——党国资本主义的真相 系列二
本的独立性触碰了政权安全红线。周期性的行业整肃并非市场行为，而是权力为吞并资产、消除威胁而进
行的政治清算。
作者：景辉辰
编辑：韩瑞媛
责任编辑：胡丽莉
翻译：何兴强
2025年9月22日
在中国当下的体制中，民营资本屡遭打压绝非偶然，而是党国资本主义结构的必然结果。党政权力与国有
资本深度交织，形成了独特的“权力——资本一体化”模式。在这一体制下，民营资本始终处于弱势地位
，随时可能被打压、设陷、甚至被清算。许多民营企业家在夹缝中生存，最终的结局往往是资产被吞并、
自由被剥夺。
一、权力的红线：不容挑战的附庸地位
在党国体制下，民营资本的发展必须以服从权力为前提。表面上，政策鼓励民企发展，但一旦企业规模过
大，形成独立影响力，就可能触碰权力红线。
因此，许多打压并非市场竞争的结果，而是行政和政治手段的体现：突如其来的调查、严苛的监管、巨额
罚款，甚至强迫企业家“公开表态”。这样打压传递出的信号很明确——民营企业不是独立的市场主体，
而是必须服从权力的附庸。
2020年，蚂蚁集团即将上市，估值超3000亿美元，原本将创全球最大IPO。但因马云公开批评监管体系，
上市在前夕被紧急叫停，随后公司被要求全面整改，马云本人一度消失。此事凸显民企一旦触及权力红线
，便难逃政治打压。
二、
资本的围猎：国资主导的吞并游戏
中国最核心的金融、能源、土地、通信等领域，几乎全部掌握在国有资本手中。凭借政策与资源优势，党
国资本在竞争中始终占据主动地位。
这意味着，即便民营企业有创新和竞争力，也很难长期立足。很多时候，打压并不是终点，而是吞并的前
奏。企业在被压低后，要么被迫低价转让股份，要么被剥夺控制权，最终被纳入国有资本的体系。
2018年，民营巨头安邦保险因“严重违法经营”被监管接管，创始人吴小晖被判刑。接管后，其核心资产
被国有资本重组，转入大家保险集团，实现了民企向国企的低价吞并，凸显国资对民营资本的主导和围猎
。
三、安全的焦虑：
打压背后的政治动
机
民营资本屡遭打压，真正的原因并不只是经济利益，而是政权安全。民营资本一旦形成独立力量，便会带
来社会影响力与潜在的独立性，这是党国体制无法容忍的。
因此，周期性的整肃不仅是一种经济管制，更是一种政治宣示。它提醒所有企业家：在这个体制下，资本
只能依附权力而存在，否则就会被清算。
2021年，滴滴出行上市后因数据和信息安全问题被监管调查，App被下架整改并罚款。此举凸显民营平台
一旦形成独立社会影响力，就可能触碰政权安全红线，向所有企业家传递“资本必须依附权力，否则将被
清算”的政治信号。
四、
现实
的
印证：
从互联网到房地产
这种逻辑在中国被一次次验证：
互联网平台经济从繁荣到一纸政策下被“一夜清零”。房地产行业从“支柱产业”沦为“高风险领域”，大批民营房企轰然倒下，数百万从业者顷刻失业。
这些并非市场规律下的自然调整，而是权力出于政治安全和经济控制需要所做的直接干预。
五、结语：体制的必然
民营资本屡遭打压，既不是偶发事件，也不是个别政策失误，而是党国资本主义体制内的必然逻辑。财富
的积累和自由的空间，最终都可能被权力吞噬。
正是在这一意义上，民营资本的困境，揭示了党国资本主义的真实逻辑，也是当代中国发展的根本桎梏
Why Private Capital Is Repeatedly Suppressed — The Truth of Party-State Capitalism (Series II)
Abstract:
The systemic root of the repeated suppression of Chinese private capital lies in the party-state capitalist model of “power–capital integration.” The independence of private capital touches the red line of regime security. Periodic crackdowns on industries are not market-driven but political purges aimed at seizing assets and eliminating threats.
