

中美关系中存在很多冲突,主要是两方面的冲突。一方面是利益冲突。两国在利益方面的争夺,包括地缘政治、资源方面的争夺。 另一方面是价值观念方面的冲突。中美关系往往就围绕着这两个冲突。例如台湾问题就是一个利益问题。美国在国际上经常打着价值观的旗号来争夺利益。

但是有时美国也会面临自己内部的利益诉求和价值观诉求发生冲突的时候。例如美国在中东所支持的人,如穆巴拉克,都是一些独裁者,是和美国的价值观所违背的;一旦这些国家出现了问题,美国这种利益和价值观的冲突就暴露无疑了。就我观察,这几次中东问题美国最后还是选择了利益服从价值观的做法来解决问题,不会明目张胆地支持这些独裁者。美国本身内部的这个冲突就会给整个国际带来麻烦,也会影响中美关系。

利益冲突方面,美国企业家、经济学家、领导人都基本相信,合作共赢的经济利益比互相冲突时大得多。经济方面的利益还是以合作为主的。因此主要的冲突还是来自政治和核心价值观的不同。这种冲突应该怎么解决?有些做法可能可以简单地解决国际层面的冲突,但是这些解决办法国内的百姓可能很难接受认可。

从这个角度来看,中美冲突的很多问题最终都归结到民主政体的建立、中国的政治体制改革。中国真正走向民主化的过程是非常关键也是非常危险的,有可能向预期一样地走向法治和民主,但也有可能滑向比原来更糟糕的境地。

我们现在面临两个很大的挑战,其一是民粹主义(包括社会主义的平均主义),其二是民族主义。国家经过几十年的发展,领导者权威的正当性已经不是靠打江山了,也很难继续靠经济改革来支持,寻求正当性的唯一途径就是推动政治体制改革。但是如果缺乏勇气,没有足够的决断力和权威来推动政治改革,求助于民粹主义和民族主义,这是非常危险的。在这种局面下,大的改革无法进行,倒退就很有可能发生。可以想象,当下层领导胡作非为的时候上层领导却没有足够的权威性能够表态时,倒行逆施就可能盛行。民族主义和民粹主义的问题相结合,就使得在中国,有理性的行为很难进行。

我们现在在处理问题的时候往往不是按照市场的逻辑,不是以法治的精神,而是先通过舆论等手段对事情进行道德定性,然后就不考虑处理方法的合法性了。总之,政治体制改革将是影响中国未来发展的关键因素。

总而言之,未来十年,中国政治体制改变或者不变,都将对中国未来的发展起到重要的影响。就美国而言,美国的领导地位若干年内难以挑战。未来中国在经济上超过美国是非常有可能的,但是这不意味着中国就能挑战美国、领导世界。美国的经济规模1890年就超过英国,但美国的领导地位只是在二战后才得到确立。

在经济问题上,美国领导人太政治化,导致了很多事情难以处理。例如人民币的升值问题,对美国究竟会有什么好处,现在尚且不明朗。但是其可预期的对美国的影响至少有二:第一,美国消费者会支付更高的价格,美国将会面临更快的物价上涨;第二,将对国际大公司的利润结构产生巨大影响,尤其是跨国公司、品牌公司,因为它们所在的市场是一个寡头市场,利润本身比较厚足,人民币的升值将挤出这些跨国公司的一部分利润。这对整个企业的结构都带来影响。

国际关系方面,中国这个国家在世界上没有公开而坚定的盟友,相比在国际社会上有很多公开盟友的美国,中国是很难挑战它的领导地位的。

我相信影响历史的是理念和思想。因此我的态度是既悲观又乐观的。悲观的是,理念和思想的传播是非常缓慢的。乐观的是,思想仍然在潜移默化地改变。现在年轻人的观念已经与老一代很不一样了。

中国和美国的联系原来只是政府与政府之间,而现在有了很多民间的势力,比如企业、学者、媒体等等。美国对这种力量也非常重视。所有这些民间的力量都在影响世界对中国的看法,影响中美关系。未来民众的外交力量会成为国际交流的第二渠道。

如果将国家比作企业,从进化论的角度来看,任何国家进化发展到一定程度,阻碍它的力量就会出现,没有一棵大树能长到天上!我认为,美国不可能衰落,但是它的国际地位,相对自己的历史将开始走下坡路。如果中国能不断地推进市场化改革,平稳地进行政治体制改革,并在外交方面采取合适的战略,美国在世界上的独霸地位可能不能维持太久;但是如果中国走错了道路,那么美国和中国的地位变化会变得十分微妙。

Posted in Economy 经济, Foreign Relations 外交, Ideology 思想, Politics 政治 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wang Jisi: The US Trade War Aimed at Changing Chinese Behavior and Making More Money, Not Disengagement

Some interesting idea to try on for size on what is behind the US- China trade ‘war’ from a Chinese international relations scholar.  Views that are not necessarily influential in China, but intriguing discussion on world trends although the focus is narrowly on the United States since the interview is about the trade ‘war’.

The article appeared on the Chinese language website of the Financial Times, one of the more interesting fora for discussion about China and Chinese relations with other countries given the censorship of China’s domestic media.

Reader comments on the Financial Times Chinese language website (so far not blocked in China) are often as interesting as the articles although there too, the commenters are necessarily from a relatively small slice of Chinese society — the economics, business and trade oriented intellectuals.

This article was picked up by Aisixiang, one of long line of Chinese philosophical and intellectual discussion websites.  Its predecessors flourished for a time, then were closed down by the Party.  So far Aisixiang has been able to keep on.

http://www.ftchinese.com/premium/001079777?exclusive#adchannelID=5000

[also appeared on the Aisixiang website at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/112832.html]

中美贸易战

访王缉思:美国发动贸易战不是为了离开中国

Wang Jisi: Dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University. (Wikipedia)
Born: 1948 (age 70 years), Guangzhou, China
Employer: Peking University
Books: China at the Crossroads: Sustainability, Economy, Security, and Critical Issues for the 21st Century

Interview with Wang Jisi: The United States Launched Trade War with China Not to Disengage But to Change China’s Behavior and Make More Money

Some however are preparing for the worst and that is dangerous

Updated on October 16, 2018 06:18

by Zhao Liangmin Written for FT中文网

Zhao Lingmin: Founder of World Sensitivity

Wang Jisi: Dean of the Institute of International Strategy, Peking University

Entering a New Stage of World Politics: The Future Harder to Predict Than Ever

Zhao Lingmin: Some time ago you wrote an article about how you believe that “world politics has entered a new stage”. You summed up the four characteristics of this new stage:

  • Convergence of nationalism and populism and simultaneous with the rise of authoritarianism;
  • Resurgence of strongmen;
  • More more intense geopolitical competition along with the danger of war; and
  • The double-edged sword of high tech innovation.

Those views aroused widespread concern. Why do you think that we seeing these changes today?

Wang Jisi: Two long-term factors are responsible for the current accentuation of differences and even splits in world politics today. The first is the further growing economic inequality worldwide both between nations and within nations. The poorest countries in the world today have a per capita GDP of 400 to 500 US dollars; the richest countries such as the United States, Switzerland, and Singapore have a per capita GDP of more than 100 times that of the poorest countries.

At the same time, in the United States, where the per capita GDP has exceeded $60,000, the gap between the rich and the poor has been widening. Among the developed countries, the economic gap between emerging countries and the developed countries is narrowing, while the gap between emerging countries and the developing countries is growing, accentuating differences within the developing countries as a group.

The world Gini coefficient has now reached 0.7 or so – higher than the widely recognized 0.6 “danger level”. Some data shows that economic inequality, both between countries and within countries, has reached an unprecedented level.

The second long-term factor aggravating the political divide both between and within countries are rapidly changing and forming social identities throughout the world brought about by the large-scale movement of populations between countries throughout the world. Today over 300 million people are settled permanently in a different country from the one in which they were born.

Moreover, many seasonal workers cross borders and everywhere there are more migrants than before. People are living in a foreign country or, at home, discovering more and more foreigners with different skin colors, cultures and beliefs in their hometowns. This brings with it more homesickness, alienation and xenophobia. Easy low cost global connectivity through the Internet, smart phones and social media has made it easier for people to find virtual communities of compatriots, fellow villagers, or like-minded “friends”. This increasingly divorces social identity from local physical communities where people actually live. This phenomenon has accentuated social identities in terms such as race, ethnicity, sects, culture, values. This has intensified political polarization in many countries.

Economic globalization brings two big problems. First is the widening gap between the rich and the poor; the second is the identity politics steadily becoming much more important. Everyone feels dissatisfied, that society is unfair, and hopes that someone come along to correct this problem. They want a strong government, a political strongman to represent them, who will voice popular dissatisfactions. Donald Trump is such a person, Rodrigo Duterte the Philippines, Recep Erdogan in Turkey, Narendra Modi in India, and Vladimir Putin of Russia are all such people.

The rise of political strongmen changes not only a country’s domestic politics but is also reflected in its values and geopolitics. In the past “political correctness” was about respect for diversity, for unity and harmony in a society which has become more diverse. Now it is “representing me and my group” to fight against an opponent. At the national policy level, “political correctness” means tightening immigration policies and trade protectionism; with respect to the military, it means strengthening national defense forces; and on territorial disputes, standing up for one’s country against foreign countries. In this way, domestic class contradictions, ethnic conflicts, and contradictions among nations in the world become ever more acute; compromises are seen as weakness and betrayal.

Zhao Lingmin: Globalization naturally benefits those powerful elites who can break the bonds of the nation-state, sell things to the whole world, spread ideas to the whole world. The whole world is their marketplace. Ordinary people don’t this capacity and these resources. They can only stay home and listen to the orders coming down to them from the heavens above. Considering this, can the problem of inequality ever be fully resolved?

Wang Jisi: In history, there are mainly three ways to change inequality:

  1. War and war makes everyone poor;
  2. Revolution. After the Russian October Revolution, China’s 1949 Revolution, Iran’s 1979 Revolution, the property of capitalists was confiscated, the lands of local tyrants were divided, the rich were eliminated or forced to emigrate overseas. Then everyone seems more equal but can not get rich;
  3. Plague and natural disasters, such as the 14th century Black Death in Europe.

Current practice regulates the redistribution of wealth in society, the government invests taxation revenues in areas such as infrastructure, public health, and education and has programs to alleviate poverty. These programs bring change only slowly. In any country or kind of society, when productivity rises quickly, some will inevitably get richer earlier. Others will not be as prosperous. That gap will get larger and larger.

