Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A690-W429
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A690-W429
Release
Date: Feb. 11, 2012
发布日：2012年2月11日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part LIII): The Moderate Reformists of Modern China is a
Camp with Unrealistic Fantasies -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：《中国的出路》之五十三：现代中国的温和改良派是不现实的幻想派 -- 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/report2012/report2012-02/WeiJS120211ChinaWayOut53moderatefantasiesA690-W429.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Way Out for China (Part LIII): The Moderate Reformists of Modern China is a
Camp with Unrealistic Fantasies
--
Wei Jingsheng
The
way out for China lies in the reform or revolution of its economic and
political system. We have been
talking about this for a while.
Recently, during my speech at Georgetown University in Washington DC, some
student asked an old question: is a reform that costs less the best, or a
revolution that comes fast the best?
The reason that this question has always perplexed people is because
people always have the misunderstanding that they have an opportunity to
choose. As a matter of fact, under
most circumstances, we have neither the qualification to choose, nor the
opportunity to choose.
Do
we really not have an opportunity to choose? Choice does exist.
But that opportunity does not belong to us the average people, but to a
handful of people in power. An
important feature of democracy is that it allows most people to have the
opportunity to choose. However,
the reason that an authoritarian regime becomes an autocratic regime is because
the opportunity to choose is monopolized by a handful of people. These people have not just monopolized
the economic and political power, but also monopolized almost all other rights
to choose. This is the reality in
current China.
Assume
that the average people have a right to choose. I think most people, or almost all the people, will choose a
path of reform with relatively small cost. So why is there so much revolution? Are the people of Libya being silly and
do not realize that the cost of reform will be relatively less? Do they think it is kind of fun to have
tens of thousands of people killed or wounded? We do not need to be very smart to know that revolution was
only because the clique of the autocratic regime did not allow reform. When there was no room for
reconciliation between Gaddafi's refusal to reform and the people's desire to
reform, then the people's revolution became the only way. Regardless whether one calls it a
reform or a revolution, there was a revolt against the autocratic rule and the
interest groups of the upper class.
If
the interests changed from a reform are not too big, thus acceptable to both
sides, then a moderate reform can proceed. Such reform would have been feasible in the late nineteen
seventies and early nineteen eighties of China. As that time, the economic interests of all sectors were not
very different; there was not much conflict of interest. At that time, the main difference
between the Communist cadres and people was in political rights and degrees of
freedom, i.e. it was conflict between the commanders and the commanded, rather
than a class conflict.
At
that time, if the people were allowed to have their democratic rights and
economic freedom then the privileges the cadres lost would not have been too
much. Plus, the equal rights these
cadres gained would in part compensate for the privileges they lost. It would have been similar to the
revolution in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. There, despite that people were full of
complaints, it did not reach a degree impossible to accept. For changing an authoritarian regime,
the East European model is the gentlest revolution. Yet, the privileges lost to the ruling class still brought a
huge shortfall, rather than the moderate way fantasized by the Chinese elite.
Thirty
years after the "reform" designed by Deng Xiaoping, China has already
created a huge gap between rich and poor.
After three decades of ferment, the class differences are very
obvious. The interests of all
classes are in serious confrontation or conflict, and there is a huge
difference between the judgments of various issues and affairs between these
classes, to a degree that is very difficult to bridge.
When
officials are unreasonable, so the people also become accustomed to being
unreasonable. As long as there are
clashes on the streets, people come up to beat the officials indiscriminately
without knowing a reason. This
action is the evidence that the class antagonism has moved toward the
extreme. Under such circumstances,
relying on reasoning to resolve class contradictions is unlikely to be accepted
by both sides. The road for
moderate improvement does not receive any support from the current social
reality in China.
Moderate
reform is a revolution by reason.
