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)

























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。











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

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

My Student Reported on Me!


 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!




 凡人钒语 凡人钒语 3天前

日瓦戈医生孔祥玉 – 钢琴恋曲2002





























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


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.


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 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






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。






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。












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.


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



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)




























































进入 王缉思 的专栏     进入专题: 中美贸易战   中美关系

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

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)



思想火炬 3月17日























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.


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.


2018-09-12 17:24:40
来源: 绿色电力交易























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。”
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