文｜林小龙
采访：林小龙 编辑：张致君 责任编辑：朱虞夫 资料整理：林小龙 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰
陈西，基督徒，贵州民主人权运动核心人物之一。自1980年代起，他先后参与组织「沙龙联谊会」「爱国民主联合会」「中国民主党贵州分部」及「公民国际人权研讨会」，发表政论文章一百七十余篇，著有五十万字《绿色文化工具书》。因坚持民主理念，他三次入狱，累计服刑二十三年。
1989年的六四事件，成为他人生的转折点。原本身为共产党员、国家干部、大学教师的他，被当局“选定”为贵州地区的代表性人物。在国家机器的指认下，他从被动参与者转为主动承担者——将个人命运与民族的民主进程紧密绑定。从此，牢狱、伤痕与打压成为常态，但“做一个反者、做一个公民”的信念始终未曾动摇。
上期采访回顾了他的人生转折与苦难经历，也呈现了他对中国政治转型的思考——通过制度约束驯化权力，而非制造新的权力循环。他寄望年轻一代延续反对派传统，记录历史，推动自由、民主与公民意识的成长。
然而，出狱后的陈西并未获得任何真正意义上的“重生”。他原本应像普通退休教师一样，安稳地回归生活，却发现自己过去的职业身份和社会保障体系被当局系统性剥夺。尽管家人为他多年缴纳了社保，地方社保部门却以判刑期间不计入缴费年限为由，粗暴地取消了他本应享有的养老金，将一个本该安享晚年的公民逼入长期的不确定与困顿之中。
这样的做法，在中国的异议人士群体中并非孤例：无数因为坚持信念、追求自由的人，即便服完刑期，依然被剥夺退休权利和基本生活保障，昔日为推动宪政民主、为国家社会贡献的精力与付出，被赤裸裸地否定和掠夺。
对陈西而言，这种制度性的“延续惩罚”无疑暴露了中共权力的冷酷与无情：惩罚从未在庭审结束后止步，极权通过行政、司法、社会机制层层加码，持续重新界定他的身份与权利，使他无法回归普通公民的生活轨迹。在独裁极权下没有公正、没有救济，只有一套精心设计、永不停息的权力机器——专门针对那些敢于质疑、敢于反抗的人而运转。
每一次被取消的养老金，每一次行政阻碍，都不仅是对个人的惩罚，更是中共政治制度对整个社会自由与公民权利的公然践踏。
林：您从出狱之后，共产党对你的养老金是如何处理的？
陈：我出狱之后，我对社保局、军人事务部进行了投诉，我家里人给我交了社保，但是社保局说我坐牢十年，给我取消了，这样的行为不单单是一种契约的不履行，更是一种落井下石。我已经受到了惩罚，共产党的这种行为是跟法律相抵触的，完全就是以地方的行政法规去处罚我。之前我是贵州省贵阳学院的教师，1989年因“64”事件被学校开除。
林：当社保部门告诉你取消你的社保待遇的时候，有没有提供书面解释和法律依据？
陈：没有法律依据，当时是以贵州省的行政法规给我解释的，我认为这跟法律不相符，这不是一个法治国家的表现，因为我坐牢，我退伍军人的待遇可以取消，但是我坐牢之后，我作为一个普通公民，我的正常待遇不应当给我取消。
林：您是否进行行政复议或者提起行政诉讼？
陈：我进行了行政复议，从社区到观山湖区到贵阳市政府，他们是这样答复我的“根据贵州省的行政法规，坐牢期间的缴费不应当计算在内”。地方性法律法规与法律冲突时以法律为准。我在我的投诉状中给到了建议，法律的处罚是有边界的，但是你们对我的处罚是没有边界的，你们可以剥夺我退伍军人的优待，曾经我作为一名军人，为国家做出的贡献是不能磨灭的，但是现在你们对我的处罚无异于“无期徒刑”。
林：如果按照正常的社保状态，那么现在你能够获得一个什么样的待遇？
陈：如果按照正常工龄来计算，那么我可以领到5~6千，社保局有二十年的工龄没有给我算，加上五年的军龄一共是二十五年，家人给我交了十八年的社保，一共是四十三年。
林：您觉得这样的情况是单纯的行政行为还是一个政治惩罚的延续？
陈：这是国家的政策法规没有进入法治国家的理念，而是阶级斗争，还是旧理念的模式，遇到“敌人”就要斗争到底，绝不姑息。
林：您去反应你的情况的时候是否有工作人员暗示过您的情况跟别人的不一样？
陈：没有暗示过我，社保是我的家人给我交的，但是处罚我的法规文件是不给我看的，除非我同意他们的处罚，都是暗箱操作。导致这种状态就是因为这个国家还停留在“马列主义”时期，不是一个真正的法治国家。随时都要求“意识形态”这种虚无缥缈的东西，现在这个国家就是一个“党治”国家，全由共产党统治。
林：据您了解像跟您一样的所谓的“政治犯”是否遭到同样的遭遇？
陈：都是一样的情况，我们都是“党治”的受害者。
林：现在您没有养老金，那么您的日常开销的主要来源是什么？
陈：主要是来源于我的家人。
林：那么您现在住房、医疗开销压力大吗？
陈：压力肯定大，现在经济状况不好，而且物价还高。现在当地公安、政法委四十多个人轮班看守我，“疫情”早就过去了，但是“红袖章”还在我居住的这里，每年他们统计过花在我身上的慰问费是200万元，共产党的维稳经费是很高昂的，管理国家的经费是全球最多的，这就是专家学者已经公布的。五年前我出狱的时候，当时公安局的某位大队长曾经用一千万让我“息事宁人”，但是我没有同意，我告诉他们，我的人生不是为金钱而活，你们把我这种精神看得太渺小了。早期贵州另外两位民运人士就是这样处理的，改革开放初期每人给了五十万让他们放弃民运。
采访并非发生在同一空间。记者身在海外，陈西本人仍在中国，交流只能通过远程方式断续进行。但正是在这种被时间、地域与审查层层隔开的状态下，一个个细节得以被反复确认、拼接与记录。在现实的重压之下，他依然保持着清醒的判断与清晰的表达。惩罚可以剥夺自由、切断收入，却始终无法彻底消除一个人对尊严、法治与自由的坚持。这，或许正是陈西至今仍被严密“看守”的真正原因。
在中国当下的政治现实中，“出狱”并不意味着惩罚的结束。对一些人而言，它只是另一种长期惩罚的开始。贵州民运人士陈西，正是这样一位始终被制度持续追逐的人。
当制度以无边界的权力剥夺一个人的权利与尊严时，公民的责任不仅是自保，更是守护普遍的法治原则与社会正义。
陈西选择的不仅是生存，更是长期的社会实践：通过记录历史、捍卫自由、批判权力。
他试图为极权社会留下一条可能的出路：在制度的野兽面前，公民的理性与良知可以成为驯化力量。
Chen Xi: Life Being Punished and Faith Not Extinguished
Text: Lin Xiaolong
Interview: Lin Xiaolong Editor Zhang Zhijun
handling editor: Zhu Yufu Archive: Lin Xiaolong
Proofreading: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translation: Ge Bing
