作者：彭硕 编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅
近来中文舆论中流行所谓“美国斩杀线”的说法：一旦失业或生病，美国中产就会迅速坠入流浪、死亡的深渊。这类叙事往往通过混淆低收入脆弱群体与中产阶级、嫁接极端个案，制造出强烈的情绪冲击。
不可否认，美国社会确实存在诸多问题，包括贫富差距、族群歧视等，这些问题本身也值得批评和反思。但必须明确的是：美国的问题，与中国共产党统治是否正当之间不存在任何逻辑关联。一个政权的合法性，只能来自它是否保障本国公民的基本权利，而不是通过对比他国的缺陷来获得心理优势。这类“比惨”叙事之所以在当下广泛传播，是因为它充当了一种精神止痛药。通过不断强调“全世界都一样，甚至更糟”，让对独裁制度的追问被悄然替换为认命。
下面不完全统计在中国共产党统治下普通民众所面临的系统性“斩杀”：
1.《宪法》就是废纸
任何现代社会的权利体系，都建立在权力受到约束的前提之上。但在中国，宪法长期停留在象征层面，无法对中国共产党的权力形成现实约束，只是一份政治宣传文本，而非可被公民依赖的权利保障。司法从未独立，在现实中，“党大于法”人尽皆知，法院必须服从党的领导，而不是以法律条文作为准则。
2018年，宪法规定的国家主席任期限制被修改取消，清楚表明宪法可以被权力按需要调整。当中共领导人习近平能够推动宪法为个人权力服务时，宪法对普通人的保护效力已经归零。
2. 未出生即被斩杀：计划生育与强制流产
在中共的极权统治下，有一部分生命甚至来不及出生，就已被独裁制度提前终止。共产党长期实施的计划生育政策，使强制流产、强制引产成为常态化行政行为。
在这一政策下，生育不再是个人选择，而是被纳入政治考核的指标。妇女的身体被视为政策执行对象，胎儿的生命被简化为“超生数量”。当一个社会可以为了抽象目标而系统性地终止未出生的生命，生命本身就不再被视为权利主体，而只是可被管理、可被牺牲的资源。
3. 农民：长期被牺牲的多数
农民是中国社会中规模最大、却最缺乏权利保障的群体。他们为工业化、城市化和财政积累贡献了一生，却始终被排除在完整的权利体系之外。
共产党事实上拥有中国全部土地，农民并不拥有真正的土地产权，所谓的产权只是“集体所有”，农民的土地不能交易，户籍限制人口流动，进城务工却难以获得完整的公共服务和社会保障，只能以“农民工”的身份在城市边缘生存。他们贡献了粮食、劳动力与社会稳定，却在晚年只得到不足以维持基本生存的养老金。医疗、养老、失能风险，被系统性地下沉到家庭，导致农村老人的自杀率居高不下。在官方叙事中，农民被称为“奉献者”，但在制度现实中，他们从未被当作拥有完整权利的公民来对待。
4. 教育沦为思想控制与精神驯化的工具
在中国，教育并非以培养独立思考为目标，而是一套高度制度化的思想控制与社会筛选机制。其核心并不是鼓励质疑、讨论与判断，而是反复训练对规则的服从、对单一标准答案的接受，以及对共产党统治合法性的被动认同。
在这种体系下，教育不再承担培养公民的功能，而是用于筛选“适应者”。能够顺从既定叙事、避免越界思考的人被保留下来并获得继续前进的资格，无法适应、试图独立判断的人，则在升学、评价与机会分配中被逐步淘汰。最终，教育演变为一个持续削弱独立思考、强化服从意识的过程。它训练的不是如何成为有判断力的个体，而是如何成为不制造问题的人。
5. 没有参与权的社会：法律从不需要你的同意
在中国，普通人一生没有见过选票，无法参与规则制定，也无需被征求同意，只能被动接受结果。人们被要求履行纳税义务，却从未被赋予与之对应的纳税人权利。
出行政策的变化是典型例子：先是全面禁摩，随后民众转而选择电动车，不久电动车也被限制，新国标将速度压到甚至低于自行车，却仍被强制执行。规则如何变化，从来不取决于使用者的现实需求，而只取决于行政意志。类似的逻辑同样出现在更基本的生存问题上：河北省的农村老人无力负担燃气取暖费，但为了不影响旁边“北京蓝天”的形象工程，被禁止烧煤取暖。对农民而言，烧煤是最现实、也是可负担的取暖方式，但在政策之下，烧煤不仅被罚款，甚至会被拘留入狱。在零下摄氏20度的严寒冬季，这种规定既未提供可行替代方案，也未承担任何后果，其荒谬程度滑天下之大稽。
这些法律和政策并非经由公共讨论形成，受影响者的生存成本、现实可行性与风险后果，并不构成决策前提。当一个社会只要求个人承担纳税与服从，却不赋予参与和否决的权利，法律就不再是公共意志的体现，而是单向施加的命令。个人无法成为规则的主体，只能在不断收紧、不断加码的制度框架中被迫适应，哪怕代价是基本的生活尊严。
6. 当医疗费用没有上限
在医疗制度上，美国与中国存在一个非常关键的差异：美国的个人医疗自付有上限，一旦个人当年的自付费用达到这一上限，后续符合保险范围的医疗支出由保险全额承担，也就是说，费用再高，个人承担是封顶的。而中国并没有兜底上限，中国的医保逻辑完全不同。它不是“你最多掏多少钱”，而是“医保最多给你报多少钱”。医保一旦报完，剩下的风险全部由个人无限承担。