If you want to quickly narrow this gap, you might embrace a program of “kill the rich and help the poor.” But this dampens the enthusiasm of those who create wealth. The poor don’t find that much is accomplished and in the end nobody is satisfied.

Therefore, I think there is no way to solve this problem. At least it is difficult to make a real change. This phenomenon may continue for a long time. I still don’t see any good solution emerging. In European countries such as Denmark and Ireland, people are more accustomed to high taxes and high welfare, but even these countries are now experiencing a widening gap between the rich and the poor, especially with the arrival of new immigrants.

Zhao Lingmin: This dilemma is very unsettling. What should be done?

Wang Jisi: The world is entering a new period of historical transition. After the end of the Cold War, we believed that the world had entered a period of peace and development. Everyone was optimistic. In recent years, it seems that we might go back to the bad old days. Trends are hard to predict. We may see all kinds of impossible-to-envisage beforehand “black swan events”.

Today I read an article about the current crisis facing liberalism. According to the article there are three major theories in the 20th century:

  • Liberalism represented by the United States ;
  • Communism/Marxism/socialism represented by the Soviet Union and China; and
  • Fascism.

The Second World War destroyed fascism, the world moved on to a struggle between socialism/communism and capitalism/liberalism. Later, the Soviet Union disintegrated and socialism retreated to a low point. Liberalism nearly became the only kind of political correctness in most parts of the world. That what Fukuyama meant by the “end of history” that he wrote about.

In recent years, liberalism has seemed ineffective. Strongman politics has made a comeback. Many countries, including the United States, are dissatisfied with their own systems and begin to reflect on them.

What is the opposite of liberalism? This is an important question. I think the opposite of liberalism is nationalism. But is nationalism an ideology? It seems not. One might think that a common ideology should lead to mutual cooperation rather than conflict. However, if all countries believe in nationalism, they will instead move towards division and conflict.

Zhao Lingmin: Nationalism can’t solve the problem. It is just an emotional outlet. Some people are dissatisfied with the status quo and believe that the elites cannot represent him. Elites issues have nothing to do with their lives. Political strongmen voice their frustrations whether or not they actually really care about doing anything for them.

Wang Jisi: Going thirty years one way and then the next thirty years going in the reverse direction doesn’t work as a model anymore. Trump will do it for a while, and maybe the American people will feel that his method doesn’t work. They may need to change their tune then.

Zhao Lingmin: That an idealization, like talking about a pendulum effect. If you can really can swing from one side to the other safely, what happens along the way?

Wang Jisi: There are many possibilities. One possibility is to return to the era of war. Historical experience shows that neither conventional war nor nuclear war creates solutions other than killing everybody. Ultimately, cooperating and coordination among governments is needed to find a model for global governance. Maybe after some time, the pendulum swings back, but it is impossible to return to where we were before.

The times have changed. The new times have brought fundamental changes: thirty years ago, the control of the government over people’s freedom was limited. New emerging technologies strengthen those in power. People can, however, also use these same technologies to bypass government control. Many kinds of once fairly effective restrictions have become less effective. Complete information control is no longer possible. Information was once scarce. People could only believe what the government said. Now there are all kinds of gaps. The Chinese can know what is going on overseas. Americans can also know what is happening in China.

Another factor is that what people think about other ethnic groups changing in subtle ways. We used to say that US imperialism was bad but the American people were good; Japanese militarism was bad but the Japanese people were good. But today, many Chinese believe that Americans are bad and not just their government. Journalists, scholars, and businessmen are also very bad. The United States has also changed its view of China. In the past, China was considered an “autocratic government.” The Chinese government was bad by the Chinese people were good.

Now many Chinese and Chinese students have been found to be doing things in the United States to help the Chinese government. So Americans are starting to get unfriendly towards people of Chinese ethnic origin (huaren 华人) and that people of Chinese ethnicity are not good. There are also religious issues. Some have a thoroughly negative view of Islam. That is going on in many parts of the world. These one-sided extreme views are simplistic giving them the advantage of being very easy to understand. There are creating vast gulfs between different ethnic groups and even different subgroups of the same ethnic group.

“I am disillusioned with the United States”

Zhao Lingmin: Everyone said that the reason why Trump was elected was very important because he was supported by the “rust zone” of the Midwestern United States. Has this judgment been widely accepted?

Wang Jisi: I think it is generally accepted. Whether it is the “rust zone” or something else, some people in the American society have always felt that they are being exploited and deprived of opportunity by an unfair society. One cause is the industrial shift caused by globalization and rising insecurity caused by the arrival of new immigrants. These groups are found in big cities such as New York and Chicago. Many are disgusted with globalization and its beneficiaries, and Trump has voiced their dissatisfactions. But in any case, that the United States chose Trump gave me a great and unimaginable sense of loss.

Zhao Lingmin: Do you think this was accidental or inevitable? Of course, now that it has happened, you may find many reasons to prove that it is inevitable.

Wang Jisi: I think there must be some accidental factors but it is an inevitable that people like Trump can get a lot of support. The split in American society is an objective fact. Trump’s problem is that he not only needs to use social division to maximize his own interests, but that he spares no effort to deepen this split. This is a terrible place to be in.

Liberal criticism of Trump often turns into personal attacks. They say that he is worthless. He also attacks the liberals saying that they are worthless. This cause more confrontation, dislike and hate in society. I feel very disillusioned with the United States. When I first went to the United States in 1984, the political struggle in the United States was fairly rational and civilized. Now it is just cursing and nastiness wherever you turn.

Zhao Lingmin: When did you think the divisions in American society arose? Most people noticed this change when Trump was elected. It feels very sudden, but there must be a development process behind it. It couldn’t have happened all at once.

Wang Jisi: The divisions in American society appeared many years ago, but people didn’t pay too much attention to it. There was a racial riot in Los Angeles in 1992 but it wasn’t between blacks and whites, but between blacks and Korean immigrants. Now the gap among the American ethnic groups is getting deeper as is xenophobia.

On the one hand, many blacks and women represented by Obama and Hillary, people who have had the experience of being oppressed have a need to establish the political correctness of multiculturalism. Some are just the opposite. Some are even naked white racists. These two processes are occurring at the same time. We tend to notice multiculturalism despise the rebound of right-wing nationalism and racism. When I was teaching in the United States in 1991, I was very careful not to violate “political correctness” and not to discriminate against blacks and women. In fact, the opposite tendency also exists. For example, a white girl said to me privately, “A black girl in the same class as me is no worse than me. I don’t work as hard as I am, but she enjoys a scholarship. It’s too unfair!” She was very disgusted about this. This is reverse racial discrimination. This means both sides of American feel discriminated against. The contradiction between the two has not been fully noticed.

Emotion probably has a more profound effect on politics than reason. Trump and his hardcore are emotional in that way – no matter whether he does this or that, he is still our man. The more you attack him, the more I support him. This is what disappoints me about the United States. In the past, I have overestimated the rationality, political consciousness, and level of knowledge of the American people.

Zhao Lingmin: Trump’s first cabinet meeting after taking office, most of the cabinet members including Vice President Pence are vying to show his loyalty to him. That is very feminine. This is very surprising: Can things happen in the United States?

Wang Jisi: Humanity is similar in every place, regardless of party and people. Trump also likes to use obedient, loyal people who want to keep their power and vote for it.

Zhao Lingmin: How do your peers in the United States, professors of Sino-US relations universities, view the current state of relations between China and the United States?

Wang Jisi: Some of them think that Trump has screwed things up, but when I ask, “If Clinton had been elected, would Sino-US relations be better than now,” they can’t give me an answer. Those who support the Democratic Party are very frustrated with the Trump phenomenon. Republicans do not accept Trump emotionally, but they have no choice; they have to give priority to party interests. At the same time, both parties have nationalist feelings. They believe that no matter what Trump is like, we Americans can criticize him but not you foreigners.

Zhao Lingmin: After the Sino-US trade war broke out, the general view was that the American elite’s understanding of China was completely reversed. Before they that China could be influenced by the United States. Now they see that China’s path is taking it further and further away from the United States. So they gave up their illusions and began to find ways to deal with China. In the future, even if the United States changes presidents, the current confrontation will continue. Do you agree?

Wang Jisi: I basically agree. However, there are still some American elites who believe that China may change. They can’t speak out in the current political atmosphere. If they say something about China, they will be regarded as a “panda hugger”. People will think that they have sold out to the Chinese. That wouldn’t be good for them so they prefer not to say anything. There are also some think tanks get some government funding. If they take a different position from that of the government, and speak up for China, that may affect their access to government funding. At present, the atmosphere of the United States is described by more than one person as a kind of “McCarthyism.”

Zhao Lingmin: How representative are Peter Navarro’s views?

Wang Jisi: Not many people agree but his views are very powerful because they mesh well with the current trend towards nationalism and populism. Navarro’s view can be refuted by citing facts, but his views have a kind of political correctness based on an emotion so refuting him and debating with him is difficult in the same way that debating with someone whether you Trump or not is difficult.

Why is the United States launching a trade war?

Zhao Lingmin: Why does Trump want to launch a trade war against China? Is it to hurt China?

Wang Jisi: My understanding is that American entrepreneurs still do not want to withdraw from China. They think they can make a lot of money in China. After all, the Chinese market is big, and in the past 30 or 40 years, some very strong path dependencies have been created – how can such a big and complex supply chain simply move somewhere else? There are not many places to choose from. For the present, these enterprises are opportunistic. They say that they want to exert pressure on China on the US government. On the other hand, they say to China that if you give me preferential policies, I will not leave. I think there are still many American companies see things that way. They have a wait-and-see attitude.

Their feelings about China are complex. On the one hand, they are very dissatisfied with various restrictive policies. On the other hand, they also realize that China is not the only country with these restrictions. Many many developing countries have similar restrictions. If you move your company to Egypt, don’t you think that the Egyptian government will regulate you? When they think about it, China is still good a good place to be. They can make money here. Therefore, they think that they should exert pressure on the Chinese government to continue with reform and open up some more industrial sectors to foreign investment.

Therefore, the reason the United States launched a trade war against China was not to pull out of China or to completely “decouple” from China, but to change China’s behavior so that it can make more money. This conclusion I have drawn from decades of involvement in Sino-US economic and trade relations. Some people in the US government and others in some American companies, however, are also preparing for the worst: decoupling of many of the economic links between China and the United States. This is dangerous.

Zhao Lingmin: Eliminate some things that are not to the advantage of the United States so that their companies will enjoy a better investment climate when they come to invest in China. After all, there are not many better places in the world worth investing.

