作者/编辑：李之洋
责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：tomorrow
在极权主义研究的经典框架中，个体与体制的关系一直被视为现代政治学与社会学的重要命题。汉娜·阿伦特在《极权主义的起源》中指出，极权主义不仅通过恐怖与暴力维持统治，更通过制度化的组织方式与意识形态塑造，深度嵌入社会结构之中（阿伦特，1951）。中共体制正是此种极权模式的典型延续。
对于体制外的民众而言，中共的专制本质早已显而易见。然而，更值得注意的是，体制内的个体同样身处风险与困境之中。他们不仅是体制运转的执行者，更常常成为体制自我清洗与自我消耗的牺牲品。因此，分析中共体制内人为何更应放弃体制，不仅有助于理解极权体制的运作逻辑，也有助于揭示未来中国社会变革的潜在动力。
一、共产体制的独裁本质与“绞肉机”效应
共产主义体制的核心特征是对社会的全方位控制。列宁在《怎么办？》中提出的“职业革命家”与“先锋队党”的理论，为极权主义政党的权力垄断提供了理论基础（列宁，1902）。在这种体制下，个体必须服从组织，组织服从中央，最终所有权力汇聚于党与领袖之手。
在实践中，这种高度集权必然导致“绞肉机效应”。体制不仅通过物理暴力清除异己，也通过政治运动、党内斗争和思想改造，周期性地吞噬自身成员。苏联大清洗（1937）、中国的反右运动（1957）、文化大革命（1966-1976），均证明了即便是最忠诚的干部，也可能在体制的自我更新中被牺牲。正如阿伦特所言：“极权主义的恐怖并非仅针对敌人，而是针对所有人”（阿伦特，1951）。因此，中共体制内个体的身份并非安全保障，而是悬在头顶的利剑。其存在本身意味着时刻可能被清算，区别只在于时间早晚。
二、列宁主义模式与虚伪合法性的延续
中共政权在意识形态上自我标榜为“社会主义民主与法治”，但实质上严格延续了列宁主义的政治逻辑。所谓“民主集中制”不过是“集中”的代名词，党组织权威凌驾于宪法与法律之上。毛泽东早在延安整风时期就强调“党要管一切”，这一原则延续至今。
从制度设计上看，中共体制的合法性建立在虚伪的双重结构上：一是形式上的民主与法治：宪法文本中写有人民代表大会制度、法律至上等条文；二是现实中的党治独裁：一切权力最终归于中共中央政治局及其常委会，法律和宪政成为权力意志的工具。
正如林茨在《后极权主义社会》中所言：“在后极权体制中，法律不过是权力的附庸，宪法沦为政治装饰”（林茨，1996）。中共体制恰恰体现了这一特征。体制内人被要求忠于宪法，却更必须忠于党，后者才是实际的安全与升迁保障。
这种虚伪的合法性结构，迫使体制内个体长期处于矛盾与撕裂之中。他们明知制度不公，却必须以维护制度为己任；他们寄望体制保障，却随时可能被体制抛弃。
三、掘墓人的历史逻辑
极权体制往往在其最鼎盛时期孕育自我毁灭的力量。苏联的戈尔巴乔夫即为典型案例。他出身体制内，却在改革与开放的进程中，成为导致苏联解体的关键人物（1985-1991）。类似的情况还出现在东欧剧变：阿尔巴尼亚的民主转型、罗马尼亚齐奥塞斯库政权的崩溃（1989），均有体制内改革派与思想者的作用。
这表明，极权体制的掘墓人往往来自体制内部。原因在于：一是体制内思想者更熟悉制度运作与权力结构，拥有揭示真相与行动的条件；二是他们在长期矛盾中积累了思想异化，对自由与民主的需求更为迫切；三是当体制合法性与治理能力衰退时，体制内的背离行为将起到临门一脚的作用。因此，中共体制内人放弃体制，不仅是个体的选择，更可能成为历史转折的关键。
四、中共体制内的权力与身份结构
要理解体制内人的处境，必须分析其内部的分层结构。一是权贵阶层：这是人数极少但掌控庞大财富与资源的群体。学界普遍认为，中国的权力已被约一百多个家族牢牢控制，他们在经济、政治与军队中具有绝对话语权（沈大伟，2015）。这一群体与体制深度绑定，他们的利益与体制存亡紧密相连。二是庞大的从属群体：包括各级官僚、干部、事业单位人员、军警系统人员。他们是体制的日常运转者，但同时也是最容易被抛弃的“耗材”。党内运动、纪律检查、政治整肃，使他们随时可能失去地位甚至自由。
这一结构决定了体制的脆弱性。少数权贵的高度依附，与多数从属群体的潜在离心，构成了内在张力。一旦体制衰退，从属群体出于生存考虑选择中立或背离，政权的崩塌就会迅速发生。
五、社会逻辑：从压迫到离散
从社会逻辑看，体制内人的生活状态充满了不稳定性。一是依附性与恐惧：中共体制强调上下级关系的绝对服从，下级必须依赖上级的保护，但上级本身也随时可能被清算。这种不确定性导致普遍的不安全感；二是思想的双重性：体制外的社会，尤其是全球化带来的信息与价值观，使体制内人接触到民主、法治、自由等理念。这些理念与现实中的专制体验形成强烈反差。三是被迫的自我异化：为了保全自身，他们必须口是心非，公开场合高举忠诚旗帜，私下却可能充满不满与怀疑。这种撕裂最终会推动他们在历史节点上选择离散。
正如托克维尔在研究法国大革命时所言：“当人们意识到可以过得更好，而制度却阻碍他们时，革命便不可避免”（托克维尔，1856）。
六、政治逻辑：从维护到放弃
极权体制的稳定有两个前提：一是核心利益集团的高度团结；二是下层官僚群体的广泛服从。当第二个条件不复存在时，政权将迅速丧失运行能力。苏联的解体说明，当体制内多数人不再愿意为体制背书，极权大厦顷刻之间便可坍塌。对于中共而言，若体制内大多数个体在关键时刻选择放弃体制，哪怕仅仅是消极抵抗、不再维护，它的统治机制也将陷入瘫痪。政治逻辑的铁律在于：统治的合法性不是通过暴力维持的，而是通过被统治者的服从与合作维持的（韦伯，1922）。一旦这种合作瓦解，独裁的根基就将动摇。
综上所述，中共体制的本质决定了它是一部吞噬个体的“绞肉机”；它延续了列宁主义的虚伪合法性；它必然在内部孕育出掘墓人。体制内部的分层结构进一步揭示了多数从属群体与少数权贵之间的张力。从社会逻辑上看，体制内个体长期处于不安全与撕裂状态；从政治逻辑上看，他们的放弃行为可能在关键时刻成为历史转折的决定性力量。
因此，中共体制内人更应放弃体制。这不仅是个体的理性选择，更是历史规律的必然体现。正如历史多次证明的那样，极权体制的崩塌，往往源于体制内部的瓦解，而非外部的打击。体制内人的背离，既是他们自我拯救的出路，也可能成为中国走向自由与民主的重要契机。体制内个体的放弃行为不仅是自我保护的必然选择，更可能成为推动体制瓦解的重要历史力量。
The social and political logic of those within the CCP system abandoning the system
Author/Editor: Li Zhiyang
Editor: Luo Zhifei Translation: tomorrow
Abstract: This article explores the possibility of individuals within the Chinese Communist Party system abandoning the system, analyzes the contradictions between political power, economic interests and social values, points out the cost of system dependence, and reveals the potential power of China’s transformation.
