Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A641-W400
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A641-W400
Release
Date: July 30, 2011
发布日：2011年7月30日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part XLI): The So-called Globalization and China Model
-- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之四十一：所谓的全球化和中国模式 - 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/report2011-07/WeiJS110730ChinaWayOut41socalledChinaModelA641-W400.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Way Out for China (Part XLI): The So-called Globalization and China Model
--
Wei Jingsheng
Where
is the way out for China? There
are a lot of hypotheses. They are
very reasonable, but most focus on only one aspect. Some friends have pointed out that it should be related to
political reform, or the reform and revolution of the whole social system, of
which one of the most critical parts is the reform of the economic system. Other friends would immediately respond: Deng Xiaoping has already engaged
economic reform 30 years ago, why is not it a way out? In fact, it is because that there are
many types of economic systems.
When reform is not toward the right type, then the result is completely
incongruous.
Putting
it simply, although Deng Xiaoping removed the Mao Zedong style planned economy
under comprehensive monopoly, he only turned the economy into a semi-market
variety that is monopolized by bureaucrats. The Maoist planned economy and the bureaucratic monopoly of
a semi-market economy are the two extremes. From the perspective of the economic benefit people receive,
or adopting a popular saying inside China, the perspective of distribution, the
former contains extreme but stifling equality while the latter is extremely
unfair. Both do not reach a goal
of balance. In other words, the
best economic system should be a balance between equity, opportunity, and
efficiency, rather than any one extreme.
To
put it bluntly, the social and economic development needs to be efficient to be
able to mobilize the enthusiasm of the people, especially of those people whose
capacity is relatively stronger.
This situation requires a certain degree of gap between rich and poor,
to provide people of more ability psychological and physical satisfaction for
needs beyond the needs for living and lives beyond those of ordinary
people. This disparity is the
positive part of "letting some people get rich first."
The
most important lesson for the Westerners in developing a market economy was
that they were not paying attention to the unequal distribution and the wealth
gap during its early stages. The
gap between rich and poor not only causes social instability, but also hinders
economic development directly by not developing a market within their own countries. Despite there were various economic
units of corruption and luxury as a supplement, fledgling market economies were
unable to regulate the defect aspect of a small market. As a result, early colonial economies
became important regulators for the early day capitalism, followed by
increasing social instability until the breakout of a world war. Then, the economic development
achievements were destroyed by the war.
After
two world wars, people gradually woke up.
Both fairness and efficiency are two legs of social and economic
development. Neither should be
missing. A society of unfair
distribution would be like a lame person, who could not walk fast and is easily
tumbled over. A pure "market
economy", would allow the non-rational, non-human nature of the market to
dominate the human, instead of letting humanity dominate the market. The result is that the few who dominate
the market gradually become non-human, while the rest of the human race becomes
dominated, crushed, and exploited, living in a life less rewarding than the
cattle and horses as described by Karl Marx.
The
way to change this situation is for the governments regulate the distribution,
in an effort to control the balance between distribution and development
according to the prevailing needs of the local people and economic level; or
say to find the balance point between efficiency and equity. This was the democratic approach
developed after the war. On the
surface, World War II appeared to be the decisive battle between democracy and
authoritarianism. However,
actually it was a decisive battle between a social and economic system with a
balanced development and a social and economic system of tyranny with high
efficiency.
The
Westerners after the victory, understood more of the importance of democratic
politics. Without democratic
politics, it will not be possible to regulate the market economy in a timely
fashion, and thus it will be very difficult to maintain a balance between
fairness and efficiency. The
so-called Marxism socialism which was popular after the war, was a system of
absolute equality maintained by the dictatorship. History has proved that it is a relatively inefficient
system. So it broke down after
less than half a century, being unable to compete with freer markets. Half of the initial social experiments
in Marxism began walking toward democracy albeit with hesitation, while the
other half went to the other extreme directly. That extreme was the bureaucratic capitalism using economic
indicators as its sole target, the so-called China Model.