Wang Jisi: Right. In the past, because of China’s low cost of manufacturing in China, US manufacturing was gradually attracted to and moved to China. Although the United States has been unhappy about this process of manufacturing moving to China, Sino-US economic and trade relations have continued to get stronger. As China has gotten stronger and now that it has been developing its own high tech industries, and is able to compete with the United States, the US has gotten worried.

Zhao Lingmin: In addition to the trade imbalance, what other causes of US dissatisfaction in the US – China relationship?

Wang Jisi: The US military is unhappy. The military is a big interest group. A few year ago, it did not believe that China was strong enough to pose a threat to the United States, and that China did not mean to truly exclude the United States from the Asia-Pacific region. During the past two years, China has taken a very firm position on the South China Sea issue. The United States has begun to feel that that the Chinese military is much stronger than before. They feel that if the US does not exert pressure on China, it will not have a foothold in the Western Pacific. The military, including the military-industrial complex, are hardliners on China policy. Formerly, when terrorism was the top concern, there was a lot of military spending and a great many companies and others forming a huge chain of interests linked to the manufacture and sale of weapons. Now, by pointing to China, contradictions with China on military security issues can be used to argue for more military spending.

In addition, the Confucius Institutes in the United States have made Americans feel that China’s values are different from those of the United States. China’s promotion of Chinese values in the United States is very difficult for Americans to accept. The ideological contradictions between China and the United States are also reflected their attitudes towards Chinese students and scholars studying in the United States.

Zhao Lingmin: What does the United States want? Do they really need to overthrow the Chinese system?

Wang Jisi: Some people say that if China does not make fundamental changes in its political system, good relations with the United States will be impossible. I do not agree with this. There are indeed people in the United States who want to change China’s fundamental political system, but the government and the political mainstream know that this is unrealistic and cannot be accomplished. However, the Americans do have demands in some specific areas. For example, the want China to become more required to be more internationalized and market-oriented, increase transparency in various fields, reduce government subsidies to state-owned enterprises, reduce the requirements for transfer of the proprietary technology transfer of foreign enterprises, and to make changes in the “Made in China 2025″ program and other policies. If these change, the United States will still be hopeful that they are at least making progress. Sino-US relations have been like this for a long time. The US asking price has always been very high. We have never accepted it in full. The two sides are always bargaining.

Zhao Lingmin: Some say that the pressure that the United States has put on China was to a great extent the cause of the firm line of Chinese foreign policy over the past several years.

Wang Jisi: I am not here to make political and moral judgments. If we are looking for the cause, it was the change in Chinese policy that led to adjustments in US policy towards China. In recent years, China’s strength has been increasing rapidly along with its international influence. China has increased its operations maintain protect China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. China has put increased pressure on “Taiwan independence” and other splittist forces. China has strengthened the leadership of the Communist Party. The United States has become increasingly uncomfortable with China’s actions and has begun to react strongly. We can expect that these US reactions to Chinese actions will become ever more intense. The US may switch from the defensive to the the offensive.

The cause-and-effect relationship we see today also applies to 1949 and 1979. In those two years, changes in Chinese internal affairs led to big changes in Sino-US relations. Changes in US internal affairs have always had relatively little impact on Sino-US relations despite the many different presidents since then and many different political currents swept the US during those decades. The financial crisis broke out in 2008. That was major event for the United States. Did it cause a major change in Sino-US relations? Not at all.

I very much agree with my colleague Professor Tao Wenzhao that for over 200 years, the United States has never changed its strategic goals for its relationship with China:

  • Free flow of goods and capital, and
  • Free free flow of information and values.

Chinese have always had reservations or imposed boycotts to oppose two goals. We should criticize and have reason to criticize the United States but we should realize that China’s own actions have changed Sino-US relations and US perceptions of China.

Zhao Lingmin: Since the outbreak of the trade war, we have always insisted that we do not want to fight but are not afraid to fight. We accuse the United States of ruining our bilateral relations. We believe that we have institutional advantages that makes us less vulnerable to the fallout of a trade conflict than is the United States.

Wang Jisi: The trade war is an omen and a manifestation of the deterioration of Sino-US relations. It is not the cause. The Trump administration’s trade war is a tactic for mobilizing public support along a desire to make certain demands to further US interests. However continuing with the trade war serves the interests of neither country. It will solve nothing. As to which country could hold out better during a trade war, that is a strategic game between the two governments and an economic calculation of corporate interests. In the end, the government must calculate the gains and losses of their various interests and then rationally reach some compromises in order to stabilize the relationship. We need to cut our losses and to prevent trade wars or local disagreements from expanding into other areas that might lead to an overall direct confrontation between China and the United States.

Once emotions have won out over reason, there is the danger of a direct confrontation. That is something we need to be psychologically prepared for.

(I only represent the author’s point of view, editor: Yan Man.yan@ftchinese.com)

 


http://www.aisixiang.com/data/112832.html

赵灵敏:世界灵敏度创始人

王缉思:北京大学国际战略研究院院长

世界政治进入新阶段,未来难以预料

赵灵敏:前一段时间您有一篇文章认为“世界政治进入新阶段”,并总结出这个新阶段的四个特征:民族主义和民粹主义合流并同时上升,威权主义和强人政治回潮,地缘政治竞争加剧、战争危险冒头,技术创新是双刃剑,这些观点引发了广泛的关注。您认为产生这些变化的根本原因是什么?

王缉思:目前世界政治中的分化和分裂,是由两方面的长期因素造成的。第一个因素是经济不平等在全球范围的进一步扩大。当今世界上最贫穷的若干非洲国家,其人均国内生产总值为400至500美元;最富裕的国家如美国、瑞士、新加坡等,其人均国内生产总值是最贫穷国家的100多倍。同时,在人均国内生产总值已经超过60000美元的美国,近年来内部的贫富差距也在日益扩大。而在发展中国家内部,新兴大国同发达国家的经济差距在缩小,但新兴国家同后进的发展中国家之间的差距却在拉大,造成发展中国家内部的分化。

据有关统计,现在世界基尼系数已经达到0.7左右,超过了公认的0.6“危险线”。一些资料显示,无论是国与国之间,还是国家内部,现阶段全球范围的经济不平等,达到了世界近现代历史上前所未有的程度。

加剧世界各国政治分化、分裂的第二个长期因素,是全球范围人口流动所带来的社会认同的重新组合。当今世界上有3亿以上人口长年生活在出生地以外的国家,另外还有很多跨越国界的季节性劳工,各国国内的流动人口就更多了。人们生活在异国他乡,或者在自己生活的地域发现越来越多的肤色、文化、信仰不同的外来人口,会带来更大程度的乡恋、疏离感和排外情绪。网络、智能手机和社交媒体的广泛应用,方便了人们找到同胞、同乡,或者结成价值观上志同道合的“知音”和“朋友圈”。这种现象,实际上割裂了种族、族群、教派、文化、价值观等方面的社会认同,加剧了许多国家政治的极化。

可以看出,经济全球化主要带来两个问题,一是贫富差距拉大,二是认同政治突出。大家觉得不满意、不平等,希望有人来纠正这些情况,那就需要有强政府,需要有政治强人来代表,说出民众心里不满意的地方——特朗普就是这样的人,菲律宾的杜特尔特、土耳其的埃尔多安、印度的莫迪、俄罗斯的普京等,都是这样的人。政治强人的崛起不仅改变了一国的国内政治,也会反映在价值观、地缘政治等层面。过去的“政治正确性”是多元化趋势下的团结、和谐,现在则是“代表我和我的群体”去强硬地打击对立面。在国家政策层面,“政治正确”是收紧移民政策、贸易保护主义;在军事方面就要增强国防力量;领土方面是代表国家与外国寸土必争。这样一来,国内的阶级矛盾、族群矛盾,世界上的国家间矛盾,都越来越尖锐,妥协则被视为软弱和背叛。

赵灵敏:全球化进程天然有利于那些能力高强的精英,他们可以突破民族国家的界限,把东西卖到全世界,把思想传播到全世界,全世界都是他们的市场;而普通人不掌握这方面的能力和资源,只能蜗居在原来的地方听天由命。从这个角度看,不平等的问题是否是很难得到根本纠正?

王缉思:历史上主要通过三种方式来改变不平等:第一种是战争,战争之后大家都穷;第二种是革命,在俄国十月革命、中国1949年革命、伊朗1979年革命之后,没收资本家财产,打土豪分田地,富人被消灭了,或者被迫移居海外,然后大家似乎比较平等,都富不起来,;第三种是瘟疫和天灾,例如欧洲14世纪的黑死病(鼠疫)。

现在通常的做法是,通过调节社会再分配,政府将税收投入到基础设施、公共卫生、教育等领域,通过扶贫让穷人生活好起来。这种方式的见效过程是比较慢的。在任何国家、任何社会形态下,只要发展生产力,就必然是一部分人先富起来,另一部分人富裕程度比较低,差距会越来越大;想要迅速缩小这种差距,就得“杀富济贫”,这会挫伤创造财富者的积极性,穷人往往还觉得得到的帮助不够多,最终大家都不满意。

所以这个问题,我觉得是没有办法根本纠正的,至少是很难纠正的,这个现象可能会持续很长时间,目前还不想不出什么好的解决办法。丹麦、爱尔兰等欧洲国家,人们比较习惯于高税收、高福利,但连这些国家现在也出现了贫富差距拉大的趋势,特别是在移民增加之后。

赵灵敏:这个无解状态让人很担心,不知道该么办?

王缉思:世界现在正处于一个新的历史转换期。冷战结束后的很长时间里,我们认为世界进入到和平与发展时期,大家都比较乐观,最近几年感觉有可能开倒车,未来走势难以预测,可能有各种各样的黑天鹅事件出来。

今天我看了一篇文章,谈目前自由主义面临的危机:20世纪有三大主义,一是以美国为代表的自由主义,二是以苏联中国为代表的共产主义/马克思主义/社会主义,三是法西斯主义。二战把法西斯主义灭掉,世界演变为社会主义/共产主义和资本主义/自由主义之间的争夺,后来苏联解体,社会主义退到低潮,自由主义在世界大部分地区几乎变成唯一的政治正确,即福山所说的“历史的终结”。而近几年,自由主义又似乎不灵了,强人政治开始回潮,包括美国在内的很多国家,都对自己的制度有所不满,开始进行反思。

自由主义的对立面是什么?这是一个很大的问题。我觉得自由主义现在的对立面是民族主义。但民族主义是一个意识形态吗?好像又不是。共同的意识形态应该会导致相互合作而不是冲突,但如果各国都信奉民族主义,就会走向分裂和相互冲突的。

赵灵敏:民族主义也解决不了问题,只是给大家宣泄的出口,有些人对现状不满,认为现在的精英不能代表他,精英所关心的问题也和他们没有关系,只要政治强人说出了他们的心声就可以,至于管不管用再说。

王缉思:三十年河东三十年河西,原来那套模式现在不管用了。特朗普再做一段时间,可能美国民众又会觉得他的方法不管用,到时候可能又需要改弦更张。

赵灵敏:这是比较理想的情况,类似于钟摆效应,如果可以比较平安地从一边摆到另一边也就罢了,但这个过程中会发生什么事?