在中国，住院往往要先交钱，不交钱就无法继续治疗，而为医疗费用在水滴筹、轻松筹等平台募捐，已经成为一种被社会默认的求生方式。所谓医保，在很多关键时刻只是参与报销，而不是兜底保障。医疗体系也存在双重标准。普通人为了治疗费用四处筹款，而共产党干部却可以长期占用高等级医疗资源，在 ICU 接受免费治疗，这并非个别现象，而是权力结构在医疗体系中的直接体现：谁有权力，谁就拥有不计成本的生命保障。
7. 食品安全失守
在中国，食品安全问题并非偶发事故，而是长期存在的系统性风险，甚至连婴儿吃的奶粉都会造假。吃得安全并不是被制度保障的权利，而更多依赖个人经验和运气，监管往往在曝光前失灵，在舆情后介入，具有明显的选择性。
问题不在商户的道德，而在制度结构，违法成本长期低于守法成本，监管与被监管者存在利益关联，问题食品得以反复流入市场，健康风险却由普通消费者承担。食品安全的失守，是普通人被迫为制度失灵持续买单的缩影。
8. 编制体系下的身份断层只保障少数人
相对稳定的保障主要集中在公务员体系和由共产党控制的国有企业，而绝大多数民营岗位长期处于低保障、高风险状态。这种差异并非市场结果，而是权力结构的产物。国企依托行政资源和准入壁垒，在多个领域无孔不入、与民争利，持续压缩民营企业生存空间。甚至对企业进行“跨省远洋捕捞”，即异地执法部门为追求经济利益，跨越行政区域对外地民营企业进行抓捕。民企利润被挤压，用工成本被压低，风险最终转嫁给普通劳动者，导致民营岗位普遍艰难。
在这样的环境下，年轻人热衷“考公”、“考国企”只是避险本能。当安全感只能通过进入体制获得，社会活力与创新自然被抽空。更讽刺的是，即便在政府和国企内部，大量一线岗位同样被外包，脏活累活由低保障人员承担。是否稳定，取决于身份，而不是你做了多少劳动。
9. 官本位结构中的职业歧视
中国社会中最普遍、也最被视为理所当然的歧视，是职业歧视，其根源不在市场，而在官本位结构。官员的权力来自上级任命而非选票，因此只需对上负责，而无需对社会和纳税人负责。在这种体系下，公务员被普遍视为“最优职业”。在职时，工作强度相对较低，福利待遇和安全感明显高于社会平均水平，退休后，即便不再创造社会价值，却享受最高等级的退休金和医疗保障，远超其他普通劳动者。这些福利来源于民众的税收，本质上是一种制度性剥削。
与之相对，农民、清洁工、外卖员、保安等基层岗位被系统性贬低，“农民工”这一称呼将职业、出身与社会地位捆绑在一起，本身就是一种去人格化的标签。
10. 户籍制度制造的内部分裂
地域歧视在任何社会都存在，但中国的特殊之处在于，它被制度化并被持续放大。严格的户籍制度将资源、福利与身份绑定在户籍地，使人口无法自由流动。
城乡对立与地域污名化并非文化偏见，而是制度性分配不公的产物， “仓廪实而知礼节，衣食足而知荣辱”，谚语早已揭示问题根源在于分配制度。留守儿童这一全球罕见的现象，更是户籍制度直接制造的社会后果。
11. 房子掏空了普通家庭
中国的购房成本中，占比最大的并非建筑本身，而是土地出让金以及围绕土地设置的各类税费，本质上是通过住房将家庭财富转移到了政府。对购房者缺乏有效保障机制的环境下，大量烂尾楼问题长期存在，购房者既拿不到房，又必须继续偿还房贷，几乎无法通过制度获得真正救济，房贷由此成为长期的现金流绞索，住房从安居工具，变成了放大家庭风险和不确定性的来源。
12. 年龄作为被淘汰标准
年龄歧视不仅存在于企业，更由政府官方招聘带头执行。政府公务员考试普遍设定35岁上限，公然违反共产党自己制定的就业法律，将大量劳动者提前排除在制度之外。这意味着人并非随着经验增长而被重视，而是被视为可替换的消耗品。
13. 女性在就业和生育之间被迫买单
女性在就业市场中长期承受隐性歧视，生育成本被系统性转嫁给个体。法律存在却难以执行，既压制女性发展，也加剧生育率下滑。女性既被要求承担生育责任，又要为此付出职业代价。
14. 从公共生活中消失的群体
在中国社会中，一些群体不仅遭受歧视，还被系统性排除在公共生活之外，残障人士正是其中最典型的例子。一个非常直观的事实是：在中国的大街上，几乎很少能看到残疾人，而在美国，使用轮椅的人并不少见。更讽刺的是，中国人口数量是美国的数倍，按比例计算，街头本应出现的残疾人只会更多，而不是更少。
15. 没有个人破产制度，债务无限兜底
在中国，除深圳有限试点外，全国范围内不存在个人破产制度。破产法只适用于企业，普通人一旦无力偿还债务，没有合法清算与“重新开始”的途径，债务会被长期追索，个人需为失败终身兜底。
与此相反，美国实行个人破产制度，允许个人在符合法律条件下对无法偿还的债务依法清算。其核心不是纵容失败，而是止损，让失败有明确的法律终点，个人可以承担后果后重新进入社会。结果是两种截然不同的风险结构：在美国，失败是阶段性的；在中国，失败往往是终身性的。当一个社会鼓励冒险却不给失败任何出口，债务就从经济问题，变成持续摧毁人生的工具。
以上，这些问题并非所谓“发展阶段的代价”，而是权力不受约束的必然结果。在宪法无法约束权力、责任无法追溯的环境中，个体的生命、尊严与未来，就只能被当作可管理、可消耗的成本。
