作者：陈西
编辑：邢文娟 责任编辑：钟然 校对：林小龙 翻译：刘芳
每个中国人都梦想着把中国建设成为一个和谐包容、富强民主的现代文明国家，然而在二十一世纪的今天，我在贵州省又遇到了“红卫兵小将”。这再次说明，“文革”幽灵仍然在游荡，依然笼罩着中华大地。
我亲眼见过“文革”时期的“红卫兵”小将目无法纪，肆意残害他人。他们眼里没有法律，在他们的人生字典里，根本没有人权、宪政或者包容性的概念，他们被教育为了保证红色江山万年长，疯狂地打倒一切，铲除所谓的“封资修、地富反坏右”等等大毒草与社会有识之士。
如此，我陈西便被“红小将”们视为大坏蛋，大毒草，成了必须被实施无产阶级专政的对象。于是，从7月13日起，小将们决定对我及我的手机实行专政N多天。
尽管中华人民共和国虽有《宪法》，并且《宪法》第三十三条明确写到：国家尊重和保障人权。但是，“红小将”们并不把《宪法》放在眼里，也不把普世观价值放在眼里，他们只把领导指示当做最高的行动纲领，而非法律。把不服从领导安排的人当作敌人对待。防止精神污染而非普世观放在眼里。小将们的浅薄和无知阻碍了他们认识真理，用药理学来说：常识之一是无毒的草药无药效，只有有毒的草药才能入药，他们不知道毒草就是名贵药草，有毒的才可入药。他们不识自然，不能理解一个充满活力的世界是一个五毒俱全，牛鬼蛇神存在的世界。
地球上不存在“红色保险箱”那种极端的地方，也不存在完全无菌无污染的区域。社会政治学家曾指出：人类世界是一个多元多样结构的世界，不是一元化“祖国山河一片红”的世界，人不必为一元化忧虑什么。令人忧虑的不是多元化，而是将“一元化”当成理想的执念。
中国古人有句古话是这么说的：“人心惟危，道心惟微”，这个世界又复杂又奇妙。我们求知求学“为学日益”；但如果有人妄图改变世界，违背道理自然规律，则是“为道日损，损之又损”，最终会落得个达到“以至于无为”的认知境地，那么，人交的学费太多，损失太大了。我们何必非要交了高昂学费才识真理呢！何必非要付出巨大损失后才知道“道与无为”的关系呢！以至才晓得“上无为而民自化”自主自治重要性的道理呢。所以有中共领导提出：“一个都不能少”，提倡“个人主义”，其目的是尊重个体，把中国建成一个“上无为而民自化”的民本包容性国家。“民为邦之本，本固则邦宁。”社稷为个人设，个人过上幸福生活才决非是为国家存在的目的。
多元包容性国家不选择不预先设定人的好坏优劣而存在，这也是法理和法律的中立性要求是这个理。法律只关注个人，不关心集体主义；只保障个人的权利，不保障集体的利益；法理认为，即使是集体福祉，也是从个人点滴功夫积小成大而得。哪怕是集体福祉，也应建立在保障个体权利与尊严的基础之上。公共利益不应以牺牲个人为代价。细节决定成败。如果法律仅服务于集体主义，法治国家的基础将难以建立，多元包容的社会也将无从谈起。
也有中共官员曾经提出，不要只盯着《宪法》33条，也要看《宪法》第五十一条。我说：《宪法》第五十一条不是倡导集体主义，而是指”不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益”；国家、社会、集体是被动语，不是主语，是由一个个的个体组成的，个体公民的利益得到保障，集体、社会和国家的利益才能得到保障。才是主体与主题；“不得损害”只是提示句，不是主题句，其轻重缓急表现在它们的排序上。排序在前的是目的，排序靠后的是辅助；“保护个人主义”是目的，这个要求还含有可行性，和可操作性专业技术上的诉求，是从细节出发的选择。换句话说，不损害国家、社会和集体的利益，最终目的也是为了让人民过上富足的生活，这一点来看，岂不是应该从一开始就尊重个体自由，保障个体利益吗？