王缉思:所以有很多种可能,有一种可能是回到战争的时代,但是过去那种常规战争或核战争除了导致大家都死亡之外,解决不了问题。最终还是需要政府之间的合作和协调,在全球治理中找出一个模式来。也许再过一段时间,钟摆又摆回来了,但不可能真正回归原点。这里面要考虑的因素包括:30年前政府对人们自由的控制还是比较有限的,近年来涌现的新技术更有利于掌权者,但与此同时,民众也在通过新技术千方百计绕过政府强加的各种限制,完完全全的信息控制已经不可能了。过去信息匮乏,人们只能相信政府说的那一套,现在有了各种各样的缺口,中国人可以知道海外发生的事情,美国人也可以知道中国国内发生了什么。

另外一个因素是,各个族群彼此之间的认识正在发生微妙的变化。以往我们说美帝国主义坏,美国人民是好的;日本军国主义坏,日本人民是好的。但现在,很多中国人认为美国人就是坏的,不光政府坏,记者、学者、商人也很坏。美国对中国的看法也变了,过去认为中国是“专制政府”,政府不好老百姓好,现在发现很多华人和中国留学生在美国帮中国政府做事,于是对华人也开始不友好,认为这个民族的人都不是好人。另外还有宗教的问题,比如对伊斯兰教彻底负面的评价,这在全世界很多地方都很盛行。这些一边倒的看法,从认识层面是简单了,却在各个族群之间甚至同一族群的不同组成部分之间埋下了巨大的鸿沟。

“我对美国感到幻灭”

赵灵敏:大家都说特朗普能当选很重要的原因是得到美国中西部“铁锈地带”人们的支持,这个判断成立吗?

王缉思:我觉得大体上成立。不管是“铁锈地带”还是别的什么,美国社会一直有一些人感觉自己被剥夺了,在社会上吃不开了。产生这种现象的一个重要原因是全球化引发的产业转移,以及新移民的到来让人产生的不安全感。这些群体在纽约、芝加哥等大城市也都有,他们对全球化及其受益者感到反感,特朗普则说出了他们的心声。但无论如何,美国选出特朗普让我产生很大的失落感,无法想象。

赵灵敏:您觉得这个事情是偶然还是必然?当然现在它已经发生了,大家可能会找很多理由来证明它是必然的。

王缉思:我觉得肯定有一定的偶然性,但像特朗普这样的人能得到很多支持是一个必然现象,因为美国社会的分裂是已经存在的事实。特朗普的问题是,他不仅要借助社会分裂实现自己利益的最大化,而且还在不遗余力地加深这种分裂,这是比较可怕的地方。

自由主义者对特朗普的指责往往变成人身攻击,把他说得一文不值,他也把反对派骂得一文不值,这个社会就开始出现对立、厌恶和仇恨。我对美国的幻灭感很强,我在1984年第一次去美国时,美国政治斗争是相对理性、文明的,不是现在这样子动不动就破口大骂。

赵灵敏:您觉得美国社会的分化是什么时候发生的?大部分人因为特朗普当选才注意到这一变化,觉得很突然,但肯定有一个发展过程,不是一下子就这样了。

王缉思:美国社会的分化,其实很多年前就出现了,只是人们没有太注意。1992年美国洛杉矶就发生过一起种族骚乱,而且不是在黑人和白人之间,而是在黑人和韩国移民之间。现在美国族群的隔阂是逐渐加深的,排外情绪亦然。

一方面是奥巴马和希拉里所代表的许多黑人和妇女,这些曾经受过压迫的人要树立多元文化主义的政治正确性;另外一些人则正好完全相反,有人甚至是赤裸裸的白人种族主义者。这两个进程是同时发生的,我们往往注意到的是多元文化主义,而轻视了右翼民族主义、种族主义的反弹。1991年我在美国教课时,很注意不要违背“政治正确”,不能对黑人和妇女有歧视性的言论。其实,相反的倾向也同时存在。比如有一个白人女生私下跟我说,“和我同班的一个黑人女孩并不比我穷,也不像我这样勤工俭学,但她却享受优惠奖学金,这太不公平了!”她很反感这种“反向种族歧视”的情况。在此之下,仿佛有两个美国社会,都感到自己受歧视。这两者之间的矛盾,我们一直没有充分注意到。

对政治影响最深的东西可能不是理性而是情感,特朗普及其铁杆支持者就更多地代表了一种情感——他再这样不好那样不好,也还是我们的人,你们越攻击,我就越支持。我对美国的失望也在这里,过去多少高估了美国人民的理性、政治觉悟或者知识水平。

赵灵敏:特朗普上任后的第一次开内阁会议,包括副总统彭斯在内的大部分阁员都争相向他表忠心,极尽谄媚之能事,这让人非常惊讶:这样的事居然能发生在美国?

王缉思:人性在每个地方都差不多,不分党派和人群。特朗普本来也喜欢用听话、忠诚度高的人,这些人为了保住权位,也就投其所好。

赵灵敏:您在美国的同行,大学里研究中美关系的教授,他们怎么看待中美之间的现状?

王缉思:其中有些人认为是特朗普把事情搞砸了,但当我反问,“如果是希拉里•克林顿当选,中美关系会不会比现在好”,他们也回答不出来。支持民主党的人对特朗普现象非常沮丧;共和党人感情上不接受特朗普,但也无可奈何,党派利益优先。同时两党都有一种民族主义情感,认为再怎么样特朗普也是我们美国人的总统,我可以去骂,你去骂就不行。

赵灵敏:中美贸易战爆发后,普遍的看法是美国精英阶层对中国的认识发生了逆转,以前他们认为中国是可以被影响的,现在发现中国所走的道路离美国期待的越来越远,所以放弃了幻想,开始想方设法对付中国,将来即使美国换了总统,也会继续目前这一套对抗的做法。您同意这些看法吗?

王缉思:我基本同意。但还是有一些美国精英认为中国还是有改变的希望的,只是在当下的政治气氛之下,他们不能出来说话,因为一出来说中国好话就会被认为是“熊猫拥抱者”,被怀疑是否收了中国人的钱,这样对自己没有好处,所以宁愿不吭声。还有一些智库是拿政府资金的,如果现在和政府立场不同,替中国说话,会影响它们从政府那里获得资助。当下美国的氛围,不止一个人用“麦卡锡主义”来形容。

赵灵敏:纳瓦罗的观点,到底有多少代表性?

王缉思:不多,但很强有力。因为这种观点迎合了民族主义和民粹主义的风向,真的要从道理上反驳他并不难,但他的观点是基于一种政治正确性,基于一种情绪,去反驳他就和去辩论是否喜欢特朗普一样困难,因为情绪已经形成,正确与否反而不是那么重要了。

美国为什么要发动贸易战?

赵灵敏:特朗普为什么要对中国发动贸易战?是为了打垮中国吗?

王缉思:我所知道的情况是,美国企业家目前还是不想撤出中国,觉得在中国还是可以赚不少钱的。毕竟中国市场大,过去三四十年也已经产生某种路径依赖,况且这么庞大的产业链能转去哪里?可选择的地方并不多。目前这些企业是机会主义的做法,一边对美国政府说要对中国施加压力,另一方面对中国说如果你给了什么优惠政策我就不走了,我觉得还是有很多美国企业是这样的心态,想再等等看。

他们对中国的心情是复杂的,一方面对各种限制政策很不满意,另一方面他们也意识到,这些限制不是只有中国有,很多发展中国家也有类似的限制。你把企业转移到埃及,难道埃及政府就不管你了?想来想去,中国还是不错的,是能赚到钱的,所以要向中国政府施加压力,要求进行改革,开放一些行业允许外资进入。

因此,美国之所以发动贸易战打击中国,并不是想彻底离开中国,完全跟中国“脱钩”,而是想要改变中国的行为,从而赚更多的钱。这是几十年来我观察中美经贸关系得出的结论。不过,美国政府中一些人和一些美国企业,也在做中美脱钩的最坏准备,这是危险的。

赵灵敏:消除一些对美国不利的东西,方便他们更有利地进来,毕竟世界上也没有多少更好的地方值得投资。

王缉思:对。过去因为中国成本低,慢慢把美国的制造业吸引过来了,尽管在这个过程中美国有很多不满,但中美经贸关系还是在不断加强。等到中国积累了经济实力,要发展高技术产业、和美国正面竞争时,美国人才急了。

赵灵敏:除了贸易不平衡之外,美国对中国还有什么不满?

王缉思:还有美国军方的不满。军方是很大的利益集团,前些年它认为中国的军事力量还不足以对美国造成威胁,而且中国也没有想要真正把美国排挤出亚太地区。这两年中国在南海问题上态度很强势,美国开始感觉中国军队的力量已经比以前大了很多,再不对中国施加压力,美国在西太平洋就没有立足点,这部分人是对华政策强硬的重要推手,其中也包括军工利益集团。过去拿恐怖主义说事可以拿到很多军费,还有武器制造和销售的巨大利益链条,现在矛头指向中国之后,安全问题上的矛盾都可以拿来当借口。

此外,在美国的孔子学院使美国人感觉到,中国的价值观和美国不一样,中国在美国宣传中国的价值观,美国人很难接受。中美意识形态矛盾,也表现在中国留美学生、学者身上。

赵灵敏:那美国到底想要什么?是要颠覆中国的制度吗?