To reason requires both sides to accept the outcome. Actually, average people want to be
reasonable. They are in a weak
position, so reasoning is most favorable to them. The problem is that the people in power do not want to
reason. One hand cannot clap
without the cooperation of the other hand. Who are you going to reason with? Now the bureaucratic capitalist class has huge
interests. If you expect them to
give up their own interests and listen to your reasoning, then it is just like
negotiating with a tiger to give up its skin. So the moderate reformists of current China are just people
with unrealistic fantasies. Yet
because the international capitalists prefer moderate reform over revolutions,
they will allow resources to support these moderate reformists. Thus, we have a breed in China that
would use a mirage of castles in exchange for the assistance of the
international capitalists.
Besides
the 1 percent population that is the bureaucrat-capitalist class and the 90
percent that is the poor class, there is the middle class in between. This middle class does not do as well
as the bureaucrat-capitalist class, yet is much better off than the poor
class. Some of them are falling
into the poor class during economic crisis, yet ideologically they still retain
the features of a class in the middle.
In comparison to the upper class, they are full of complaints and
strongly criticize the unfair social system; in comparison to the poor, they
are very satisfied with the reality that they have enough food and
clothing. So their characteristic
is that they want change but do not want to pay a big price; they want a
revolution but a gentle one. These
people are the social base of the moderate reformists. Unfortunately, they have neither the
power nor the majority, and can only represent a fantasy.
Is
a revolution really as scary as described by the moderates? This is a good question. If the ruling clique is internally
stable and has solidarity, like Gaddafi's regime, then there shall be bloodshed
during the revolution. If the
ruling clique splits and some of the more sensible people come forward to have
a coup, as in the former Soviet Union and Egypt, then it will not be as bloody
as Libya. However, such a coup
needs a long term of adjustment.
It will go back and forward, so the total price may not be less. The total price Russia is paying for
Putin's government may not be less than a revolution with bloodshed.
Regardless
of the form of the revolution, it is impossible to have one without paying for
it, just as bread will not fall off sky.
Interestingly, there are a lot of advocators for moderate reform are
Americans and Chinese who are living in the United States. They seem to have forgotten the history
of the United States itself. The
United States was the first democratic country in the modern era, which the
people established it through a violent revolution. In the process of improving its democratic system, it was
also full of violence. While it
maintains the current democratic society, it also relies on organized force of
the police and military.
The
rule of the game with peace, reason, and non-violence needs to be established