Chen Xi, a Christian, is a key figure in Guizhou’s democracy and human rights movement. Since the 1980s, he has organized the Salon Friendship Association, the Patriotic Democratic Federation, the Guizhou branch of the Chinese Democratic Party and the International Symposium on Human Rights for Citizens. He served 23 years of three prison terms for his commitment to democracy.
The events of June 4, 1989, were a turning point in his life. Formerly a Communist Party member, a state cadre and a university teacher, he was “chosen” by the authorities as a representative of the Guizhou region. Under the designation of the state apparatus, he went from passive participant to active bearer — tying the fate of the individual to the democratic process of the nation. Prisons, scars and repression have been the norm ever since, but the belief that “to be an opponent, to be a citizen” has never been shaken.
His last interview reflected on the twists and turns of his life and his travails, as well as his reflections on China’s political transition — taming power through institutional constraints rather than creating a new power cycle. He looks to the younger generation to continue the opposition’s traditions, document history and promote freedom, democracy and civic awareness.
But Mr. Chen did not receive any real “rebirth” after his release from prison. He should have returned to life as a normal retired teacher, only to find his past professional status and social security system systematically stripped of him by the authorities. Despite years of social security contributions from his family, the local social security authorities, citing the exclusion of his years in prison, crudely canceled his pension entitlements, plunging a citizen who was supposed to be enjoying his old age into prolonged uncertainty and distress.
This is not an isolated practice among China’s dissident community, where countless people have been starkly denied and plundered for their commitment to their faith and freedom, denied their right to retirement and basic living guarantees even after serving their prison sentences, and for their energy and dedication to promoting constitutional democracy and contributing to the country’s society.
For Chen, this institutional “punishment of continuity” undoubtedly exposes the callousness and ruthlessness of the party’s power: punishment never ceases after the trial, and authoritarianism continues to redefine his identity and rights through administrative, judicial, and social mechanisms, preventing him from returning to the trajectories of ordinary citizens. There is no justice, no relief under authoritarian totalitarianism. There is only a well-designed, never-ending power machine — one that works for those who dare to question and defy.
