Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article: A1337-W952

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1337-W952

Release Date: November 16, 2020

发布日：2020年11月16日

Topic: How to Understand the U.S. Election? -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：如何理解美国的选举 -- 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/report2020/report2020-11/WeiJS201116onUSelectionA1337-W952.htm which contains identical information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

How to Understand the U.S. Election

-- Wei Jingsheng

Recently I have seen many criticisms of the US elections as being messy. Some of them are the Internet soldiers working for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); some are kind friends who understand differently or still have some sequelae from CCP’s brainwashing.

There is a saying called “democratic centralism”. Everyone must laugh after hearing this: Is not this Mao Zedong's sophistry? Indeed, the CCP held high the banner of democracy before coming to power and fooled the Chinese people and the elites who thought they knew everything about the world. But as soon as the CCP came to power, it made people feel that it was not so democratic, and everything was decided by this one party.

Did the CCP ever ask people outside the Party when it launched the so-called Suppressing the Counter-Revolution and killed millions of Chinese? Have the CCP asked people outside the Party to support the Korean Communists in the war with the United States? Everything was a one-party dictatorship by the CCP. The so-called democratic parties in China soon learned to shut up and ridiculed themselves as the Vase Parties. Therefore, it was necessary for Mao Zedong to defend the deception of the CCP. This was what Mao was particularly good at.

How to do this sophistry? The technique was specious. Democracy is a decision-making method, and of course the plan must be implemented after the decision. Just like a ship, after deciding on the direction of sailing and the choice of captain, the entire ship must obey the command; it is impossible to allow you to do whatever you want. Otherwise, the ship could capsize and everyone die. The same goes for a country. The country must implement the same policy and act under the command of the same leader. Mao Zedong secretly changed this concept into “centralism”, which is a typical sophistry technique.

Does the CCP have so-called democracy? No, it does not, neither before nor after the founding of the People’s Republic of China. While turning the sophistication of one-party dictatorship into “democratic centralism”, it launched the elimination of the opposition both inside and outside the CCP. As long as one disagrees with the CCP, he or she will be eliminated regardless of people or institutions. Even those within the CCP who disagree with the leader will all become counter-revolutionaries to be eliminated. In this way, the banner of democracy held high during the 1930s and 1940s was secretly replaced by a centralized one-party dictatorship. The CCP’s theory of one-party dictatorship has been interpreted as the highest democracy. After the so-called “reform and opening up”, it is still acting out this set of pseudo-democratic theory.

Some friends who hate the false democracy and true dictatorship of the CCP have done the opposite. They claims that true democracy means that they can retain their opinions regardless of the outcome of the vote and do not need to cooperate with parties with different opinions. Retaining one's own opinions is definitely the basic principle of democracy, but eliminating different opinions is exactly the road to dictatorship. If you do not implement the collective decision-making and do everything as you wish, you go to the other extreme. Just imagine that the crew on a ship do not obey the commands and behaved differently, with excuses of different opinions. Then what would happen to this ship? I am afraid that no one will survive.

I recently read an article by Mr. Zhang Qianfan, who criticizing the Chinese people for lack of contractual spirit and therefore being impossible to accomplish things. This is exactly the situation. To get on this ship or join this country, is to enter a mandatory contract. The life and death of the group will be your personal life and death, as you have given up your complete independence. In other words, you must be responsible for everyone's survival. If you don't obey the group's decision, it may lead to the destruction of the ship and even death, so the others can only throw you into the sea and give you absolute personal freedom.

How to choose between obeying the group's decision even if the decision was wrong, which may result in the ship sinking, or go on your own way, which will sink the ship for sure? Smart humans choose to have a chance of survival, instead of the ship sinking for sure. Idealists who hide themselves in the study might choose to let the ship sink and people die. After all, it would not be themselves die. Since ancient times, Chinese scholars have had the habit of turning a blind eye to outside affairs. Therefore, they lack the spirit of the contract and think that they can be irresponsible, even unable to achieve success and contributing to failure. This is also a cultural tradition.

I look at Americans and see them behave like what was described by Mark Twain, that they would do everything they can to win the elections. However, after the results were counted, they were able to cooperate with each other and advance together. For example, during the election primary campaign within one party, the opponent would scold the other to the point of swearing, yet during the general election, they would cooperate tacitly and come together like brothers to defeat the tiger together. In fact, is it not true that our Chinese are arguing at home, yet would join together to deal with the outside tigers? This is a common sense although elite scholars may not care as it seems not advanced enough.