可是，我看到的贵州“红小将”无法无天，行事没有底线，依俨然是五十年前“文革”时期的那套思维模式。，他们行事没有底线，没有法治思维，更没有细节意识；他们任意侵犯公民的基本权利，并蔑视中华传统中“亲亲之隐”的美德，还把传统文化中的“株连九族”的文化糟粕发扬到极致 ，美其名曰：“分清敌我”“划清界线”，简直是刷新了人性恶的底线。19日，小将们又把陈西的内人传唤到派出所，要求陈西的内人把好做手机实名制责任人责任，并恐吓陈西内人说：一旦有事，只追究手机实名制责任人的责任。小将们这一招何其歹毒，哪里有半点常人该有的恻隐之心。然而，他们却是在用美好词汇“为你好”去释放人性灵魂深处的恶心，让人们把本不该做的事堂堂正正做出来。法律尚且认同“亲亲之隐”，承认亲人之间有隐私权，包庇不为罪，而浅薄的“小将”们利用手中的权力，胁迫家人做不利于受害者的事情，这在任何一个民主国家都是不可能发生的事，在党国却堂而皇之地进行着。他们是不懂法律精神的。他们的肤浅里没有”恻隐之心“，更没有“细节论”；即便有，那也是令人恶心，让人愤慨的细节，而“细节论”的细节是让人舒心，是体贴人性脆弱的细节。
《宪法》一旦不被尊重，就如同一张废纸，每个人都可能生活在危险当中。 “文革”时期父子反目、邻里相互揭发、学生批斗老师的人伦惨剧历历在目，我不想看到悲剧重演，不想我们的国家再次进入失序的浩劫。每天都在上演，小将们也不识专政与“国家尊重和保障人权”不可同日而语的选择；一旦同日而语，国家；因为，专政行人制，保障人权行法治。小将们的浅薄使他们既不识毒草的功用，也蔑视传统美德。当年，小将们就做出了许多令人恶心之事，如：逼迫人六亲不认，强迫亲人反目，老师、学生、同事之间相互检举揭发批判。像胡适先生留在大陆的儿子被逼公开断绝了父子关系，而小将们仍没有放过他，硬要“痛打落水狗”；胡三痛恨自己为什么姓“胡”，最后，他不得不上吊自杀，以结束“胡”姓生命来恶心革命党人。留在大陆胡适先生所有学生或朋友都被小将们迫来批判他们曾经的先生或好友，唯有他的学生，前北京市副市长吴晗“至死没有佛头抹粪”，而导致吴晗被批斗致死的原因，正是吴晗与老师胡适的私人通信被革命党人发现，并被视为罪证①。
因正能量制造的恶行使一个国家的生存环境变得十分恶劣；最后，正能量也变质为造恶的罪证。
在这里，我要提醒人们，警惕“文革”和它的“红小将”们死灰复燃！
注：①《南渡北归》岳南著 第三部离别 第二章短兵相接 第三章胜利的牺牲品
被封数月，老号被废之前，写这一文。不知你们能收到否，此文能用否；想念离乡背景，漂泊万里之外的你们；望同仁们在外多多保重！
你们的同道： 陈西 于贵州贵阳被囹之家中
2025年10月18日
Encountering the “Red Guard Youths” Again
Author: Chen Xi
Editor: Xing Wenjuan Executive Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong Translator: Liu Fang
Abstract：The author, Chen Xi, recounts meeting “Red Guard youths” again in Guizhou and laments that the mentality of the Cultural Revolution has not vanished. He condemns their lawlessness, violations of human rights, and contempt for constitutionalism and the rule of law. The essay calls for respect for individual rights, warns against the extremism of collectivism, and cautions society to remain vigilant against the revival of the Cultural Revolution’s ghost.