王缉思:有人说,中国不进行根本的政治体制改造就不能和美国搞好关系,我不同意这种说法。美国确实有人想要改变中国的根本政治制度,但它的政府和政治主流知道这不现实,做不到。但在一些具体领域,美国人是有诉求的,比如要求中国更加国际化、市场化,增加各个领域的透明度,减少政府对国有企业的补贴,降低对外企技术转让的要求,改变诸如“中国制造2025”等项政策。如果这些方面有所改变的话,美国还是会感觉有希望,至少在朝它希望的方向走。其实中美关系长期以来就是这样,美国要价一直是很高的,我们从来不会全盘接受,双方是要讨价还价的。

赵灵敏:所以有一种说法认为,美国对中国的打压跟我们这几年强势的外交政策有很大关系。

王缉思:我在这里先不做政治道德判断。如果只从因果关系来说,主要是中国的变化引起了美国对华政策的调整。这些年中国实力迅速增强,国际影响拓展很快,强化了领土和海洋上的维权行动,加强了对“台独”等分裂势力的打压,国内加强了共产党的领导。美国对中国的所作所为感到越来越不适应,开始做出强烈的反应。可以预料,美国的反应会越来越激烈,可能由守势转向攻势。

这个因果关系可以往前延伸到1949年和1979年。在这两个时间点,都是中国内政的变化导致了中美关系的巨变。而美国内政的变化向来对中美关系的影响相对比较小。美国换了那么多届总统,国内有那么多次政治风潮,2008年爆发了金融危机,这都是美国的大事,中美关系因此有重大变化吗?并没有。

我十分同意我的同事陶文钊教授的说法,即200多年来,美国对中国的战略目标从来没有变过:一个是商品与资本的自由流动,另一个是信息与价值观的自由流动。中国对这两个目标一直是有保留或者抵制的。我们应该、也有理由批评美国,制约美国,但应当认识到,中国所做的事情改变了中美关系,改变了美国对中国的看法。

赵灵敏:贸易战爆发至今,我们一直说不想战不怕战,指责美国破坏了两国关系,认为我们有体制上的优势,比美国更能扛得住。

王缉思:贸易战是中美关系恶化的征兆和表现,而不是原因。特朗普政府打贸易战是取得民意支持的一种手段,也有一些利益诉求,但是接着打下去对双方都是没有前途的,解决不了什么问题。至于谁更能扛得住,是两国政府间的战略博弈问题,企业算的是经济账。政府最终要是要计算利益得失,用理性方式使双方达成一些妥协,把关系稳定下来。当务之急是止损,防止贸易战或局部矛盾扩大到其他领域,造成中美全面对抗。一旦情感压住了理性,就会出现全面对抗的危险,对此要有心理准备。

进入 王缉思 的专栏     进入专题: 中美贸易战   中美关系

本文责编:川先生
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 国际关系 > 国际关系时评
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/112832.html
文章来源:FT中文网

Posted in Economy 经济, Foreign Relations 外交, Society 社会 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kong Dan: The Chinese Communist Party has Long led the Market Economy; It Needs to Be Good at Controlling capital

[Interesting article, especially the second half.  Lots of boring three thises, the five thats and seven thats in the first half.  Reminds me of what I read in the bad old days.  The numbers never really went away but they were a lot more of  them under Mao, and now the numbers have been coming back.  Different numbers though. Still easier to read than in Mao’s day with Party policy documents with paragraph long sentences and eight or more clauses.
I wonder if frustrations from leaders at the next level down about Xi abolishing term limits could make the role of capital issue a relatively safe issue to challenge Xi on.  Just wondering. ]

 

Kong Dan: The Chinese Communist Party has Long led the Market Economy; It Needs to Be Good at Controlling capital

Ideological Torch March 17

[Intro to the QQ public microblog account of Ideological Torch:]

This public account belongs to the National Cultural Security and Ideological Construction Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Chinese Historical Materialism Society and the Beijing Xifengtang jointly created the “Gathering Together Positive Forces and Spreading Good Ideology” official microblog. Our mission is to promote socialist ideology and promote our country’s mainstream values, safeguard our national security are our mission. We are committed to contributing to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation!

Editor’s Note: Socialism with Chinese characteristics emerged from over 90 years of practice of revolution, construction and reform, as well as the profound historical traditions of the Chinese nation. The Chinese idea is that “the people are what is most precious, society comes next, and the ruler is much less important.” Chinese people say that economy means “supporting the people from generation to generation”. Maintaining the people’s dominant position is the core value of socialism. The Communist Party’s purpose is to serve the people wholeheartedly. The essence of of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China. In a country as big as China, on the Communist Party is capable of maintaining national unity and social stability. Only the Communist Party can lead China down the socialist road. The leadership of the Party is a thread that runs through the entire socialist era.

Pay Close Attention to Important Documents From the Nineteenth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party

The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward, for the first time, the concept of the “new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The Central Economic Work Conference held at the end of last year stated that since the 18th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, we have successfully handled overall economic development. The main ideological fruit of this practice is Xi Jinping’s new era of socialist economic thought with Chinese characteristics. At it core are the Seven Principles to Uphold:

  • Uphold the Party’s leadership over economic work,
  • Uphold development thinking that makes people central,
  • Uphold the principle of mastering and adjusting to the new economic situation,
  • Uphold the principle of handling well the relationship between the government and the market,
  • Uphold the principle of adjusting to the main contradictions and changes in our country’s economic development, improving macroeconomic adjustments, and reforms of the structures for economic supply.
  • Uphold the principle of new problem-oriented economic strategies,
  • Uphold correct work strategies and methods, seeking progress in stability and focusing on the bottom line.

This was another important document issued since the report of the Nineteenth Party Congress.

 Later, on January 30, when the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee held its third collective study session, Comrade Xi Jinping further elaborated on the concept of a “modern economic system” in the report of the 19th Party Congress and the Central Economic Work Conference. He pointed out: building a modern economic system is the strategic goal of China’s development, and it is also urgently needed in order to change China’s mode of China’s development by optimizing the structure of growth and transforming and increasing the impetus for growth. This needs to be discussed in depth. There are seven parts to building a modern economic system:

  • An industrial system of innovation-led and coordinated development,
  • A unified and open, competitive and orderly market system,
  • An efficiency-enhancing, fair-revenue income distribution system,
  • An advantaged and coordinated urban-rural development system.
  • A resource-saving and environment-friendly green development system,
  • A diverse, balanced, safe and efficient comprehensive open system that gives full play to the role of the market and improves the role of the government.
  • Addressing all the links, all the various levels and all the various fields of social and economic activities as a whole.

Understanding the Spirit of the “Three Consistents” of the Central Economic Work Conference

We should attach great importance to and seriously study the important speech delivered by General Secretary Xi at the Central Party School seminar of January 5. In this speech, Comrade Xi Jinping emphasized three “Consistents”:

  • We must consistently insist on socialism with Chinese characteristics must be consistent,
  • We must be consistent in adhering to the great task of building the Communist Party, and
  • We must be consistent in strengthening our sense of urgency and avoiding major hazards.

First of all, General Secretary Xi emphasized that socialism with Chinese characteristics did not fall from the sky. It is derived from the practice of 40 years of reform and opening up. China has been probing and making discoveries that have developed this concept ever since the founding of the People’s Republic of China 69 years ago. It arose from the constant probing and discoveries made by the Communist Party of China during its past 97 years. The historical exploration of the decline and the end of the history of the 5,000 years of Chinese history also contributed to its development.

Socialist ideas with Chinese characteristics are also inseparable from these five sources. General Secretary Xi reviewed the history of the rise and fall of China for thousands of years from a grand historical perspective, reviewed the histories of the Communist Party of Chinese Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and finally came to the historical task of leading the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Comrade Deng Xiaoping said that the persistence and improvement of socialism need continue for several generations, and perhaps for dozens of generations, and the hard work of dozens of generations. Dozens of generations comes to a thousand years. This is looking at history from a very broad perspective.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics emerged from the practice of more than 90 years of revolution, national construction and reform, as well as the profound historical traditions of the Chinese nation. The Chinese concept advocates that “the people are what is most precious, society comes second, and the ruler is not so important.” The Chinese say that the word economy means “sustaining the people from generation to generation.” Upholding the centrality of the people is the core value of socialism. The purpose of the Communist Party is to serve the people wholeheartedly. The essence of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Only the Communist Party can maintain the unity of the country and social stability. Only the Communist Party can lead China down the socialist road. Therefore, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is the thread that runs throughout the socialist era.

General Secretary Xi also pointed out that our party is not only the ruling party, but also the revolutionary party, and a party that is constantly revolutionizing itself. We must consistently insist on the great task of building the Communist Party.

Finally, we need to cultivate a sense of urgency and avoid major hazards. General Secretary Xi cited a number of risks in many different areas. Regarding economic risks, first, the world economy is recovering slowly, protectionism is on the rise, and Sino-US economic and trade frictions will continue over the long-term. The United States is launching a “301 investigation” against China and is using sanctions against China. Second, the interaction between China’s domestic finance and international finance are becoming closer and more frequent. Since 2008, the overall debt level in the West has been high, and the leverage ratio has continued to rise. Now they are gradually moving away from their policy of unconventional quantitative easing. This will increase global asset flows and result in a new allocation of assets.

The risk of spillover effects from their domestic monetary and fiscal policies has intensified and so we must pay attention to international financial security. The third is the domestic debt problem. In the past few years, we have effectively reduced the risk by taking various measures. However, we must continue to issue warnings about risk in this areas; the risk of failure of small and medium-sized financial institutions has risen along with the possibility of bond defaults. Shadow banking is difficult to supervise, and the real estate market is tightly linked to the financial markets. Household debt is heavy there is a great deal of large hidden local hidden debt. Major changes are likely to occur. Fourth, China’s opening up to the outside world and the construction of the “Belt and Road” have affected relevant overseas strategic interests around the world. However, instability, uncertainty, and geopolitical changes in the world poses risks to our strategic interests.

General Secretary Xi’s speech on January 5 was directly related to his “Three Tough Battles” at the Economic Work Conference. The first of the Three Tough Battles is to guard against major risks, including implicit debt and the vulnerability of financial institutions.

Ever since the policy of reform and opening up began, the Chinese Communist Party has faced a new challenge: how to effectively supervise the market economy and in particular, how to control capital. I would like to make a few points: First, about capital issues. What is the logic of capital? The Communist Manifesto states that since the capitalist society must be divided into two distinct classes of capitalists and proletarians, capitalism must inevitably produce its own grave-diggers, so the historical logic of capitalist development must end in the elimination of private ownership. But they did not realize that it would take thousands of years for socialism to develop. This is an extremely long process. In the process of unfolding of the logic of the development of capital, complicated situations have arisen. For China, just as it did for the former Soviet Union, this historical process has had its frustrations and its ups and downs.

During this process, the Communist Party of China must lead the market economy for a long time but the nature of the Communist Party itself and its values are revolutionary. Although some people are very disgusted with those who are bringing up the topic of revolution again, the Party’s ultimate goal is the elimination of private ownership. However, our market economy currently includes a very large non-public sector economy. Capital is at the core of the market economy. The values of capital and those of the Communist Party are at odds.