Deng
Xiaoping may not be a Marxist, but at least he was a Leninist and
Stalinist. Maintaining the
Communist one-party dictatorship was his goal in life. Therefore, after the failure of Mao
Zedong's system, Deng, unwilling to give up one-party dictatorship, would not
let China move toward democracy no matter what. Thus, he accepted the only economic model able to maintain
the one-party dictatorship -- bureaucratic monopolized capitalism. Deng vainly hoped that his highly
efficient competition would defeat democracy, thus keeping the country under
the Communist rule. As a matter of
fact, this China Model is not really unique. Before World War II, both Germany and Japan had bureaucratic
capitalist monopolies very similar to China nowadays. The reason for failure was the insufficient market,
resulting in a war vying for the market.
The theoretical base for Adolf Hitler was Lebensraum, to expand for
"living space".
So
how was Deng Xiaoping to solve this issue? The globalization movement initiated by the capitalists in
the USA provided an unexpected opportunity. The theoretical basis of this movement was not new. It was the universal market theory of
the traditional and early stage capitalism of Adam Smith and David Ricardo,
except to perfect it further. As
the motive for capitalists is to pursue maximization of profit, they must need
two conditions: the first is cheap labor and the second is high-priced
markets. In a democratic environment
these two cannot coexist. However,
when there is an economy connecting rich democracies with poor tyrannies, then
it is possible.
Deng
Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang noticed this kind of successful model from the
examples of some small countries.
They extended it into a larger scale by including both China and the
West: thus the so-called China model.
The crucial point of this model, or the key to "success", is
opening up so-called free trade between democratic and authoritarian
countries. Thus, the vast market
within democratic countries is able to supplement the market shortage of the
"pure market economy" in the authoritarian state, in the same role of
the colonies during the early capitalist era. The difference between the social systems of these countries
results in a huge drop in commodity prices.
This
is the reason for the multinational companies to earn excess profits. It is also the root cause for them to
lobby the democratic politics and to protect the authoritarian states. Not only China is at play; just looking
at the actions of the democratic countries during the recent Jasmine Revolution
in North African countries, it is sufficient to fully demonstrate the
manipulation abilities of multinational companies. These actions also illustrate the myth of "businessmen
being the natural allies of democracy" to be fully exposed whenever it is
related to profit. Yet, the profit
in China is far exceeds the sum of the profits in the North African
countries. So when there are
people claiming that businessmen will support Chinese democracy, they might
just as well say that pigs can fly and turtles can climb trees.
Dominated
by the huge profits, the businessman in the West will not be bothered by