Every Chinese dream of building the nation into a harmonious, inclusive, prosperous, and democratic modern civilization. Yet here in the twenty-first century, in Guizhou Province, I once again encountered “Red Guard youths.” This proves that the specter of the Cultural Revolution still wanders over the land of China, casting its long, chilling shadow.
I have seen with my own eyes how, during the Cultural Revolution, those “Red Guard youths” acted with utter disregard for law and conscience, arbitrarily persecuting others. In their eyes, there was no law; in their personal lexicon, there were no concepts of human rights, constitutionalism, or tolerance. They had been taught that to preserve the “red regime for ten thousand years,” they must mercilessly attack everything and uproot all the so-called “poisonous weeds” — the feudalists, capitalists, revisionists, landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, and rightists — as well as all the people of independent mind.
Thus, I, Chen Xi, was deemed a great “poisonous weed,” a sworn enemy of the proletariat, a target for their dictatorship. Beginning on July 13, these “little Red Guards” decided to exercise their dictatorship over me and my mobile phone for many days.
Though the People’s Republic of China has a Constitution, and Article 33 clearly states that “the State respects and guarantees human rights,” the “Red Guard youths” hold the Constitution in no regard. Nor do they respect universal values. For them, the leader’s instructions are the supreme code of action— not law. Those who disobey official arrangements are treated as enemies. They guard against “spiritual pollution” rather than uphold universal human values.
Their shallowness and ignorance prevent them from recognizing truth. To borrow from pharmacology: a harmless herb has no curative power; only poisonous plants can become medicine. They do not understand that “poisonous weeds” can be precious herbs—that what is toxic can also heal. Failing to understand nature, they cannot comprehend that a vibrant world is one where all kinds of creatures exist, where both “ox-ghosts and snake-spirits” have their place.
There is no such thing on Earth as a “red safety box,” an absolutely pure, unpolluted zone. Political theorists have long pointed out that humanity lives in a pluralistic, diverse world, not in a monolithic one where “the whole country is red.” We need not fear diversity; what is truly dangerous is the obsession with uniformity—treating “one color” as the ideal.
An ancient Chinese saying goes, “The human heart is perilous; the Way is subtle.” The world is indeed complex and wondrous. In learning, one should “gain daily,” but in following the Way, one must “diminish daily.” Those who attempt to reshape the world against natural law end up learning through loss upon loss until they reach “non-action”—wu wei. Yet such tuition is too costly. Why must we always pay such a high price before recognizing truth? Why must we suffer great loss before understanding that the Way and Non-Action are one, and that “when the ruler is inactive, the people govern themselves”?
That is why some within the CCP leadership once said, “Not a single person should be left behind,” and even promoted “individualism”—meaning respect for the individual, so that China might become a people-centered, inclusive nation in which “when the ruler does not interfere, the people self-transform.” As the ancients said, “The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is firm, the nation is at peace.” The state exists for the individual, not the individual for the state. Only when each person lives a happy life can the nation truly be strong.
A pluralistic and inclusive nation does not pre-classify people as good or bad; this is also what legal neutrality demands. Law concerns itself with individuals, not collectivism. It protects personal rights, not collective interests. Jurisprudence holds that even collective welfare arises from the accumulation of countless individual efforts. Thus collective good must rest upon the protection of individual rights and dignity. Public interest must never come at the expense of the individual. Details determine success or failure: if law serves only collectivism, the foundations of a rule-of-law state will crumble, and a pluralistic, tolerant society will become impossible.
