Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A636-W397
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A636-W397
Release
Date: June 26, 2011
发布日：2011年6月26日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We
Must be Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to
Struggle Against Another -- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之三十八：广州增城事件与2009年的乌鲁木齐事件一样，是中共挑动群众斗群众的典型 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
Note:
Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese
parts of this release. If this
mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request
for special delivery to us or visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2011/report2011-06/WeiJS110626ChinaWayOut38groupstruggleA636-W397.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We Must be
Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to
Struggle Against Another
--
Wei Jingsheng
Recently,
there was a large-scale riot that took place in Zengcheng of Guangzhou. The Zengcheng riot was a
super-freak. Initially a
result of economic exploitation,
the Communist government quickly turned it into a group struggle. The way the government handled the
incident proves that it relies on a social policy of the Mao Zedong era: to
incite one group of the masses to struggle against another. That is the Government uses the
differences between different groups of the society to expand the conflict, to
provoke emotions, and to use the "people who got rich first" to suppress
other groups of people. It is the
same method used during the Cultural Revolution: cause one faction to struggle
against other factions; incite one group of people to fight against other
groups of people. It is a common
practice of authoritarian rulers for maintaining their political stability.
The
center of the recent riots, Guangdong's Zengcheng area, is a typical
export-oriented economic manufacturing zone. Rapid economic development in this region resulted in a
demand for a massive labor force.
Large numbers of laborers moved in, forming whole new towns. In a democratic country where people
have equal rights, such new towns provide equal opportunities to everyone. Although there will be gaps between rich
and poor, and differences between local and migrant populations, equal
opportunity weakens the differences.
The opportunities will not favor one group over another and thus magnify
the differences between different groups.
A responsible government will also take some measures to reduce the
sense of differences between groups.
This is a basic policy for maintaining social stability.
However,
the Chinese Communist Party's policy does just the opposite. Since the Mao Zedong era, the Communist
Party's basic policy has been to create differences between people, and to
expand the differences between groups.
The Chinese Communist regime uses discrimination among the people to
achieve its purpose of dividing people up and thus maintaining rule over them
separately. It is why, despite the
coat of so-called communism which was supposed to be a society without classes,
Mao Zedong had to emphasize the class struggle instead. On the surface, the Chinese Communist
Party eliminated class, yet on the other side, it highlights class struggle as
its principle. Borrowing the
sarcastic tune of the Chinese people, it is called: when there is no
difficulty, we must manufacture difficulties for ourselves; when there is no
class, we must manufacture classes for the purpose of class struggle. For the Communist government, when
there are no factions, it will manufacture factions for them to fight against
each other. This is indeed the
magical weapon that Mao Zedong was skillful in using to play tricks against all
the Chinese people.
Many
people say that Deng Xiaoping carried out economic reforms, but not political
ones. In fact, this statement is
not entirely correct. The economy
is part of the whole social system.
When the people's social status is not free, their economic status is
not free either. Differences in
their social status created the differences of their economic status as well,
or even expanded such differences.
This difference of economic status has been a main reason forming the
differences between social classes from the beginning, and is also one of the
reasons for the further expansion of class differences. The class difference is the basic
condition for the Chinese Communist ruling clique to incite one group of the
masses to struggle against another.
The
area of Guangzhou is an example.
From the beginning of the so-called "reforming and opening up"
era, the locals have enjoyed a variety of benefits, conveniences, even rights
that the migrants do not have.
Thus, the locals have become the bosses, while migrants are the labor. While the government and local bosses
share the lucrative profits, naturally they join hands to suppress the labor
cost, thus gradually expanding the differences between classes. This is the pattern for the class
differences produced in all the developed areas in China. Thus, the current class differences in
China also come with the tint of regional and ethnic groups.
The
2009 incident in Urumqi of Xinjiang and this one in Guangzhou share similarity
in this aspect. Regardless of
ethnic differences or regional differences, they were all overlapped with the
class differences. With some
incitement, severe hostility will break out and rapidly develop into violent
activities. When people's moods
are out of control, it is totally meaningless to discuss who is right and who
is not. Yet, the government could
skillfully lift the whole earth with a trivial lever to control the
situation. The government would
use some official forces to support one faction while suppressing the other, to
reach its own political goals.
This is the exact same method used in Mao Zedong's era, when the
Communist Party government would manufacture different factions intentionally
and then use one against another, to ultimately suppress all the
rebellions. It is also an
excellent example of the traditional Chinese way of political intrigue called
"playing one foreign power against another."