Within the classic framework of totalitarian research, the relationship between individuals and institutions has long been considered a crucial topic in modern political science and sociology. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt argued that totalitarianism maintains its rule not only through terror and violence but also through institutionalized organizational structures and ideological shaping, becoming deeply embedded within the social structure (Arendt, 1951). The Chinese Communist Party system is a typical continuation of this totalitarian model.
For those outside the system, the CCP’s authoritarian nature has long been obvious. However, even more noteworthy is the fact that individuals within the system also face risks and difficulties. They are not only the executors of the system’s operations, but are often victims of its self-purgation and self-consumption. Therefore, analyzing why those within the CCP system should abandon the system not only helps us understand the operating logic of the totalitarian system but also reveals the potential driving forces for future social change in China.
1. The Dictatorship and “Meat Grinder” Effect of the Communist System
The core characteristic of the communist system is comprehensive control over society. Lenin’s theories of “professional revolutionaries” and “vanguard parties” in What is to be Done? (Lenin, 1902) provide the theoretical basis for the totalitarian party’s monopoly on power. Under this system, individuals must obey the organization, and the organization obeys the center. Ultimately, all power is concentrated in the hands of the party and its leader.
In practice, this hypercentralization inevitably leads to a “meat grinder effect.” The system not only eliminates dissidents through physical violence but also periodically devours its own members through political campaigns, intra-party struggles, and ideological reform. The Soviet Great Purge (1937), China’s Anti-Rightist Movement (1957), and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) all demonstrated that even the most loyal cadres can be sacrificed in the system’s self-renewal. As Arendt observed, “Totalitarian terror is directed not against enemies alone but against everyone” (Arendt, 1951).
Therefore, the identity of individuals within the CCP system is not a guarantee of security, but a sword hanging over their heads. Their very existence means that they may be liquidated at any time, the only difference is when.
2. The Continuation of the Leninist Model and False Legitimacy
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime ideologically touts itself as a polity of “socialist democracy and the rule of law,” but in reality, it strictly adheres to Leninist political logic. The so-called “democratic centralism” is merely a name for “centralization,” with the authority of the Party organization superseding the Constitution and the law. As early as the Yan’an Rectification Movement, Mao Zedong emphasized that “the Party must control everything,” a principle that persists to this day.
From an institutional perspective, the legitimacy of the CCP system rests on a hypocritical dual structure: first, formal democracy and the rule of law: the Constitution contains provisions such as the system of people’s congresses and the supremacy of law; second, the de facto party-ruled dictatorship: all power ultimately vests in the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee and its Standing Committee, with law and constitutionalism becoming tools of the will of power.