(This English version is translated by Ciping HUANG, without any compensation. Wei Jingsheng and the Wei Jingsheng Foundation appreciate her decades of contribution, especially for allowing the use and distribution of her translations of these commentaries.)

Original link of the commentary broadcasted by Radio Free Asia:

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-11162020100326.html

To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2020/WeiJS201113onUSelection.mp3

(Written and recorded on November 13, 2020. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia on November 16, 2020.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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: A1337-W952

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1337-W952

Release Date: November 16, 2020

发布日：2020年11月16日

Topic: How to Understand the U.S. Election? -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：如何理解美国的选举 -- 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/report2020/report2020-11/WeiJS201116onUSelectionA1337-W952.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

如何理解美国的选举

-- 魏京生

最近看见不少批评美国选举乱糟糟的人。有些是五毛；有些是好心的朋友，理解不同，或者说还残留着一些被洗脑的后遗症。

有一种说法，叫做民主集中制。大家听了要笑，这不是毛泽东的诡辩嘛。确实，中国共产党上台前高举民主的大旗，忽悠了全国人民和自以为全知天下事的精英分子们。可是一上台就让人觉得不那么民主了，什么都是一党说了算。

镇压所谓的反革命，杀了几百万人问过党外人士吗？支援朝鲜共产党和美国打仗，问过党外人士吗？林林总总都是共产党一党独裁。所谓的民主党派很快就学会了闭嘴，自我解嘲说自己是花瓶党。于是毛泽东就有必要为共产党的欺骗行为诡辩了。这是毛泽东的强项。

怎么诡辩呢？用的是似是而非的手法。民主是一个决策方法，决策之后当然还要执行。就像一条船，决定了航行的方向和船长的人选之后，全船都要服从指挥，不可能准许你各行其是。否则船翻了大家全完蛋。国家也是一样的道理，全国必须执行同一个政策，在同一个领袖指挥下行动。毛泽东把这个概念偷换成为集中，是比较典型的诡辩手法。

共产党有所谓的民主吗？没有，建国前后都没有。把一党专政诡辩成为民主集中的同时，在党内外都开始消灭反对派。只要是和共产党有不同意见的，勿论人还是机构一律消灭。甚至党内有和领袖不同意见的，一律成为被肃清的反革命。就这样，三四十年代高举的民主大旗，就被偷换成了一党专政的集中。共产党的一党专政的理论，被解释成了最高的民主，所谓的改革开放之后，也仍然是这一套假民主的理论。

有痛恨共产党假民主真专制的朋友反其道而行之，说真民主就是不管投票什么结果，都可以保留自己的意见，而且不用配合意见不同的一方。保留自己的意见肯定是民主的基本原则，消灭不同的意见正是走向独裁专制的道路。但是不执行集体的决策各行其是，就走到了另一个极端。设想一条船上船员们各行其是不听指挥，强词夺理说我有不同意见，这条船会是什么结果呢？恐怕大家都活不成。

最近看到张千帆先生的一篇文章，批评中国人缺乏契约精神所以不成事儿，说的正是这个情况。上了这条船或者加入了这个国家，就是进入了一个必须契约。团体的生死存亡就是你个人的生死存亡，你已经放弃了你完整的独立性。换句话说，你必须对大家的生死存亡负责任。你不服从大家的决策，可能会导致船毁人亡，那就只能把你扔到大海里，给你绝对的个人自由。

服从大家的决策，如果决策错了也可能船毁人亡。各行其是就必然会船毁人亡。怎么选择呢？聪明的人类选择有生存的机会，不要必然船毁人亡。躲在书斋里的理想家们，可以选择必然船毁人亡，反正死的不是他自己。中国的书生自古以来就有两耳不闻窗外事的习惯，所以缺乏契约精神，自以为可以不负责任，乃至成事不足，败事有余，也是一种文化传统。

我看美国人虽然像马克吐温描写的那样，竞选起来无所不用其极。可是结果出来后却很能互相配合，共进共退。例如党内竞选把对手骂得狗血喷头，然后大选时却会配合默契，来他一个打虎亲兄弟，一致对外。其实咱们中国人在家里吵得昏天黑地，对外不也是打虎亲兄弟吗？这个道理是常识，但不够高深，也许精英学者们不屑一顾吧。

(本评论的英文版本由黄慈萍翻译。魏京生和魏京生基金会感谢她数十年来有关的无偿贡献，特别是使用和发布此译文的许可。)

本篇评论在自由亚洲电台的原始链接：

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-11162020100326.html