中国共产党并非不知道这种统治给社会和民众带来的代价，却选择以控制代替纠错、以洗脑代替改革，并通过对外转移矛盾掩盖内部失败。在其统治下，人不是权利主体，而是治理对象。拿别国的问题反复对比，无法为自身洗白。统治的合法性从来不是靠“别人也很糟”来证明的，而是靠是否尊重并保护本国人民来建立的。当社会只能靠比惨维持平衡，被质疑的就不该是人民，而是统治者。根本问题在于一个拒绝约束权力、否认公民权利的独裁体制。
The Country of “Cutoff Lines”: How the Communist Party Systematically Deprives Rights
Author: Peng Shuo Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Abstract:This article criticizes the popular “American cutoff line” narrative in Chinese public discourse, pointing out that it diverts attention outward through comparison with foreign countries and dissolves questioning of the domestic system. The article systematically lists the structural risks faced by ordinary people under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party in areas such as rights protection, healthcare, education, housing, and social participation, emphasizing that the legitimacy of a regime should not be built on “comparing who suffers more,” but on whether it truly protects the basic rights of its citizens.
Recently, Chinese public discourse has popularized the so-called “American cutoff line” narrative: once unemployed or sick, the American middle class will quickly fall into the abyss of homelessness and death. Such narratives often create strong emotional impact by confusing low-income vulnerable groups with the middle class and grafting on extreme individual cases. It cannot be denied that American society does indeed have many problems, including wealth inequality and ethnic discrimination, and these problems themselves are also worthy of criticism and reflection. But what must be made clear is this: there is no logical connection whatsoever between America’s problems and whether the rule of the Chinese Communist Party is legitimate. The legitimacy of a regime can only come from whether it protects the basic rights of its own citizens, not from gaining psychological advantage through comparing itself to the flaws of other countries. The reason this kind of “comparing who suffers more” narrative is so widely spread today is that it serves as a kind of psychological painkiller. By constantly emphasizing that “the whole world is the same, or even worse,” questioning of dictatorial institutions is quietly replaced with resignation.