persuading politicians to sell the interests of their own countries, let alone
the interests of peoples of the other countries. This so-called "globalization" and "meeting
international standards" is something that I will continue to give you an
analysis of in the future.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110707ChinaWayOut41socalledChinaModel.mp3
(Written
and recorded on July 7, 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: A641-W400
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A641-W400
Release
Date: July 30, 2011
发布日：2011年7月30日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part XLI): The So-called Globalization and China Model
-- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之四十一：所谓的全球化和中国模式 - 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/report2011-07/WeiJS110730ChinaWayOut41socalledChinaModelA641-W400.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《中国的出路》之四十一：所谓的全球化和中国模式
-- 魏京生
中国的出路在哪里？有很多的说法。它们都很有道理，但大多只说了某个方面。有些朋友也说到了，那是和政治体制改革有关，或者说是整个社会体制的改革或者革命，而其中最关键的就是经济体制的改革。另一些朋友马上会说：邓小平早在三十年前不就已经搞了经济体制改革，为什么好像并没有看到什么出路呢？其实，这是因为经济体制有很多种类型，改不到正确的类型，结果就完全是牛头不对马嘴了。
简单地说，就是邓小平虽然改掉了毛泽东式的全面垄断的计划经济，但却改成了官僚垄断的半市场经济。这种官僚垄断的半市场经济，和毛式计划经济是两个极端。从人民所得的经济利益来看，或者用国内流行的说法，从分配的角度来看，一个是极端平均，一个是极端不公平。两者都没有达到平衡的目标。也就是说，最好的经济体系应该是公平和效率之间的平衡，而不是任何一个极端。
说得直白一些，就是社会经济要发展就要有效率，要能调动人们的积极性，特别是能力比较强的那一部分人的积极性。这就需要有一定程度的贫富差距，满足有能力的人的心理和生理的满足感，也即生活以外的各种需求，那些高于普通人民的特殊需求。这就是让一部分人先富起来的积极的那一部分意义。
西方人发展市场经济的最重大的教训，就是在早期没有注意到分配不公，也就是贫富差距的问题。贫富差距不仅仅造成社会的不稳定，而且不发展的本国市场直接就阻碍着经济的发展。尽管有各种腐败奢侈的经济单元作补充，却仍然不能调节市场狭小的缺陷。殖民地经济就成为早期资本主义的重要调节器。随之而来的就是社会越来越不稳定，终至发生世界大战。于是，经济发展的成就就毁于战争。
经过两次世界大战之后，人们渐渐地醒悟过来了。公平和效率一样，是社会经济发展不可或缺的另一条腿。分配不公的社会就像瘸子一样，走不快而且会摔跤。纯粹的市场经济，是让无理性、非人性的市场主宰了人类，而不是人类主宰市场。结果就是主宰市场的少数人渐渐地非人性化，而人类却被非人性的市场主宰着、压榨着、剥削着，过着马克思主义者所说的牛马不如的生活。
改变这种形势的方法就是由政府来调节分配，根据当时当地的人民需求和经济水平，控制分配与发展之间的平衡，或者说是找出效率与公平之间的平衡点。这就是战后发展起来的民主政治。二次世界大战表面上看起来是民主与专制之间的决战，背后实际上是平衡发展的社会经济体系，与专制高效率的经济体系之间的决战。
胜利后的西方人，更加懂得了民主政治的重要性。没有民主政治，就不可能即时地调节市场经济，就很难维持公平与效率之间的平衡。战后一度盛行的所谓马克思主义的社会主义，就是在专制维持下的绝对公平的体制。历史证明那就是一个相对没有效率的体制。所以维持了不到半个世纪就垮掉了。一半犹犹豫豫、一步三回头地走向了民主；另一半则直接走向了另一个极端。这就是以经济指标为唯一目标的官僚资本主义，所谓的中国模式。
邓小平可能不是什么马克思主义者，但他至少是个列宁、斯大林主义者。保住共产党的一党专政是他的人生目标。所以在毛泽东体制失败之后，他不愿意放弃一党专政，就无论如何也不让中国走向民主。为此他接受了能够保住一党专政的经济模式--官僚垄断资本主义。他妄想以高效率的竞争打败民主，保住共产党的江山。其实这也不是什么独特的中国模式，二战前的德国和日本就是类似的官僚垄断资本主义。它失败的原因，正是市场不足导致不得不发动争夺市场的战争。希特勒的理论基础，就是争夺生存空间。
那么邓小平如何解决这个问题呢？由美国资本家发起的全球化运动，给邓小平提供了意想不到的机会。这个运动的理论基础倒并不新鲜，就是传统的、早期资本主义的市场万能理论，不过是把亚当斯密和李嘉图的理论完善化而已。由于资本家的动机是追求利润的最大化，他们就必然需要两个条件：第一是廉价劳动力，第二是高价市场。在民主的环境中这是不可能的事情。如果跨越民主和专制的跨国经济呢？那就是有可能的。
邓小平和赵紫阳在一些小国的经济中看到了这种成功的模式。他们把它扩展到中国和西方这样的大规模范围内，就成了所谓的中国模式。这个模式的要害，或者说“成功”的关键，就是开辟民主国家和专制国家间的所谓自由贸易。以此用民主国家的广阔市场，来补充专制国家纯粹市场经济的市场短缺，充当早期资本主义的殖民地的角色。而国家之间社会体制的不同，造成了商品价格的巨大落差。
这就是跨国公司能够赚取超额利润的原因。这也是他们游说民主政治，保护专制国家的根本原因。不要说中国了，在最近北非国家的茉莉花革命中，西方民主国家的表现，就充分说明了跨国公司的操纵能力。这种表现也说明了商人是民主政治的天然盟友这个神话，一碰到利润就会原形毕露。而中国的利润远远大于北非国家的总和。有人说商人会支持中国的民主，那还不如说乌龟会上树呢。
在巨额利润的支配下，西方的商人不惜说服本国政治家出卖本国的利益，更何况是其它国家的人民。所谓的全球化和与国际接轨是什么东西，我将在今后继续给大家分析。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110707ChinaWayOut41socalledChinaModel.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年7月7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)。