The nature of capital is value-added, capital is the soul of the capitalists. Capitalists are merely the embodiment of capital. Its value orientation is the pursuit of personal interests or the interests of market entities. So within the logic of capitalism lies its ability to digest socialism. The challenge we face today is serious. As far as the actual operations are concerned, we continue to talk about the positive role of capital, but the negative effects of capital are rarely mentioned. More than three years ago, when I was interviewed on the Shuipi Forum, I said that capital should be kept in a cage. In 2015, at the root of the stock market disaster was capital, both foreign capital and domestic capital. Therefore, we must maintain our whip hand over capital, not only to take advantage of its positive role, but also to effectively control and constrain its extremely negative effects. This is a great challenge for our Party.

Second, on the relationship between the respective roles of the government and the market. There are two possibilities: the combination of the government and the market is “market mechanisms are effective: vitality at the micro economic level and appropriate controls at the macro level”. The bad combination is that market mechanisms do not play a role, the there is no vitality at the micro economic level and control at the macro level is either absent or excessive. If market controls are not done properly, the latter situation may also occur.

The fundamental idea of the so-called “market faction” is that China should further marketize. They always think that “loosening” has not gone far enough. First, the report of the 18th National Congress clearly pointed out that the overall goal of the reform is to promote the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, rather than the “marketization” that some people, oversimplifying, this is the goal. Moreover, just what is “appropriate”? We have forty years of experience and lesson about this. When the two mesh well, the economy develops smoothly and the situation is better than it is in the West. Of course, the government has frequently intervened and the enterprises have not been able to realize their full potential. People who run enterprises naturally want to see them realize their full potential. However, the combination of the three do not mesh property. The degree of macro-control “degree” is wrong problems also arise because of a disorderly market. Therefore looking at it from a control perspective, this is a very difficult problem.

In short, we need to clearly understand the problem of capital and strictly control it. Economic operations work better when the role of government and market mechanisms mesh well. When they don’t, economic operations don’t do well.

(Author: Kong Dan, chairman of the CITIC [note: formerly known as China International Trust Investment Corporation. CITIC is a state-owned investment company] Reform and Development Research Foundation)

 


孔丹:中国共产党长期领导市场经济,必须善于管控资本

思想火炬 3月17日

 

本公众号是中国社会科学院国家文化安全与意识形态建设研究中心、中国历史唯物主义学会和北京习风堂联合打造的“凝聚正能量、传播好思想”官微,以弘扬社会主义意识形态、宣传国家主流价值观、维护国家安全为己任,致力于为实现中华民族的伟大复兴而贡献力量!

  编者按:中国特色社会主义来自于我们90多年革命、建设和改革的实践,同样也来自中华民族深厚的历史传统。中华观念崇尚“民为贵,社稷次之,君为轻”,中国人说的经济就是“经世济民”。坚持人民主体地位正是社会主义的核心价值,共产党的宗旨就是全心全意为人民服务。中国特色社会主义的本质特征是中国共产党的领导,中国这么大一个国家,只有共产党才能维护国家的统一和社会的安定。只有共产党才能领导中国走社会主义道路,所以党的领导是贯穿整个社会主义时代的。

关注十九大以来的几个重要文件

党的十九大报告第一次提出了“新时代中国特色社会主义思想”。去年年底召开的中央经济工作会议提出,十八大以来我们成功驾驭了经济发展大局,在实践中形成了以新发展理念为主要内容的习近平新时代中国特色社会主义经济思想。它的核心内容是“七个坚持”:坚持党对经济工作的领导,坚持以人民为中心的发展思想,坚持适应把握引领经济发展新常态,坚持处理好政府和市场关系,坚持适应我国经济发展主要矛盾变化,完善宏观调控、推进供给侧结构性改革,坚持问题导向部署经济发展新战略,坚持正确工作策略和方法、稳中求进和底线思维。这是继十九大报告之后的又一个重要文件。

此后1月30日,中共中央政治局进行第三次集体学习时,习近平同志就十九大报告和中央经济工作会议中提出的“现代化经济体系”概念做了进一步阐述。他指出:建设现代化经济体系是我国发展的战略目标,也是转变发展方式、优化结构和转换增长动力的迫切要求,需要深入探讨。现代化经济体系的建设包括七个部分:创新引领、协同发展的产业体系,统一开放、竞争有序的市场体系,体现效率、促进公平的收入分配体系,彰显优势、协调联动的城乡区域发展体系,资源节约、环境友好的绿色发展体系,多元平衡、安全高效的全面开放体系,充分发挥市场作用、更好发挥政府作用的经济体制。这是由社会经济活动各环节、各层面、各领域相互联系构成的整体。

结合“三个一以贯之”理解中央经济工作会议精神

我们应高度重视和认真学习习总书记在1月5日在中央党校研讨班发表的重要讲话。在这个讲话中,习近平同志强调了三个“一以贯之”:坚持中国特色社会主义要一以贯之,坚持党的建设的伟大工程要一以贯之,增强忧患意识、防范重大风险要一以贯之。

首先,习总书记强调,中国特色社会主义不是从天上掉下来的,是源自于改革开放40年的实践,来自建国69年来的探索,来自中国共产党97年的探索,来自中国近代170年由衰转盛的历史探索,最后落到中华5000年的历史。中国特色社会主义思想同样也离不开这五个来源。习总书记以宏大的历史眼光回顾了中华几千年兴衰更替的历史,回顾了中国共产党和苏联共产党的历史,最后落到党领导中国特色社会主义伟大事业这一历史任务。当年邓小平同志说过:坚持和完善社会主义要经过几代人、十几代人、几十代人的努力。而几十代人就是上千年。这是极高的历史站位。

中国特色社会主义来自于我们90多年革命、建设和改革的实践,同样也来自中华民族深厚的历史传统。中华观念崇尚“民为贵,社稷次之,君为轻”,中国人说的经济就是“经世济民”。坚持人民主体地位正是社会主义的核心价值,共产党的宗旨就是全心全意为人民服务。中国特色社会主义的本质特征是中国共产党的领导,中国这么大一个国家,只有共产党才能维护国家的统一和社会的安定。只有共产党才能领导中国走社会主义道路,所以党的领导是贯穿整个社会主义时代的。

习总书记同时指出,我们党不但是执政党,而且是革命党,还要自我革命。坚持党的建设的伟大工程一以贯之。

最后是增强忧患意识、防范重大风险要一以贯之。习总书记列举了很多方面的多种风险。关于经济方面的风险,一是世界经济复苏缓慢,保护主义内顾倾向抬头,中美经贸摩擦将是长期的,美国正在发起对华“301调查”,动辄对我国使用制裁手段。二是我国金融和国际金融之间的互动更加紧密和频繁,2008年以来西方整体债务水平高企,杠杆率持续攀升,现在它们逐步退出非常规量宽政策,这将带来全球资产流动加速和资产重新配,他们的货币政策和财政政策形成的风险外溢效应加剧,我们要注意国际金融安全。三是国内债务问题,这些年我们通过多种措施有效降低了风险,但是这方面的风险警报不能解除;中小金融机构风险上升,债券违约可能性变大,影子银行业务难以监管,房地产市场高度金融化,不少家庭债务负担沉重,地方隐性债务不小,很可能发生重大变化。四是我国对外开放和“一带一路”建设,在全球各地形成了相关的海外战略利益,但是由于世界不稳定、不确定,以及地缘政治变动,给我们战略利益带来风险。

习总书记1月5日的讲话和他在经济工作会议讲的“三个攻坚战”是直接相联系的。三大攻坚战中第一个就是防范重大风险,其中包括隐性债务,以及金融机构的脆弱性。

 

中国共产党长期领导市场经济,必须善于管控资本

改革开放以后,中国共产党面对一个新的挑战,就是面对市场经济,如何进行有效监管,尤其是如何管控资本。我谈几点感想:一是关于资本问题。资本的逻辑是什么?《共产党宣言》讲,由于资本主义社会必然分化为资本家和无产者这两个截然不同的阶级,资本主义必然产生出自己的掘墓人,所以资本主义发展的历史逻辑就是消灭私有制。但他们也没有想到社会主义要发展上千年,这是一个极其漫长的过程。资本的逻辑在展开的过程中,出现了复杂的情况,走到像中国,像前苏联这样,历史过程是有挫折和起伏的。

在这个过程中,中国共产党要长期领导市场经济,而共产党本身的性质和它的价值观是革命的,尽管有人对重提革命党非常反感,但党的终极目标就是消灭私有制。但现在的情况是,我们市场经济中含有大量非公经济,市场经济的一个核心的东西是资本。资本和共产党的价值观是有内在悖论的。

资本的本性是增值,资本是资本家的灵魂,资本家不过是资本的人格化。它的价值取向是极其追求个人利益或市场主体的利益。所以资本的逻辑含有对社会主义的消解能力。今天我们面对的挑战是严重的。就现实运行看,我们不断地讲资本的正面作用,但是资本的负面作用则很少提及。三年多前,我在接受水皮访谈时就说过,应该把资本关到笼子里。2015年股灾在其中兴风作浪的就是资本,包括外国资本和国内资本。所以我们要驾驭资本,既要把它的正面作用发挥出来,又要对它极强的负面作用进行有效的控制和管制,这是对我们党的一个极大的挑战。

第二,关于政府的作用和市场作用的关系。这有两种可能:政府和市场好的结合是“市场机制有效、微观主体有活力、宏观调控有度”,而坏的结合就是市场机制发挥不出作用,微观主体没活力,宏观调控或过度或缺位。搞得不好,后一种情况也可能出现。

现在所谓“市场派”的基本看法就是中国应该进一步市场化,总是认为“放”得还不到位。首先,十八大报告就明确指出,改革的总目标是推进国家治理体系和治理能力的现代化,而不是现在很多人简单理解的“市场化”。另外,什么叫“到位”?40年的经验和教训都有,二者结合好的时候经济发展顺利,情况比西方好。当然政府也有不少过多干预,企业的主体作用发挥不出来。搞企业的肯定希望主体要活起来。但是三者结合得不好,宏观调控“度”出问题,市场无序,也很成问题。所以从管控目标看,还是很艰巨的。

总之,资本的问题必须认识清楚,严格管控;经济运行中政府作用和市场机制二者结合得好就是优势,结合得不好就是劣势。

(作者:孔丹,中信改革发展研究基金会理事长)

Posted in Economy 经济 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wu Xiaoping Controversy: Time for China to Move Away from Market Economy?

A prof at Renmin University told me in the late 1990s that some people argued in the 1970s that China needed to go backwards from socialism to a market economy in order to achieve communism since market->socialism rather than a Maoist leap of feudalism-> socialism was the way Marx said it had to go.

The October 6th Economist carried an article on the Wu Xiaoping 吴小平  controversy that seemed almost an echo of that kind of thinking.