However,
Deng Xiaoping was more insidious than Mao Zedong. After all, Mao wanted to create a communist society, thus he
was unable to legitimately create real class differences. But Deng Xiaoping quickly made true
class differences by using the unequal economic development of a semi-market
economy. Therefore, Deng did not
need to create political factions first then to incite one against the other. Instead, the Communist regime could
directly apply the class differences which had already become clear, overlapped
with ethnic and regional differences to incite one group of masses to struggle
against the other. Both the
incidents in Urumqi of Xinjiang and Zengcheng of Guangzhou are very typical examples.
However,
just as in the Cultural Revolution time, this policy of inciting the masses to
struggle against each other is a double-edged sword. Either the highest authority, or various local officials,
and even the rebels themselves, all could turn a struggle to their
advantage. This situation happened
right in Guangzhou back in the Tang Dynasty more than 1100 years ago. At that time, colluding with the wealthy
classes mainly composed of foreign merchants resident there of Muslims, Jews,
Christians, and Parsees, the local officials in Guangzhou exploited and
suppressed the local poor. The
situation was quickly taken advantage of by Huang Chao's rebel forces that had
been running around all over China.
Thus began a genocide movement under the banner of killing the foreign
businessmen, which resulted more than 120,000 lives were massacred. At the time many innocent civilians
lost their lives, Huang Chao's rebellion army was able to expand its strength
and weaken the Tang Dynasty. Even
in modern studies, it is hard to conclude clearly which faction was right or
which one was wrong.
But,
one thing is certain: the manufacture and expansion of differences between
people, as well as the policy of inciting the masses to struggle against each
other, will eventually lead to large-scale disaster. Victims will not be confined to a small number of people; in
fact the majority of people will become victims. After the Cultural Revolution, when the rebellion factions
recalled their past in prisons, they realized that there was not much hatred
for the people they were incited to persecute; they learned that they are all
the victims. Indeed, they are all
victims of conspirators in power, and we are all the victims of authoritarian
ruling cliques.
Regardless
whether being a modern democratic country or the centralized government of
ancient China, a normal government acting responsibly must weaken any social
contradictions. It needs to avoid
the superposition and coincidence of different social contradictions, in an
effort to avoid major social conflict.
This is the right way to maintain social stability.
Nevertheless,
in an effort to maintain its rule, the Chinese Communist regime continues its
basic policy of manufacturing and utilizing social conflict. This creates a basic condition of
social unrest. From this angle, we
can see that both the Urumqi and Zengcheng incidents were produced by the
policy of the Communist regime.
Both sides of people who are harmed are the victims of the Communist
regime's policy. We must keep a
clear mind of this policy and its purpose.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110617ChinaWayOut38groupstruggle.mp3
(Written
and recorded on June 17, 2011.
Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This
is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The
Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are
dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help
in any means. We pledge solidarity
to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this
planet.
You
are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website
at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although