Below is an incomplete list of the systemic “cutoffs” faced by ordinary people under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party:
1. The Constitution Is Just Wastepaper
Any modern society’s system of rights is built on the premise that power is constrained. But in China, the constitution has long remained at a symbolic level. It cannot place any real constraint on the power of the Chinese Communist Party. It is only a political propaganda text, rather than a rights guarantee that citizens can rely on. The judiciary has never been independent. It is common knowledge that “the Party is greater than the law.” Courts must obey the leadership of the Party, rather than use legal provisions as the standard.
In 2018, the constitutional limit on the president’s term of office was amended and removed, clearly showing that the constitution can be adjusted according to the needs of power. When CCP leader Xi Jinping can push the constitution to serve personal power, the constitution’s protective effect for ordinary people has already fallen to zero.
2. Cut Off Before Birth: Family Planning and Forced Abortion
Under the CCP’s totalitarian rule, some lives are terminated by the dictatorial system before they even have the chance to be born. The long-term family planning policy implemented by the Communist Party made forced abortion and forced labor induction normalized administrative acts.
Under this policy, childbirth is no longer a personal choice but is incorporated into political assessment indicators. Women’s bodies are treated as objects of policy enforcement, and the lives of fetuses are simplified into a matter of “excess births.” When a society can systematically terminate unborn life for abstract goals, life itself is no longer regarded as a rights-bearing subject, but only as a resource that can be managed and sacrificed.
3. Farmers: The Majority Sacrificed for the Long Term
Farmers are the largest group in Chinese society, yet they are the group least protected in terms of rights. They have contributed their whole lives to industrialization, urbanization, and fiscal accumulation, yet have always been excluded from a complete system of rights.
The Communist Party in fact owns all land in China. Farmers do not possess real land property rights. The so-called property rights are only “collective ownership.” Farmers’ land cannot be traded. The household registration system restricts population movement. When they go to cities to work, they still find it difficult to obtain complete public services and social security and can only survive on the margins of the city under the identity of “migrant workers.” They have contributed grain, labor, and social stability, yet in old age receive only pensions insufficient to maintain basic survival. Medical care, elder care, and disability risks are systematically shifted down onto the family, causing the suicide rate among elderly people in rural areas to remain high. In official narratives, farmers are called “contributors,” but in institutional reality, they have never been treated as citizens possessing full rights.
4. Education Reduced to a Tool of Thought Control and Mental Domestication
In China, education is not aimed at cultivating independent thinking but is instead a highly institutionalized mechanism of thought control and social screening. Its core is not to encourage questioning, discussion, and judgment, but to repeatedly train obedience to rules, acceptance of a single standard answer, and passive recognition of the legitimacy of Communist Party rule.
Under this system, education no longer serves the function of cultivating citizens but is instead used to screen for “adapters.” Those who can obey the predetermined narrative and avoid thinking beyond the boundaries are retained and gain the qualification to keep advancing, while those who cannot adapt and try to make independent judgments are gradually eliminated in advancement, evaluation, and the distribution of opportunities. In the end, education evolves into a process that continuously weakens independent thinking and strengthens consciousness of obedience. What it trains is not how to become an individual with judgment, but how to become a person who does not create problems.
5. A Society Without the Right to Participate: The Law Never Needs Your Consent
In China, ordinary people go their whole lives without seeing a ballot. They cannot participate in making rules, nor is there any need to ask for their consent. They can only passively accept the results. People are required to fulfill their tax obligations yet are never granted the taxpayer rights corresponding to those obligations.
Changes in travel policy are a typical example: first there was a complete ban on motorcycles, then people turned to electric bicycles, and soon afterward electric bicycles were also restricted. New national standards reduced speeds to even lower than bicycles, yet these standards were still forcibly imposed. How the rules change never depends on the actual needs of users, but only on administrative will. Similar logic also appears in more basic issues of survival: elderly people in rural Hebei could not afford gas heating, but in order not to affect the image project of the neighboring “Beijing blue sky,” they were forbidden from burning coal for heating. For farmers, burning coal is the most realistic and affordable way to keep warm, yet under the policy, burning coal is punished not only with fines, but even with detention and imprisonment. In the bitter winter cold of minus 20 degrees Celsius, this kind of regulation neither provides any feasible alternative nor assumes any consequences, and its absurdity is beyond outrageous.