Author: Jing Huichen
Editor: Han Ruiyuan
Executive Editor: Hu Lili
Date: September 22, 2025
Translator:He XingQiang
In China’s current system, the repeated suppression of private capital is by no means accidental; it is the inevitable result of the structure of party-state capitalism. Political power and state-owned capital are deeply intertwined, forming a unique model of “power–capital integration.” Within this system, private capital is always in a vulnerable position, liable at any time to be suppressed, entrapped, or even liquidated. Many private entrepreneurs survive only in the cracks, and their final fate is often the seizure of their assets and the loss of their personal freedom.
I. The Red Line of Power: A Subordinate Status That Cannot Be Challenged
Under the party-state system, the development of private capital must be premised on obedience to power. On the surface, policies encourage the growth of private enterprises, but once a company becomes too large and builds independent influence, it may touch the red line of political power.
Thus, many crackdowns are not the result of market competition but of administrative and political measures: sudden investigations, harsh regulatory requirements, massive fines, and even forced public self-criticism by entrepreneurs. The message is clear — private companies are not independent market players; they must exist as vassals subordinate to political power.
In 2020, Ant Group was about to go public with a valuation exceeding USD 300 billion, poised to launch the world’s largest IPO. But after Jack Ma publicly criticized the regulatory system, the listing was abruptly halted on the eve of launch. The company was then forced into a sweeping “rectification,” and Jack Ma himself disappeared from public view for a period. This case revealed that once private capital touches the power red line, it can hardly escape political suppression.
II. The Hunt for Capital: State-Owned Enterprises’ Game of Takeovers
China’s most critical sectors — finance, energy, land, telecommunications — are almost entirely controlled by state-owned capital. With policy and resource advantages, party-state capital always holds the upper hand in competition.
This means that even when private firms are innovative and competitive, it is hard for them to survive long-term. Often, suppression is not the end but the prelude to a takeover. Once driven to the brink, companies are forced either to sell shares cheaply or to surrender control, eventually being absorbed into the state-capital system.
In 2018, the private insurance giant Anbang was taken over by regulators for “serious illegal operations,” and founder Wu Xiaohui was sentenced to prison. After the takeover, its core assets were restructured and transferred into the state-controlled Dajia Insurance Group — a textbook case of private assets being swallowed by state capital.
III. Security Anxiety: The Political Motive Behind Crackdowns
The real driver behind the repeated crackdowns on private capital is not merely economic interest but regime security. Once private capital develops independent strength, it brings social influence and a potential degree of autonomy — something the party-state cannot tolerate.
Periodic purges are therefore not just economic regulation but also political signaling. They remind all entrepreneurs: under this system, capital can only exist in dependence on power; otherwise, it will be eliminated.
In 2021, Didi Chuxing was investigated by regulators for data and information security after going public. Its app was removed from stores, forced into “rectification,” and heavily fined. The move showed that once a private platform grows large enough to wield independent social influence, it may trigger the regime’s security alarm — sending a clear warning to all: “Capital must depend on power, or it will be purged.”
IV. Reality in Action: From the Internet to Real Estate
This logic has been repeatedly proven in China.
The once-booming internet platform economy was abruptly “wiped out overnight” by policy decrees. The real estate sector, once hailed as a “pillar industry,” was redefined as “high-risk,” leading to the sudden collapse of numerous private developers and mass unemployment for millions of workers.
These are not natural market adjustments but direct interventions driven by political security needs and economic control.
V. Conclusion: A Structural Inevitability
The repeated suppression of private capital is neither a series of accidents nor isolated policy mistakes; it is the inevitable logic of the party-state capitalist system. The accumulation of wealth and the space for freedom can ultimately be devoured by power.