So I looked into Wu Xiaoping.

Wu Xiaoping sounds like an eccentric character with a deep background in finance.  Not the sort of person one would expect to lead the state enterprise counter-revolution.

Wu Xiaoping’s statement was discussed on some Chinese language BBS about three weeks ago.  I found some comments on a BBS outside of China in Canada that cover a gamut of responses to Wu Xiaoping.  Some though it was a trial balloon for coming policy, some thought moving away from the market was already underway, some thought it was nonsense.

https://www.pin-cong.com/p/130890/?i=1  (bbs with server in Canada)

—- “But do you think about it a bit more deeply, isn’t this a political correctness that is in line with the current political trend of the Communist Party?  He is too straightforward, that might cause a panic, and so he is pulled back.

But already the entrepreneurs have expressed their intention to dedicate the company to the Party. They wear funny red uniforms to go to Yan’an pilgrimage. What is the difference?   

The political atmosphere has already been shaped. Today, any official within the Communist Party, the political machine itself, the countless political screws who have experienced the anti-rightist cultural revolution, they will be very careful about their own political future political security. ….”

—“This shows that the CCP is testing the public’s response to the next step of public ownership. At the end of the 1940s, on the eve of the seizure of state power, the CCP advertised freedom and democracy and praised the United States because of its status as an opposition party. Today,  they care nothing about democracy and freedom, they are trying to move to communism to consolidate their dominant position.”

— “What nonsense!”

—-“…[summary] Wu Xiaoping is very clever.  If he had directly criticized Xi Jinping for preparing to move China from a market to a mixed economy, his statement would have been deleted immediately. However, he pretended to be strongly in favor of the supposed Xi policy.  That way his statement was not deleted, made quite a racket, and the propaganda organs and Xi had to reaffirm their commitment to reform, therefore forestalling their move away from reform.”

————————————

Hu Ping’s Radio Free Asia commentary of Sept 14, 2018  notes that Wu Xiaoping argument was swiftly contradicted by the PRC state media, adding that the storm that it created shows that many people doubt Xi’s commitment to economic reform due to some measures he has taken to strengthen state-owned enterprises.

https://www.economist.com/china/2018/10/06/a-chinese-writer-calls-for-private-companies-to-fade-away?

So long, and thanks for all the growthA Chinese writer calls for private companies to fade away

The state sector sees its fortunes rise under Xi Jinping

A sense that SOEs are ascendant was captured in an online article that went viral last month. Wu Xiaoping, a former banker, wrote that the private sector had completed its “historic task” in helping state firms to develop, and that it was time for it to start fading away. Mr Wu’s opinion was widely ridiculed online. His post was deleted, perhaps because even censors thought it was over the top. One associate said Mr Wu had only intended it as satire. Whatever the case, his argument touched a nerve. Mr Xi may think that he is taking a middle road, but suspicions of his intentions abound.”

I found an article about Wu Xiaoping online from the Phoenix (Fenghuang) Web network had picked up from a Chinese energy industry publication.
 

Who is this Wu Xiaoping who Suggests that China Abandon the Private Enterprise Economy?

Source: Green Power Trading
Today’s article is not about energy, but about a topic that frightens energy industry people.
Yesterday, a man named Wu Xiaoping screamed the slogan of a departed angry ghost.  This was the slogan he yelled. It was quickly deleted.

 Wu Xiaoping: The private sector economy has already completed its historic task of assisting the development of the state economy. Now it should gradually disappear.Wu Xiaoping 16 hours ago 19,000 commentsOver the glorious course of the history of China’s reform and opening, the private economy has already completed its great epochal historic responsibility to help the state sector economy make a leap forward. During the next stage, it will not be easy for the private economy to continue to its heedless expansion. A completely new situation, which will require an economy that is more centralized and more unified economy, and one that is much more of a mixed private-state economy. This mixed economy may well account for a larger and larger proportion of the socialist market economy society in its new stage of development.  

 
We don’t talk about the topic itself, because everyone understands it.Today, we will do some digging to figure our just who is this guy Wu Xiaoping with his wild ideas!In the headline of his article, he introduced himself as a senior financial person who had participated in the creation of China International Capital Corporation Limited (CICC)’s retail business and wealth management department as executive general manager. Now he works on finance and Internet corporate entrepreneurship.He also gave himself several eye-catching roles – financial critic, business observer, celebrity in the online finance industry, Cheung Kong Business School alumni, visiting professor at Zhejiang University, and one of the founders of the investment banking CICC retail business and wealth management business. He was the co-founder of China’s largest Internet fundraising financial company.

According to media reports, Wu Xiaoping loved reading from a young age. When he was 6 years old, he looked at the Napoleonic Code in his father’s study. He didn’t go to the toilet without taking a book. He also has a strong memory. He could draw a world map with more than 200 country names with their capitals. At the time of the college entrance examination, he applied to the Chinese Literature Department of Peking University. He only switched to finance because his parents worried that “Peking University students were too restless.”

Wu Xiaoping

In 1993, 18-year-old Wu Xiaoping was admitted to the Finance Department of the Central University of Finance and Economics as the top scorer on the Nantong College Entrance Examination.

After graduating from college, for the sake of getting a Beijing household registration, Wu Xiaoping spent eight years at a pharmaceutical company, rotating through many departments. During this period, he changed four departments from finance, securities, general manager’s office to pharmaceutical production base.

Wu Xiaoping decided to go to the business school to finish up his education, so in 2004 he went to the Yangtze River Business School MBA where he got himself gold-plated. After leaving the Yangtze River, Wu Xiaoping successfully entered a multinational commercial bank to do derivatives business.

According to media reports, one year later, thanks to the support of the sales team of the China-Guangzhou Beijing sales team, Wu Xiaoping switched to the institutional sales department of CICC, and began working in the financial field.

He went through ups and downs there. After he leaving CICC, he co-founded of Mi Niu. This is a peer-to-peer platform, handing both stock funds and financial management.

In 2016, after the stock market crash, Mi Niu was investigated and sanctioned by the Securities and Futures Commission and was fined 64 million RMB.

He also has another corporate role as Hexun.com COO and is a strategic consultant to some other companies.

He has also been a co-CEO of Quartet Financial (Quarter), but we have not confirmed it.

Last month, Guo Zhenzhou, the financial boss of Kwaike, surrendered himself to the Shanghai Huangpu Public Security Bureau. Guo confessed to the criminal facts of illegally taking public deposits. As of July 31, 2018, the cumulative volume of Kwaike Finance was 15.6 billion RMB, and the balance to be paid was 3.8 billion RMB.

He recently made another posting that grabbed headline attention: “The value of the Bingduoduo online sales company is almost US $24 dollars. In time, the market value of this company will surpass Jingdong? Then why are consumer companies of A-shares unable to obtain valuation upgrades?”

Wu Xiaoping, what do you say?


Wu Xiaoping isn’t the only one writing about China moving away from the market economy.  The Phoenix web network in March 2018 published another article “Kong Dan: The Party’s Ultimate Goal is to Get Rid of Private Ownership So it Had Better Get to be Good at Managing Capital”  孔丹:党的终极目标是消灭私有制,必须善于管控资本 Private enterprise is a far larger proportion (the Economist recently put it at 80%) of the Chinese economy than the state-owned enterprises that once dominated China in the days of Mao Zedong.

建议中国私营经济退出的吴小平是谁?

2018-09-12 17:24:40
来源: 绿色电力交易

来源:绿色电力交易

今天这篇文章,并非谈能源,但是话题让能源人也胆颤心惊。

昨天,一位叫吴小平的人,喊出了惊天地泣鬼神的口号,口号如下,然后很快被删掉了。

资料图

我们不谈这个话题本身,因为所有人都懂。

今天,我们就来挖一挖这个叫吴小平的人是何方神圣!

在头条上,他是这样介绍自己的——资深金融人士,曾参与创建中金公司零售业务及财富管理部,任执行总经理。现投身互联网金融创业。

他还给自己弄了几个响当当的身份——金融评论家、商业观察家、网络金融界知名人士,长江商学院校友,浙大客座教授,投资银行中金公司零售业务及财富管理业务创立者之一,中国最大互联网配资金融公司联合创始人。

根据媒体公开报道,吴小平从小酷爱读书,6岁时就翻看父亲书房的拿破仑法典,不拿书就不去上厕所。他也有着极强的记忆力,能够随手画世界地图,200多个国名和首都一个不错。高考时,他原本要报考北大中文系,只因父母担心“读北大的人不安分”,才改投金融。

吴小平

吴小平

1993年,18岁的吴小平作为南通高考状元考入中央财经大学金融系。

大学毕业后,为了北京户口,吴小平在一家药企与瓶瓶罐罐打了足足八年交道。这期间,从财务、证券、总经理办公室到医药生产基地,他换了四个部门。

吴小平决定读商学院来完成人生的转变,于是2004年去长江商学院MBA镀了个金。离开长江后,吴小平顺利进入一家跨国商业银行做衍生品业务。

根据媒体报道,一年后,得益于当时中金北京销售团队负责人支持,吴小平跳槽到中金公司机构销售业务部,从此开始了他在金融领域风生水起的人生历程。

对,是风生水起。他从中金公司出来后,成为米牛网的联合创始人,这是一个P2P平台,一头做股票配资,一头做理财。

2016年,股灾之后,米牛网被证监会查处并罚没6400万。

他还有一个身份,和讯网COO,然后给了一些公司做所谓的战略顾问。

网上流传他也曾是夸客金融(夸客优富)的联席CEO,但是我们未能确认。

上个月,夸客金融老板郭震洲已向上海黄浦公安局投案自首。郭交代了非法吸收公众存款的犯罪事实。截至2018年7月31日,夸客金融累计成交量为156亿,待偿余额38亿。

刚刚他发了一个头条号:“拼多多竟然已经接近24美元了。假以时日,这家公司的市值将超越京东?那为什么A股的消费类企业无法获得估值提升?”

吴小平,你说为什么呢?

Posted in Economy 经济 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Biggest Lie: Democracy is Not Suitable for China

   While working in China, I often heard officials say and read in the media that democracy is not suitable for China.  That always puzzled me.  It felt like Chinese racism against Chinese people.

   I found this article on the FT Chinese website by wangchdq of Heilongjiang Province, the author of two other short comment-article I shared recently here on my blog. FTChinese has many intriguing articles and comments from China about China.