Some Party officials have said, “Do not just look at Article 33; also read Article 51 of the Constitution.” I respond: Article 51 does not advocate collectivism; it merely cautions that “citizens, in exercising their freedoms and rights, shall not infringe upon the interests of the state, society, or the collective.” The state, society, and collective are objects, not subjects—they are composed of individuals. Only when individual citizens’ rights are secured can the interests of the state, society, and collective be secured. “Shall not infringe” is a reminder clause, not the main theme. In order and weight, what comes first—the individual—is the purpose; what follows is auxiliary. Protecting individualism is the goal, and it is also the only technically feasible path, one that begins with concrete details. In other words, the ultimate aim of “not harming the state, society, or collective” is to ensure people live prosperous lives. From this perspective, should we not begin by respecting individual freedom and safeguarding personal interests?
Yet the “Red Guard youths” I met in Guizhou act lawlessly, without any bottom line, still trapped in the thinking patterns of fifty years ago. They lack legal awareness and a sense for human detail. They arbitrarily violate citizens’ basic rights, despise the traditional virtue of familial loyalty, and carry to the extreme the worst relics of old culture—such as “implicating nine generations”—in the name of “distinguishing friend from foe” and “drawing clear lines.”
On the 19th, these “youths” summoned my wife to the police station, ordering her to bear full “real-name responsibility” for my phone number, threatening that if any “incident” occurred, only she would be held accountable. Such a tactic is vicious beyond measure. It shows not a trace of human compassion. Cloaked in the benevolent phrase “it’s for your own good,” they release the filth of the human soul, making people commit indecent acts with self-righteous pride.
Even the law recognizes the “concealment out of affection” between kin, acknowledging that family members have privacy and that shielding a loved one is not a crime. But these shallow “Red Guard youths,” abusing their power, coerce relatives into actions harmful to the victim—something unimaginable in any democracy, yet openly practiced in the Party-state. They do not understand the spirit of law. Their shallowness holds no compassion, no awareness of human subtlety. Even when they care about “details,” those details only disgust and anger others; true attention to detail should bring comfort and show empathy toward human fragility.
Once the Constitution is no longer respected, it becomes nothing but a scrap of paper, and everyone’s life becomes precarious. The tragedies of the Cultural Revolution—fathers and sons turning against each other, neighbors denouncing neighbors, students persecuting teachers—remain vivid. I do not want to see such horrors repeat, nor to see our country fall again into chaos.
Yet such scenes play out daily. The “Red Guard youths” fail to see the difference between dictatorship and the constitutional guarantee of human rights. Dictatorship is rule by man; the protection of human rights is rule by law. Their ignorance makes them blind to the healing power of “poisonous weeds” and contemptuous of traditional virtue.
Back then, those “youths” committed countless vile acts: forcing people to renounce kinship, making relatives betray one another, compelling students and colleagues to denounce their teachers and friends. Hu Shi’s son, who remained in mainland China, was coerced into publicly severing ties with his father—yet the “youths” still would not spare him, insisting on “beating the drowning dog.” Driven to despair, Hu San came to hate his own surname “Hu” and finally hanged himself to end the “Hu” bloodline, to nauseate the revolutionaries with his death. All of Hu Shi’s students and friends who remained in the mainland were forced to denounce him; only his student, former Beijing vice mayor Wu Han, “refused to smear Buddha’s head with dung even unto death.” The reason he was beaten to death was that his private correspondence with his teacher Hu Shi had been discovered by the revolutionaries and used as evidence of guilt.¹
When “positive energy” manufactures evil deeds, it poisons the very environment in which a nation survives—eventually that same “positive energy” becomes evidence of crime.
Here, I must warn all: beware the return of the Cultural Revolution and its “Red Guard youths”!
¹ From Southward, Northward (《南渡北归》) by Yue Nan, Part III – “Farewell,” Ch. 2 “Close Combat,” Ch. 3 “The Sacrifice of Victory.”
Written before my account was sealed and my old number deleted. I do not know whether this piece will reach you, or whether it can be used. I miss you, my fellow exiles wandering far from home. Please take care, wherever you are.
Your comrade, Chen Xi
Confined at home under guard, Guiyang, Guizhou Province October 18, 2025