As Linz observes in Posttotalitarian Society, “In posttotalitarian systems, law is merely a vassal of power, and the constitution is reduced to political ornament” (Linz, 1996). The CCP system embodies this characteristic precisely. Within the system, those required to be loyal to the Constitution are even more required to be loyal to the Party, as the latter is the true guarantee of security and advancement.
This hypocritical structure of legitimacy forces individuals within the system into a state of chronic conflict and division. They know the system is unfair, yet they feel compelled to uphold it; they place their hopes in the system’s protection, yet they risk being abandoned by it at any moment.
3. The Historical Logic of Gravediggers
Totalitarian systems often foster self-destructive forces during their peak. Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union is a prime example. Born within the system, he became a key figure in the Soviet Union’s disintegration during the reform and opening-up process (1985-1991). Similar dynamics emerged during the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe: Albania’s democratic transition and the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in Romania (1989), both of which were influenced by reformists and thinkers within the system.
This shows that the gravediggers of totalitarian systems often come from within them. The reasons are: first, thinkers within the system are more familiar with the system’s operations and power structures, possessing the conditions to uncover the truth and take action; second, they have accumulated ideological alienation through long-term conflicts, leading to a more urgent demand for freedom and democracy; and third, when the system’s legitimacy and governance capacity decline, defections from within the system can be the final nail in the coffin.
Thus, when those within the CCP system abandon the system, it is not just an individual choice; it can also become a turning point in historical change.
4. The Power and Identity Structure within the CCP System
To understand the situation of those within the system, we must analyze its internal stratification. First, there is the elite: a small group that controls vast wealth and resources. Scholars generally believe that power in China is firmly controlled by approximately one hundred families, who hold absolute influence in the economy, politics, and the military (David Shambaugh, 2015). This group is deeply tied to the system, its interests inextricably linked to its survival. Second, there is the vast subordinate group: bureaucrats at all levels, cadres, personnel in public institutions, and members of the military and police. They are the daily operators of the system, but they are also the most easily disposable “consumables.”Intra-party movements, disciplinary inspections, and political purges mean they could lose their status and even their freedom at any time.
This structure determines the system’s fragility. The highly dependent minority and the potential for alienation from the majority of subordinate groups create inherent tension. Once the system declines, subordinate groups, motivated by survival concerns, choose neutrality or defection, and the regime collapses rapidly.
5. Social Logic: From Oppression to Dispersion
From a social perspective, the lives of those within the system are fraught with instability. First, there’s dependency and fear: The CCP system emphasizes absolute obedience between superiors and subordinates, requiring subordinates to rely on their superiors for protection, yet superiors themselves can be purged at any moment. This uncertainty leads to widespread insecurity. Second, there’s a duality of thought: The society outside the system, especially the information and values .brought about by globalization, exposes those within the system to concepts like democracy, the rule of law, and freedom. These ideals contrast sharply with the real-world experience of authoritarianism.The third is forced self-alienation: To preserve themselves, they must say one thing and mean another, publicly upholding the banner of loyalty while privately harboring discontent and suspicion. This rift will ultimately drive them to separate at a historical juncture.
As Alexis de Tocqueville said in his study of the French Revolution: “Revolution is inevitable when men realize that they can live better and that the institutions hinder them” (Tocqueville, 1856).
6. Political Logic: From Maintenance to Abandonment
The stability of a totalitarian system requires two prerequisites: first, the strong unity of the core interest groups; second, the widespread obedience of the lower-level bureaucracy.
When the second condition ceases to exist, the regime will quickly lose its ability to function. The collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrates that when the majority within the system no longer supports it, the totalitarian edifice can collapse in an instant.
For the CCP, if the majority of individuals within the system choose to abandon the system at a critical moment, even if it’s simply passive resistance and a cessation of defense, its ruling mechanism will be paralyzed. The iron law of political logic is that the legitimacy of rule is maintained not through violence but through the obedience and cooperation of the ruled (Weber, 1922). Once this cooperation collapses, the foundations of the dictatorship will be shaken.
In summary, the very nature of the CCP system determines that it is a “meat grinder” that devours individuals; it perpetuates Leninism’s false legitimacy; and it inevitably breeds its own gravediggers. The system’s internal stratification further reveals the tension between the majority of subordinate groups and the minority of powerful individuals. From a social perspective, individuals within the system are chronically insecure and torn; from a political perspective, their act of abandonment may, at a critical moment, become the decisive force in historical transitions.
Therefore, those within the CCP system should abandon the system. This is not only a rational individual choice, but also an inevitable manifestation of historical law. As history has repeatedly proven, the collapse of totalitarian systems often stems from internal disintegration, not external attacks. The defection of those within the system is both a path to self-salvation and a crucial opportunity for China to move towards freedom and democracy. The abandonment of individuals within the system is not only an inevitable choice for self-preservation, but also a significant historical force driving the system’s collapse.