we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your
contribution as well. You may send
your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files,
not in attachments.
For
website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web
master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org
To
find out more about us, please also visit our websites at: www.WeiJingSheng.org
and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org for news and information for Overseas Chinese
Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole,
especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.
You
may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-270-6980
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
You
are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in
learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply
reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process
your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A636-W397
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A636-W397
Release
Date: June 26, 2011
发布日：2011年6月26日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We
Must be Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to
Struggle Against Another -- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之三十八：广州增城事件与2009年的乌鲁木齐事件一样，是中共挑动群众斗群众的典型 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2011/report2011-06/WeiJS110626ChinaWayOut38groupstruggleA636-W397.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《中国的出路》之三十八：广州增城事件与2009年的乌鲁木齐事件一样，是中共挑动群众斗群众的典型
-- 魏京生
最近广州发生的大规模骚乱，是所谓中国模式的超经济剥削所制造出来的怪胎。而政府处理事件的方式，证明了这个政府执行的是毛泽东时代的政策：挑动群众斗群
众。也就是利用社会上不同人群之间的差别，来扩大矛盾，挑拨情绪，利用“先富起来的一部分人”压制另一部分人民。这和文革时代利用某某派打击其它派别，挑动一派的群众斗另一派群众的手法完全相同。这是专制统治者维持社会稳定的常用手法。
最近广东骚乱的中心增城地区，是一个典型的外向经济加工区。这种地区的经济发展很快，劳动力需求很大。其结果是必然会有大量劳动力迁居进来，形成新兴城镇。在人民有平等权利的民主国家，这样的新兴城镇给所有人提供的是平等的机会。尽管也会有贫富差距，也会有本地人和外来人口的差别，但平等的机会削弱了这种差别；也不会使得几种不同的差别重合，加大人群之间的差别感。而政府也会采取一些措施缩小人群之间的差别感。这是维护社会稳定的基本政策。
但中国共产党的政策却反其道而行之。从毛泽东时代起，共产党的基本政策就是制造人民之间的差别，扩大人群之间的差别感。中共政权利用人民之间互相歧视，互相牵制来达到其分而治之的目的。这就是为什么表面上共产了，毛泽东反而要强调阶级斗争。表面上消灭了阶级，反而倒要以阶级斗争为纲。套用老百姓讽刺的口气来形容就是：没有困难，制造困难也要上；没有阶级，制造阶级也要斗争。没有派性，制造派性才能斗。这就是毛泽东可以把全国人民玩弄于股掌之中的法宝。
不少人都说邓小平改革了经济，却没改革政治。其实这个说法不完全正确。经济是整个社会体制的一部分。当人的社会地位不是自由的，他们的经济地位也不是自由的。社会地位的差别本身就制造出了经济地位的差别，或者说是扩大了这种差别。除了其它原因之外，这种身份地位的差别，从一开始就是形成现在中国阶级差别的一个主要原因，并且也是进一步扩大阶级差别的原因之一。这是中共统治集团挑动群众斗群众的基本条件。
以广州地区为例。从所谓的改革开放初期的创业阶段开始，当地人就享有外地人所没有的各种优惠和便利以至于权利。因此，逐渐就形成了本地人是老板，外地人来当劳动力的局面。官方和本地老板之间分享高额的利润，自然也就合伙压低劳动力的价格，从而逐步扩大了阶级差别。这是中国所有发达地区的阶级差别产生的模式。所以，现在中国的阶级差别也同时带有地区的和民族的色彩。
新疆乌鲁木齐事件的情况和这次广州事件，在这方面就非常相似。无论是民族差别还是地方差别，都被叠加在了阶级差别之中。只要有人稍加挑动，就会爆发严重的仇视情绪，并且迅速扩大成为暴力活动。当人们情绪失控的时候，再来谈论到底是谁有理、还是谁没理已经毫无意义了。而政府就可以四两拨千斤，用少量的官方武装力量来支持一派，打击一派，以达到自己的政治目的。这其实和毛泽东时代先制造出不同的造反派，再利用一派打击另一派，最终达到压制所有造反的手法完全相同。这也是中国传统政治阴谋中以夷制夷手法的典范。
而邓小平比毛泽东更阴险的地方，是毛泽东毕竟还想制造一个共产主义的结果，无法真正制造出阶级差别。但邓小平却利用不平等的半市场经济环境，很快就制造出了真正的阶级差别。所以，现代的挑动群众斗群众，就不必先制造出政治派性再支持一派打一派了。他们可以直接利用界线清楚的阶级差别，再加上民族或者地方差别来挑动群众斗群众。新疆乌鲁木齐事件和这次的广州增城事件，就是很典型的例证。
但是，和文革时期的情况类似，这种利用群众斗群众的政策是一个双刃的利剑。最高当局可以利用，各级官吏中的野心家可以利用，而造反派也可以利用。唐朝就有过这样的事例。当时广州的地方官员，勾结以外商为主的富裕阶级，盘剥、欺压本地贫民。结果倒被流窜的造反派黄巢所利用，掀起了一场以屠杀外国商人为号召的种族灭绝运动。大量无辜的平民受害的同时，扩大了黄巢造反军队的实力。就是到了现代，用各种理论也很难说得清楚到底谁对谁错。
但只有一点是肯定的：制造和扩大人群之间的差别，挑动群众斗群众的政策，最终将导致大规模的灾难。受害的不会只是一部分人民，大多数老百姓都会成为受害者。这就像文革之后造反派们在监狱中回忆往事，竟会发现彼此对立的人之间其实没有那么大的仇恨，但往往都是受害者。的确，大家都是当权的阴谋家的受害者，都是专制统治集团的受害者。
一个正常的负责任的政府，无论是现代的民主国家还是古代中国的集权政府，都必须弱化各种社会矛盾。而且，还要避免不同的社会矛盾叠加重合，避免造成重大的社会冲突。这是维护社会稳定的正道。
而中共却把制造矛盾，利用矛盾作为维护统治的基本政策。这就为社会动荡创造了基本条件，或者说是社会动荡的肥沃土壤。从这个角度来看，无论是乌鲁木齐事件还是广州事件，都是共产党的政策制造出来的事件。受到伤害的双方人民，都是共产党政策的受害者。我们必须对此有着清醒的认识。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110617ChinaWayOut38groupstruggle.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年6月17日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱： HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话： 1-202-270-6980
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。