and maintained by reasonable force.
When a fair and reasonable rule of the game cannot or has not been
established, force becomes the only viable rule. Without carpenter's square and compass, one could not draw
circle and squares. When there are
not reasonable rules, there will be rules that are unreasonable.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS111113ChinaWayOut53moderatefantasies.mp3
(Written
and recorded on November 13, 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: A690-W429
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A690-W429
Release
Date: Feb. 11, 2012
发布日：2012年2月11日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part LIII): The Moderate Reformists of Modern China is a
Camp with Unrealistic Fantasies -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：《中国的出路》之五十三：现代中国的温和改良派是不现实的幻想派 -- 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/report2012/report2012-02/WeiJS120211ChinaWayOut53moderatefantasiesA690-W429.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《中国的出路》之五十三：现代中国的温和改良派是不现实的幻想派
-- 魏京生
中国的出路在于经济和政治体制的改革，或者革命。这个我们已经谈论了很长时间了。前几天在华盛顿的乔治城大学讲演，又有学生提到了一个老问题，就是代价少的改革好呢，还是来得快的革命好。这个问题之所以永远困扰着人们，是因为人们总是会进入一个误区，总以为自己有选择的机会。其实在大多数情况下，我们既没有选择的资格，也没有机会。
真的完全没有选择的机会了吗？还是有。但不是我们老百姓有，而是当权的一小撮人有。民主的一个重要的特征，就是大多数人有选择的机会。而专制政权之所以成为专制政权，就因为选择的机会被一小撮人给垄断了。他们不仅垄断了经济政治大权，而且垄断了几乎所有选择的权利。这就是中国现在的现实。
假设老百姓有选择的权利。我相信大多数人或者说几乎所有的人都会选择代价比较小的改革道路。那么为什么还有那么多的革命呢？难道利比亚的人民就很傻，就不知道改革的代价会比较小吗？一定要死伤几万人才好玩吗？不用很聪明的人都知道，那是因为独裁专制的集团不准改革。卡扎菲不准改革和人民要改革之间无法调和，就只能革命了。无论你管他叫改革还是革命，总之是革了专制独裁的命，革了上层利益集团的命。
如果改革触动的利益不大，双方都可以接受，那么温和的改革就可以进行下去。这在七十年代末和八十年代初的中国是可行的。那时候各阶层人们的经济利益差别不大，没有多大的利益冲突。当时，干部和百姓的主要差别是政治权利和自由度，也就是指挥者和被指挥者的矛盾，而不是阶级矛盾。
如果那时候给予人民民主的权利和经济上的自由，干部们失去的特权不多，而获得的平等的权利可以部分弥补失去的特权。就像苏联和东欧的革命一样，一些人满腹怨言，可是并非无法接受。对于改变一个专制体制来说，这是最温和的革命了。但是统治阶层失去特权还是会带来巨大的震动，而不是中国精英们所幻想的那样温和。
现在的中国经过了邓小平设计的三十年“改革”，已经形成了巨大的贫富差距。经过三十年的酝酿，阶级差别已经非常明显。而各阶级的利益也已经严重地对立或者冲突，相互之间对各种事务和事件的判断差别巨大，已经难以弥合。
官方不讲理，所以老百姓也早就不习惯于讲理了。只要街头发生了官民冲突，围上来的老百姓也一样不分青红皂白地见官就打，打完了还不知道为什么。这就是阶级对立已经走向极端的证据。这种形势下靠讲理来解决阶级矛盾，恐怕双方都不会接受。温和改良的道路，得不到任何社会现实的支持。
温和改良也就是讲理的革命。讲理就需要双方都接受才行得通。老百姓其实都想要讲理。老百姓是弱者，讲理对弱者最有利。问题是强者们不想讲理，一个巴掌拍不响。你和谁讲理去？现在的官僚资产阶级拥有巨大的利益，你让他们放弃自己的利益去讲理，那叫与虎谋皮。这几乎没有什么可能性。所以现代中国的温和改良派，是不现实的幻想派。然而，因为国际资本需要温和的改良而不喜欢革命，所以有资源支持温和改良派。因此就有了拿空中楼阁换取国际资本援助的吃货。
除了官僚资产阶级那百分之一的人口之外，在百分之九十以上的贫穷阶级之上还有一个中间阶级，或者叫做中产阶级。他们比上不足，却比下有余。虽然他们之中的许多人随着经济危机正在下降到贫民阶级，但是思想上还保留着中产的面貌：比上他们满腹怨言强烈抨击不公平的社会制度，比下他们很满足于已经温饱的现实。所以他们的特点就是要改变但是不要大的代价，要革命但是只要温和的革命。这些人就是温和改良派的社会基础。遗憾的是他们既没有权力也不是多数，只能代表一种幻想而已。
革命一定会像温和派描写的那样恐怖吗?这是个很好的问题。如果统治集团内部稳定，团结一致，就像卡扎菲那样，革命就不得不流很多血。如果统治集团内部分裂，一些比较明智的人出面发动政变，就像苏联和埃及那样，不会流很多血。但是需要长期的调整和反复，总的代价不一定会少。普京执政的俄罗斯付出的代价，不会比一场流血的革命少。
无论是什么形式的革命，不付代价是不可能的，就像天上不可能掉馅饼一样。有趣的是温和改良派的鼓吹者们盛产于美国。这些美国人和住在美国的中国人似乎忘记了美国的历史。美国是第一个依靠民众的暴力革命建立起来的民主国家。在它改良民主制度的过程中也充满了暴力。在它维护现有的民主社会时，也依靠着警察和军队的有组织的暴力。
和平理性非暴力的游戏规则，需要依靠合理的暴力去建立和维持。如果不能或者没有建立起公平合理的游戏规则，暴力就是唯一可行的规则了。总之不可能没有规则，没有规矩不成方圆。没有合理的规则，就有不合理的规则。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS111113ChinaWayOut53moderatefantasies.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年11月13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)。