These laws and policies are not formed through public discussion. The cost of survival, practical feasibility, and risk consequences faced by those affected do not constitute a premise for decision-making. When a society only requires individuals to bear taxation and obedience yet does not grant them the right to participate or veto, law no longer represents public will but becomes a one-way imposed command. Individuals cannot become the subjects of the rules. They can only be forced to adapt within an institutional framework that grows ever tighter and ever harsher, even if the cost is basic human dignity in daily life.
6. When Medical Costs Have No Upper Limit
In medical systems, there is a very key difference between the United States and China: in the United States, there is a cap on personal out-of-pocket medical expenses. Once an individual’s annual out-of-pocket expenses reach that cap, subsequent medical costs within the coverage of insurance are fully paid by the insurer. In other words, no matter how high the costs go, the individual’s burden is capped. China, however, has no such safety-net upper limit. China’s medical insurance logic is completely different. It is not “how much you will have to pay at most,” but rather “how much the insurance will reimburse at most.” Once insurance reimbursement is exhausted, all the remaining risk is borne without limit by the individual.
In China, one often has to pay first in order to be hospitalized. Without payment, treatment cannot continue. Raising money for medical costs on platforms such as Shuidichou and Qingsongchou has already become a socially normalized means of survival. So-called medical insurance, at many critical moments, merely participates in reimbursement rather than serving as a bottom-line guarantee. The healthcare system also has a double standard. Ordinary people crowdfund money everywhere for treatment costs, while Communist Party cadres can occupy high-level medical resources for long periods and receive free treatment in the ICU. This is not an isolated phenomenon, but a direct reflection of the power structure inside the medical system: whoever has power has access to life保障 without regard to cost.
7. The Collapse of Food Safety
In China, food safety problems are not occasional accidents, but long-standing systemic risks. Even infant formula can be adulterated. The ability to eat safely is not a right protected by the system but depends more on personal experience and luck. Regulation often fails before exposure and intervenes only after public opinion erupts, showing obvious selectivity.
The problem does not lie in the morality of merchants, but in the institutional structure. The cost of breaking the law has long been lower than the cost of obeying it. Regulators and the regulated have overlapping interests. Unsafe food repeatedly enters the market, while the health risks are borne by ordinary consumers. The collapse of food safety is a microcosm of ordinary people being forced to continuously pay for institutional failure.
8. The Rupture of Status Under the Staffing System Protects Only a Minority
Relatively stable guarantees are mainly concentrated in the civil service system and the state-owned enterprises controlled by the Communist Party, while the overwhelming majority of private-sector jobs remain in a long-term condition of low protection and high risk. This difference is not the result of the market, but the product of the power structure. State-owned enterprises rely on administrative resources and entry barriers to penetrate every sector, compete with the people for profit, and continuously compress the survival space of private enterprises. They even conduct what is called “long-distance fishing across provinces,” meaning that law-enforcement departments from other regions, in pursuit of economic interests, cross administrative boundaries to arrest private enterprises in other provinces. The profits of private enterprises are squeezed, labor costs are driven down, and the risks are ultimately shifted onto ordinary workers, leading to the widespread hardship of private-sector jobs.
In such an environment, young people’s enthusiasm for “taking the civil service exam” and “taking the state-owned enterprise exam” is merely an instinct for risk avoidance. When a sense of security can only be obtained by entering the system, social vitality and innovation are naturally drained away. More ironically, even inside the government and state-owned enterprises, large numbers of front-line positions are also outsourced, and dirty and exhausting work is undertaken by low-protection personnel. Whether a job is stable depends on status, not on how much labor you do.
9. Occupational Discrimination in an Official-First Structure
The most widespread and most taken-for-granted form of discrimination in Chinese society is occupational discrimination. Its root is not in the market, but in an official-first structure. The power of officials comes from appointment by higher authorities rather than from votes, so they only need to be accountable upward, and need not be accountable to society or taxpayers. Under such a system, civil servants are generally regarded as the “best profession.” While in office, their work intensity is relatively low, and their benefits and sense of security are clearly higher than the social average. After retirement, even though they no longer create social value, they still enjoy the highest level of pensions and medical guarantees, far beyond those of other ordinary workers. These benefits come from the taxes of the people, and are essentially a form of institutional exploitation.
