读X重要文章心得体会
（本刊荣誉主编供稿）
编辑：冯仍 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：程筱筱 翻译：刘芳
12月1日出版的第23期《求是》杂志发表了x的重要文章《推进党的自我革命要做到“五个进一步到位”》。所有官媒都在头版头条做了介绍，我只对文中几点谈些学习体会。
习文强调，自我革命是我们党跳出治乱兴衰历史周期率的第二个答案。
查老头学习体会：
1945年7月著名教育家黄×炎x培以国民参政员身份访问延安，在窑洞里黄问毛，中共如何跳出“其兴也勃焉，其亡也忽焉”的中国史上治乱兴衰循环反复的历史周期率。毛×泽×东略作沉思后答：“我们已经找到了新路，我们能跳出这个周期率，这条新路就是民主，走群众路线。只有让人民来监督政府，政府才不敢松懈，只有人人起来负责，才不会人亡政息。”
现世界多数国家的民主制度內涵是以多党竞选、三权分立、新闻自由、法律至上、军队国家化、保障公民人权来制约权力者。毛反对这些，他靠的是个人无上权威和不断的无序无法的群众运动，显然他失败了。
m的“窑洞对”为跳出历史周期率的第一方案，现提出“自我革命”为第二方案。×文提出要“刀刃向内““刮骨疗毒““霹雳手段决不能少”，决心极大，令人佩服。但m时代也讲“自我革命”，m 提出著名的警惕“糖衣炮弹”论。建国初即全国开展三反整风运动，枪毙了革命功臣、天津负责干部腐败分子刘x青x山、张x子x善，有23.8万名党内异己分子和贪腐分子受到刑事处理，文革前又大搞“四清”运动。可由于外部制约体制设计的原因，一个脱离群众的特权阶层还是出现了。
现在市场经济出现大规模权力与资本结合现象，在外部制度设计不变前提下，现在进行“自我革命”如何保证毛“自我革命”失败的历史不会重演呢？
习文讲，“党员干部要时刻牢记，我们一切权力都是人民赋予的……”
世界多数国家是在多党竞选中，选民用选票将权力赋予某个党。当然，也可以用选票剥夺某个执政党的权力，赋于别的党。我的问题是，我国宪定共产党是永远的执政党，选民没有选择别的党执政的权利（公民也没有成立新党的权利），那这个“我们一切权力都是人民赋予的”是如何“赋予”的呢？
如果每级掌权者的权力都是上级赋予的，那掌权者就只会对上负责，不对下（选民）负责，那习文中谴责的“利益集团、权势团体、特权阶层”怎能不出现？
习文讲，党员干部要“乐于接受党组织教育和各方面监督““要把党內监督和人民监督结合起来”“腐败突出表现是以权涉私…要通过持续努力，真正把权力关进制度的笼子”。
查老头学习体会：
X这几段话讲的好！人民监督应以法律保障，我呼吁全国人大要立《网络言x论x自x由法》，坚决打击那些随意封文封号封群、“被喝茶”的乱象。要立《保护公民监督政府法》，坚决打击那些以“攻击XXX”为名用“寻x衅×滋×事”、“煽×动×颠x覆”等罪名任意截访、拘押、判刑的乱象。
要立《新闻法》、《结社法》，落实宪法第三十五条中的公民出版、结社自由，这些政治自由人×权正是人民监督权力的手段、反腐的“防火墙”。
要立《官员财产公开法》，全球已有30个国家立法要求官员财产向社会全面公开，这为社会监督提供了公开透明的条件。
《中国共产党纪律检查委员会工作条例》第七条规定：党中央纪律检查委员会与国家监察委员会合署办公，地方各级党纪委与政府监委实行一套工作机构、两个机关名称的合署办公。我建议：修改此条例，纪委监委分开，给监委依法监察执政党内干部腐败的独立性，其重大意义不言自明。
2025/12/6 北京（103）
Elder Cha Talks About Current Affairs
Reflections on Reading Important Articles on X
(Contribution by the Journal’s Honorary Editor-in-Chief)
Editor: Feng Reng Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Liu Fang
The 23rd issue of Qiushi magazine, published on December 1, carried an important article by x titled “Advancing the Party’s Self-Revolution Must Achieve ‘Five Further Improvements in Place.’” All official media placed it on their front pages and headlines. I would like to share only a few of my own reflections on several points in the article.
Xi’s article emphasizes that self-revolution is the Party’s second answer to escaping the historical cycle of rise and decline, order and chaos.
Elder Cha’s reflections:
In July 1945, the well-known educator Huang Yanpei, visiting Yan’an as a member of the National Political Council, asked Mao Zedong in a cave dwelling how the Chinese Communist Party could escape the recurring historical cycle described as “its rise is sudden and vigorous, its fall equally sudden.” After brief reflection, Mao replied: “We have already found a new path. We can escape this cycle. This new path is democracy, following the mass line. Only by letting the people supervise the government will the government dare not slacken; only when everyone takes responsibility will governance not collapse with the death of one individual.”
In most countries today, the substance of democratic systems lies in multi-party competition, separation of powers, freedom of the press, the rule of law, the nationalization of the military, and the protection of civil rights—all mechanisms to restrain those in power. Mao opposed these. He relied instead on supreme personal authority and continuous, disorderly mass movements unconstrained by law. Clearly, m’s “cave dialogue” was the first proposed solution for escaping the historical cycle; the current proposal of “self-revolution” is presented as the second. X’s article calls for “turning the blade inward,” “scraping poison from the bone,” and insists that “thunderous measures must not be lacking.” The determination is immense and admirable. Yet Mao’s era also spoke of “self-revolution.” Mao famously warned against “sugar-coated bullets.” Soon after the founding of the PRC, the nationwide Three-Anti campaign was launched; revolutionary veterans and corrupt officials such as Liu Qingqing and Zhang Zishan in Tianjin were executed, and 238,000 Party dissidents and corrupt elements were subjected to criminal punishment. Before the Cultural Revolution, the “Four Cleanups” campaign was carried out again. Yet due to flaws in external institutional constraints, a privileged class detached from the masses still emerged.
Today, under a market economy, large-scale collusion between power and capital has appeared. Without changes to external institutional design, how can a new round of “self-revolution” ensure that the historical failure of Mao’s “self-revolution” will not be repeated?
Xi’s article states: “Party members and cadres must always remember that all our power is granted by the people…”
In most countries, power is granted through multi-party elections, with voters using ballots to authorize a party to govern—and also to strip a ruling party of power and give it to another. My question is this: when our Constitution stipulates that the Communist Party is the permanent ruling party, and voters have no right to choose another party to govern (nor do citizens have the right to form new parties), how exactly is this power “granted by the people”?
If the power of officials at every level is granted only by their superiors, then those in power will be accountable only upward, not downward to voters. In that case, how could the “interest groups, power blocs, and privileged strata” condemned in X’s article fail to emerge?
Xi’s article also states that Party members and cadres should be “willing to accept education from Party organizations and supervision from all sides,” that “Party supervision and public supervision should be combined,” and that “the prominent manifestation of corruption is the misuse of power for private gain… power must truly be locked into the cage of institutions through sustained effort.”
Elder Cha’s reflections:
These passages are well said! Public supervision must be protected by law. I call on the National People’s Congress to enact a Law on Freedom of Online Speech, to resolutely curb the chaos of arbitrary content deletions, account bans, group shutdowns, and being “summoned for tea.” A Law on Protecting Citizens’ Supervision of Government should be enacted to resolutely curb the abuse of charges such as “attacking XXX,” “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” or “inciting subversion” to arbitrarily intercept petitioners, detain them, and sentence them.
A Press Law and a Law on Associations should be enacted to implement Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens’ freedoms of publication and association. These political freedoms and human rights are precisely the means by which the people supervise power and serve as a “firewall” against corruption.
A Law on the Disclosure of Officials’ Assets should be enacted. Globally, more than thirty countries already require by law that officials’ assets be fully disclosed to society, providing transparent conditions for public oversight.
Article 7 of the Regulations on the Work of the Communist Party of China Discipline Inspection Committees stipulates that the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission share offices, and that local Party discipline inspection commissions and government supervisory commissions operate as “one set of institutions with two names.” I propose revising this regulation to separate the discipline inspection commissions from the supervisory commissions, granting the latter independence to lawfully supervise corruption among ruling-party officials. The significance of this reform speaks for itself.
December 6, 2025, Beijing (103)