Every pension that is canceled, every administrative obstruction, is not just a punishment for the individual, it is also a flagrant violation by the party’s political system of the freedoms and civil rights of society as a whole.
How did the Communist Party treat your pension after you got out of prison?
Chen: After I got out of prison, I complained to the Social Security Bureau and the Ministry of Military Affairs. My family gave me social security. But the Social Security Bureau said that after I was imprisoned for ten years, I was given a cancelation. Such acts were not only a breach of contract, but also a downfall. I’ve been punished, and the party’s actions are against the law, and they’re all about punishing me with local regulations. I was a teacher at Guiyang College in Guizhou Province and was expelled from the school in 1989 for the “64” incident.
When the social security department told you to cancel your social security treatment, did it provide a written explanation and legal basis?
Chen: There was no legal basis, and the administrative regulations of Guizhou Province were used to explain it to me at the time. I think this is inconsistent with the law. This is not a reflection of a country ruled by law. Because I am in prison, my treatment to veterans may be canceled, but after I am in prison, as an ordinary citizen, my normal treatment should not be canceled.
Hayashi: Are you conducting administrative reviews or filing administrative litigation?
Chen: I conducted an administrative reconsideration from the community to the Guanshan Lake District to the Guiyang Municipal Government, and they replied to me that “according to the administrative regulations of Guizhou Province, the payment made during imprisonment shall not be counted”. Where any local law or regulation conflicts with any law, the law shall prevail. In my complaint, I suggested that there is a boundary to legal punishment, but there is no boundary to your punishment of me, that you can deprive my veterans of the privilege of having served my country as a soldier, but now you’re punishing me as if I were a “life sentence.”
What kind of treatment would you get now if you were in a normal social security situation?
Chen: If I take the normal number of years of service, then I can receive 5-6,000. The Social Security Bureau has 20 years of service that I haven’t calculated. Plus, the five-year military service is 25 years. My family has paid me 18 years of social security, 43 years altogether.
Do you think this situation is simply an administrative act or a continuation of political punishment?
Chen: This is the idea that the state’s policies and regulations are not entering the country ruled by law, but class struggle, or the model of the old idea that when the “enemy” meets, the struggle will be the end and will not be tolerated.
Did any of your staff suggest that your situation was different when you were responding to your situation?
Chen: There was no suggestion that my family had given me social security, but the legal document that punished me was not shown to me, unless I agreed to their punishment, it was all covert. This is because the country remains a Marxist-Leninist state, not a true state of law. “Ideology” is a mythical thing that is required all the time. Now this country is a “party-run” country, run entirely by the Communist Party.
Do you know that so-called “political prisoners” like yourself have been subjected to the same treatment?
It’s all the same. We’re all victims of the “party rule.”
Now that you don’t have a pension, what are your primary sources of daily expenses?
It’s mainly from my family.
So are you under pressure to spend money on housing and healthcare?
Chen: The pressure must be great. The economy is not doing well and prices are still high. Now, the local public security and political and legal affairs committee has more than 40 personnel guarding me in shifts. The epidemic has long passed, but the “Red Armband” is still at my place of residence. They have counted the comfort fee spent on me at 2 million yuan per year. The expenses for maintaining the stability of the Communist Party are very high, and the funds for managing the country are the largest in the world, which is what experts and scholars have announced. Five years ago, when I was released from prison, a police chief used ten million dollars to silence me, but I didn’t agree, I told them that my life wasn’t about money, and you looked down on me too small. That is what two other early Guizhou democracy activists did, each giving 500,000 to abandon their democracy in the early days of reform and opening up.
Interviews do not take place in the same space. Journalists are abroad, and Mr. Chen himself remains in China, where exchanges can only be conducted intermittently by remote means. But it is in this state of time, geographical and censorship layer separation, details can be repeatedly confirmed, spliced and recorded. Under the weight of reality, he remains sober and articulate. Punishing can deprive a person of his or her liberty and cut off his or her income, but it never completely eliminates a person’s commitment to dignity, the rule of law and freedom. That may be the real reason why Chen Xi is still closely guarded.
In China’s current political realities, “getting out of jail” does not mean the end of punishment. For some, it is just the beginning of another long-term punishment. Chen Xi, a Guizhou democracy activist, is one of those who has been consistently pursued by the system.
When a system deprives a person of his rights and dignity with unlimited powers, it is the duty of citizens not only to protect themselves but also to uphold the universal principles of the rule of law and social justice.
Chen Xi’s choice was not just survival, but also long-term social practice: by documenting history, defending freedom, and criticizing power.
He sought to leave a possible way out for authoritarian societies: in the face of the beast of institutions, the rationality and conscience of citizens could become domesticating forces.