By contrast, grassroots occupations such as farmers, cleaners, delivery workers, and security guards are systematically degraded. The term “migrant worker” itself binds occupation, origin, and social status together, and is in itself a dehumanizing label.
10. Internal Division Created by the Household Registration System
Regional discrimination exists in every society, but China’s special feature is that it has been institutionalized and continuously amplified. The strict household registration system binds resources, welfare, and identity to the place of registration, making free population movement impossible.
The opposition between urban and rural areas and the stigmatization of different regions are not products of cultural prejudice, but of institutional inequality in distribution. “When the granaries are full, people know propriety and moderation; when clothing and food are sufficient, people know honor and shame.” This old saying already reveals that the root of the problem lies in the distribution system. The phenomenon of “left-behind children,” rare in the world, is an especially direct social consequence produced by the household registration system.
11. Housing Empties Out Ordinary Families
In China, the largest share of the cost of buying a home is not the building itself, but land-transfer fees and the various taxes and fees built around land. In essence, housing transfers family wealth to the government. In an environment lacking effective protection mechanisms for homebuyers, the problem of unfinished buildings has long persisted. Buyers cannot get their homes, yet must continue repaying their mortgages, and can hardly obtain real relief through the system. Mortgages thus become a long-term noose on cash flow, and housing, instead of being a tool for secure living, becomes a source that magnifies family risk and uncertainty.
12. Age as a Standard for Elimination
Age discrimination exists not only in enterprises but is even carried out as a leading practice by official government recruitment. Government civil service examinations generally set an age limit of 35, openly violating the employment laws formulated by the Communist Party itself, and prematurely excluding large numbers of workers from the system. This means that people are not valued as they gain experience but are instead treated as replaceable consumables.
13. Women Are Forced to Pay the Price Between Employment and Childbirth
Women in the job market have long borne hidden discrimination, while the cost of childbirth is systematically shifted onto individuals. The law exists but is difficult to enforce. It both suppresses women’s development and worsens the decline in birth rates. Women are required to bear the responsibility of reproduction, yet at the same time must pay the professional price for doing so.
14. Groups Disappeared from Public Life
In Chinese society, some groups are not only discriminated against, but also systematically excluded from public life. Persons with disabilities are among the most typical examples. A very intuitive fact is this: on China’s streets, one can hardly see disabled people, whereas in the United States it is not uncommon to see people using wheelchairs. More ironically, China’s population is several times that of the United States. Proportionally speaking, there should be more disabled people on the streets, not fewer.
15. No Personal Bankruptcy System, Debts Guaranteed Without Limit
In China, except for the limited pilot program in Shenzhen, there is no personal bankruptcy system nationwide. Bankruptcy law applies only to enterprises. Once ordinary people are unable to repay debts, there is no lawful path to liquidation and “starting over.” Debts can be pursued over the long term, and the individual must bear the consequences of failure for life.
By contrast, the United States implements a personal bankruptcy system, allowing individuals, under legally qualified conditions, to lawfully liquidate debts they cannot repay. Its core is not to indulge failure, but to stop losses, giving failure a clear legal endpoint so that an individual can reenter society after bearing the consequences. The result is two completely different risk structures: in the United States, failure is temporary; in China, failure is often lifelong. When a society encourages risk-taking but provides no exit at all for failure, debt turns from an economic problem into a tool that continuously destroys a person’s life.
The above problems are not so-called “costs of a stage of development,” but the inevitable result of unconstrained power. In an environment where the constitution cannot restrain power and responsibility cannot be traced, the individual’s life, dignity, and future can only be treated as costs that can be managed and consumed.
It is not that the Chinese Communist Party does not know the price this kind of rule imposes on society and the people. Rather, it chooses control instead of correction, brainwashing instead of reform, and uses the external transfer of contradictions to cover up internal failures. Under its rule, people are not subjects of rights, but objects of governance. Repeatedly comparing other countries’ problems cannot whitewash its own rule. The legitimacy of rule is never proven by saying “others are bad too,” but by whether it respects and protects its own people. When a society can only maintain balance by comparing suffering, it is not the people who should be questioned, but the rulers. The fundamental problem lies in a dictatorial system that refuses to constrain power and denies citizens’ rights.