   As a Twitter colleague warned me today, people who go to the FTChinese website are Chinese intellectuals and some five-centers (Party running dog web agitprop folks paid a pittance for their patriotic services) and not a representative sample of the Chinese nation.   FT的中文讀者群是知識分子居多,外加一些五毛黨。在中國社會的標本意義不大。中下階層不會看FT。 Certainly true, still trying some ideas on for size can enlighten even if they are not necessarily representative.

   As the article concludes Wangchdq favors a gradual opening up of the state to political participation.  Perhaps something like what Taiwan did  — in the 50s opponents were executed; in the 60s they were merely given long prison terms; in the late 70s some independent candidates were allowed and then in the 80s ending of martial law and multiparty democracy and press freedom.

   The Taiwan political situation was different from what it is now on the mainland — in Taiwan, the KMT “mainlanders” were only a small part of the population and of the military relative to the ethnic Taiwans who had been their for generations, so the pressure to democratize must have been more urgent  to those in power because of those special circumstances different from those of the PRC on mainland China today.

   Wangchdq’s comment-article reminded me of Chengdu writer Ran Yunfei’s article of ten years ago  2008: Ran Yunfei: “Where Will the Fear End? A Talk that Could Not Be Delivered”.


The Biggest Lie: Democracy is Not Suitable for China

by wangchdq of Heilongjiang Province, PRC

Chinese officials’ biggest lie over the past century is that the democratic system is not suitable for China. Their biggest lie is that only dictatorship is suitable for China. In order to preserve her position and personal advantages, the Empress Dowager Cixi rejected constitutional monarchy; in order to preserve his position and personal advantages, Yuan Shikai restored the monarchy; in order to protect his position and personal advantage, Sun Yat-sen created his theory of the stages of military government, tutelage government, and constitutional government; in order to protect his position and personal advantage, Chiang Kai-shek created “one political party, one leader, one ideology, and one army”; in order to protect his position and personal advantages, Mao Zedong established socialism; in order to protect his position and personal advantage, Deng Xiaoping created the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics; in order to protect their positions and personal advantages, the leaders of the generation of educated youth sent down to the countryside during the Cultural Revolution got rid of term limits for top leaders.

In order to demonize and oppose the democratic system, Chinese officials use the excuse that the democratic system will cause social chaos as an argument against democracy. Chinese officials dare not say that because they did not establish a democratic system, ordinary people cannot elect officials, and therefore officials do not speak for and act for the benefit of ordinary people.

Moreover, the cost of maintaining social stability under socialism with Chinese characteristics has actually surpassed military expenditures. The ordinary people have always suffered hardships. The ordinary people have been oppressed by officials. The ordinary people cannot even say whatever they like. The ordinary people have not yet been able to live in justice and freedom.

Sun Yat-sen believed of the poor education and character of Chinese people in his time that they were temporarily unable to exercise their right to be masters of the state. As a result, the Nationalist government led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was needed to educate the people and improve their characters in order to develop the minds of the people. The ultimate goal of the training was to achieve the stage of building the Republic of China into a democratic country, that is, “constitutional government.” On January 29, 1923, Sun Yat-sen published a “The History of the Chinese Revolution” in the special issue of the 50th Anniversary of the “Declaration”, saying: “In the Revolution, in addition to destroying the enemy’s forces, one must pay attention to the cultivation of the capacity of the nation’s citizens.  In essence, the strategy of the Revolution has three stages: the first is the military government period, the second is the tutelage stage during which the capacity of the citizen is built up, and the third is the constitutional period.”

When Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Government issued the first constitutional document, it became clear that the principles were that party takes on the role of government and that the highest authority of the Nationalist Party was thus the highest authority of the government. The Party directly organized the government. The leaders of all government agencies in the central government were chosen by the by the KMT Central Executive Committee. The power to formulate, amend and interpret the law, and the decision-making power of all legislative principles were all exercised by the party’s institutions. Party decisions were legally binding. The state administrative decision-making power was also a party institution. The central government itself has no right to decide major issues. Everything was subject to the party’s institutions; the government itself was just a tool for the one-party dictatorship.

However, at the same time, the law also clearly guarantees the people’s rights and freedoms of religion, free association, speech, to petition, and privacy communications. It was a big improvement over the previous “political program.” Although the Kuomintang took the responsibility being “the nanny of the tutelage government”, the Kuomintang’s theory of political tutelage was strongly attacked from the beginning. The voices of people opposed to “one-party dictatorship” and “the Party ruling the state” and demanding “returning government to the people” were heard throughout the period.

The three-stage theory of military government, a period of tutelage, and full constitutionalism was very controversial. Supporters believed that it was the only way for China to democratize. Because of the lack of democratic experience, the China might have a constitution in name only, but they could not effectively implement the constitution. The constitution would be taken advantage of by a particular political faction or strongman.

A representative voice of the opponents was Hu Shih: “We can understand that Mr. Sun Yat-sen’s claims that a period of tutelage is necessary because he does not trust the Chinese people’s ability to participate in politics;” “The training the people need is civic life under the Constitution. The government and the party departments need training under in political life under the rule of law. ”

If a small number of people control politics, they will never allow the people to get training in modern politics. The most effective political training is to gradually open up political power and let the people get some experience in politics. To be blunt, if someone wants to learn how to swim, they must first go into the water. Those who learn to play the piano must first have a piano. Constitutionalism is the best training for constitutionalism. It turns out that Hu Shih was right. Sun Yat-sen merely used the military and political constitutional government as an excuse to oppose democratic reform. Chiang Kai-shek also used the theory of the three stage of military government, tutelage and then full constitutional government as an excuse to oppose democratic reform.

They did this to preserve the positions and personal advantages of Sun Yat-sen and of Chiang Kai-shek. Today the purpose of Chinese officials’ opposition to democratic reform is the same as that of Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek – in order to preserve their own positions and benefits. The poor education and character of ordinary people is also a good excuse for Chinese officials to oppose reforms that would establish a democratic system of government. Compared with the Chinese officials, Sun Yat-sen and even Chiang Kai-shek’s thinking was more progressive.

In socialist China, the people with have power, have money and have education rush to emigrate to the United States. The poor and the ignorant believe in Mao Zedong-style socialist equality make a pilgrimage to his Memorial Hall, believe that China’s wise leaders can solve their problems and so bring their petitions to the Petitioning Bureaus. Experts and scholars who support socialism traffick their lies on television and in the newspapers. Official official websites forbid netizens who support Western-style democracy and democratic institutions from speaking out. These websites do not display postings supporting Western-style democracy and democratic institutions. They only display statements in support of Chinese officials and of socialism.

Chinese officials say, on behalf of ordinary people, that only socialism is suitable for China, and Chinese officials say, again on behalf of ordinary people, that democracy is not suitable for China.

From the Financial Times Chinese language website http://www.ftchinese.com/profiles/wangchdq/comments


 

wangchdq 的个人评论中心

wangchdq在FT中文网公开发表的评论 (1091条)

2018-10-08 22:36:18对 儒教与西化,传统与现代——韩国国旗隐含的教育奥秘 的评论近百年来中国官员最大的谎言就是民主制度不适于中国,近百年来中国官员最大的谎言就是只有独裁适于中国。为了保住位子和好处慈禧拒绝君主立宪;为了保住位子和好处袁大头恢复帝制;为了保住位子和好处孙文弄出军政、训政、宪政;为了保住位子和好处蒋介石弄出“一个政党、一个领袖、一个主义、一个军队”;为了保住位子和好处毛泽东弄出社会主义;为了保住位子和好处邓小平弄出特色社会主义;为了保住位子和好处知青一代领导弄出可以无限连任的事。为了丑化和反对民主制度,中国官员用民主制度会造成社会混乱作为借口反对改成民主制度,中国官员不敢提的是因为没有改成民主制度,普通人民不能选举官员,官员不为普通人民说话和办事,特色社会主义下的维稳费用竟然超过了军费,普通人民一直生活困苦,普通人民一直受到官员的欺压,普通人民连话都不能随便说,普通人民到现在还没过上公平自由日子。

2018-10-08 21:20:37对 中国央行下调存款准备金率 的评论孙中山认为以当时中国国民的素质水平,暂时无法行使作为国家主人权力的能力,因此需要由中国国民党领导国民政府对国民的素质进行训练、教导,以开化民心。训政的最终目的就是实现将中华民国最终建设为民主的国家,即”宪政”的阶段。1923年1月29日,孙中山于《申报》五十周年纪念专刊上发表《中国革命史》一文,称:“从事革命者,于破坏敌人势力之外,不能不兼注意于国民建设能力之养成,此革命方略之所以必要也。余之革命方略,规定革命进行之时期为三:第一为军政时期,第二为训政时期,第三为宪政时期。”
到了蒋介石国民政府发布第一部宪法性文件,明确了以党代政原则,国民党最高权力机构即是国家最高权力机构。政府由党直接组织,中央所有政府机构领导官员皆由国民党中央执行委员会选任;法律的制定、修正和解释权,一切立法原则的决定权,均由党的机构执掌,党的决议具有法律效力;国家行政决策权亦属党的机构,中央政府本身无权决定重大问题,一切听命于党的机构,政府为一党专政的工具。但同时,约法也明确保障了人民的宗教、结社、言论、请愿、秘密通信的权利和自由,比起此前的《训政纲领》是一大进步。
尽管国民党以“训政保姆”自任,但训政伊始,国民党的训政理论就遭到了强烈攻击,反对“一党专政”、“以党治国”,要求“还政于民”的批评声不绝于耳。
军政、训政、宪政三阶段理论充满了争议,支持者认为这是中国民主化的必由道路,中国人由于缺乏民主经验,空有宪法之名,但无法有效履行宪法,反而会被某一政治集团或强人利用。反对者以胡适为代表:“我们可以明白中山先生的主张训政,只是因为他根本不信任中国人民参政的能力”;“人民需要的训练是宪法之下的公民生活。政府与党部诸公需要的训练是法治之下的政治生活。 “绝少数的人把持政治的权利是永不会使民众得着现代政治的训练的。最有效的政治训练,是逐渐放开政权,使人民亲身参加政治里得到一点政治训练。说句老实话,学游泳的人必须先下水,学弹琴的人必须先有琴弹。宪政是宪政的最好训练。”事实证明还是胡适对的,孙中山只是以军政训政宪政作为借口反对改成民主制度,蒋介石也是以军政训政宪政作为借口反对改成民主制度,以此保住孙中山和蒋介石的位子和好处,现在中国官员反对改成民主制度的目的与孙中山和蒋介石一样,都是为了保住位子和好处,而且普通人民素质低也是中国官员反对改成民主制度的一个好借口,相比较现在中国官员甚至不如孙中山和蒋介石的思想先进。
Posted in History 历史, Politics 政治 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment