作者：张小华

很多人有个误解，以为极权体制在口号上喊着“人人平等”“共同富裕”，那它至少在分配上会相对公平。但这完全是被表面现象糊弄了。我们要明白一个常识：怎么分蛋糕，取决于谁手里握着切蛋糕的刀。在极权体制下，不公平不是因为政策没执行好，也不是因为个别官员贪腐，而是这种制度为了自己能活下去，必须把蛋糕分得极度不公平。

 一、当你连拒绝的权力都没有，还谈什么讨价还价？

在正常的社会里，你跟老板谈工资，底气来自哪里？来自你有很多选择。这家给得少，你换一家；或者你和工友们一起找老板谈判；实在不行，法律还会保障你的最低基本权益。这叫多方博弈。但在极权体制下，全社会所有的独立选择都被消灭了。资源被唯一垄断，土地、石油、大型企业、甚至你开个小店的审批权，名义上叫“归国家所有”，实际上全由掌权的那几个人说了算。国家成了全社会唯一的超级大老板，你没有任何筹码，没有真正的独立工会帮你维权，没有自由发声的媒体帮你曝光，你甚至连自由换工作、换地方生活的空间都被行政命令卡死。这时候，你的劳动值多少钱，完全由这个“超级大老板”单方面宣判。当你面对一个垄断了你所有生路、手里还握着枪的对手，你没有任何讨价还价的余地。他把绝大部分财富抽走，只留给你一口吊着命的饭，这是权力结构决定了的必然结果。

二、不把维稳的人喂饱，位子怎么坐得稳？

极权体制的最高统治者，最害怕的是什么？不是老百姓过得好不好，而是自己的位子稳不稳。他的权力不来自于老百姓的选票，所以他不需要对老百姓负责。他的权力能够维持，全靠手下那套庞大的官僚系统、军队、警察和情报网络。这套帮他维持统治的暴力和监视机器，天天都在烧钱。为了让这群人绝对忠诚、听话，最高统治者必须玩一套“分赃游戏”：他必须从全社会创造的财富里，抠出最大、最甜的那块蛋糕，优先喂饱这群“体制捍卫者”。这就导致了制度性的特权：普通人看病难、上学贵，而特权阶层却享有专属的特供商品、专属医院和优厚的福利。只有让体制内的人享受到远超普通人的特权，他们才会为了保护自己的既得利益，心甘情愿地去当制度的盾牌，压制底层的反抗。

三、驭民的“饥饿游戏”

从统治技术上来说，让老百姓保持在一种“将够生存”的匮乏状态，是故意为之的手段。试想一下，如果普通人手里的存款很多，养老、医疗毫无后顾之忧，甚至有大把的闲暇时间和财务自由，他们会干什么？他们就会开始追求精神自由，开始对公共事务指手画脚，开始要求监督权力。这在极权体制看来，是最致命的威胁。因此，体制必须通过高额的税收、国家垄断的房价、昂贵的医疗和教育，像抽水机一样，把普通人兜里的钱源源不断地榨干。当一个人每天一睁眼，脑子里想的全是“房贷怎么还”“生病了怎么办”“孩子的学费在哪里”的时候，他所有的生命力都被消耗在最基本的生存挣扎中。他就彻底失去了独立思考和反抗的精力和底气。在极权眼里，面包的分配权就是控制你的绳索——听话才有饭吃，不听话就砸掉你的饭碗。

 四、假“公”济私的黑箱

极权体制最擅长玩弄文字游戏。在它的叙事里，没有“私人资本家”，全都是“集体”和“国家”。但稍微有点常识的人都知道，国家是一个抽象的概念，国家没办法去花钱，真正管钱、花钱的，永远是具体的人——也就是那些当官的。这就催生了一个穿着隐身衣的“特权新阶级”。

 既然一切都是“为了国家”，那么钱是怎么花出来的、进了谁的口袋、特权阶层一年花掉多少纳税人的钱，全被打包成了“国家机密”。没有公开的财政预算，没有独立审计，老百姓连看一眼的资格都没有。资本主义社会的不公，好歹写在明面上，富豪有多少股份是公开的，而且市场一波动，富豪也可能破产。但极权体制下的特权阶层更隐蔽，他们名义上可能没有一文钱的股份，但他们垄断了职位。他们坐在这个位子上，就能调动无数的公车、特供、豪宅，甚至把后代定向安插进稳赚不赔的垄断行业里。这种“权力的世袭”，比纯粹的金钱传承更稳固、更霸道、也更不公平。

极权体制下的分配不公，最后会把社会带进一个死胡同。因为这种制度不奖赏真正干活、创新的人，只奖赏擅长拍马屁、依附权力的人。久而久之，真正创造财富的底层和民营经济就会彻底失去积极性，大家开始“躺平”，整个社会的蛋糕越做越小。

当蛋糕变小了，特权阶层会主动削减自己的福利吗？绝对不会。为了维持维稳机器的运转和特权阶层的奢华生活，体制唯一的办法，就是用更粗暴的手段，从普通人手里抢走更大部分的蛋糕。

这就变成了一个喝鸩止渴的恶性循环：社会越穷，权力抢得越狠；权力抢得越狠，社会就变得越穷。极权体制下的贫富分化，不仅仅是钱多钱少的差距，而是奴役与被奴役的终身鸿沟。

极权主义现象之四十四：假忙碌与乱折腾

在体制结构中，我们总能看到这样一幅热火朝天的景象：办公室的灯火彻夜不熄，桌上堆满了永远批阅不完的文件，微信群、钉钉里的工作提示音此起彼伏，每个人都跑得气喘吁吁、疲惫不堪。但是，如果我们停下脚步，冷峻地审视这些忙碌的成果，往往会发现一个令人窒息的真相：无数的人在“假装忙碌”，无数的精力被消耗在“乱折腾”之中。这不仅是一种职场病态，更是极权下官僚体制衍生出的一种“体制内景观”。

一、“假忙碌”的生存逻辑

在传统的效率模型中，忙碌应当与产出成正比。但在特定的体制逻辑下，忙碌的逻辑变了——它不再对“结果”负责，而开始对“权力”负责。极权体制，其本质特征是权力的向上集中与责任的无限下沉。在这样的结构里，上级掌握着绝对的资源分配权和生杀大权，而评价一个下属的标准，往往是主观且模糊的。当真实的业绩难以量化，或者由于体制本身的僵化导致无论怎么努力都无法取得实质突破时，“姿态”就成了唯一的护城河。“假忙碌”，本质上是一场演给上级看的“忠诚度大戏”。为了制造“我很敬业”的视觉符号， 准点下班变成了“态度不端正”，于是大家熬夜加班，哪怕只是在电脑前玩游戏、逛淘宝，也要撑到领导离开后的最后一分钟；形式主义的自我证明，为了证明自己没有闲着，人们开始疯狂地制造文件、撰写汇报、召开毫无意义的动员会。表格越做越复杂，PPT越做越精美。这种忙碌，不是为了解决问题，而是为了表演。

二、“乱折腾”的权力控制术

如果说“假忙碌”是下级面对权力的主动迎合，那么“乱折腾”则是上级巩固权力的行为。在极权体制中，让底层和中层陷入无休止的“乱折腾”，往往是统治与管理的一种隐秘技术。一个被无数琐事填满的人，是没有时间思考的。体制通过源源不断地制造出“折腾式”的任务——今天搞一个突击检查，明天填一套复杂的申报系统，后天组织一场流于形式的学习汇报。这些任务看似无比重要、迫在眉睫，实则对现实世界毫无改变。但在不断的“乱折腾”中，个体的独立思考能力被逐渐剥夺，批判精神被消磨殆尽。当你每天疲于奔命，连睡眠都成了奢侈品时，你根本没有余力去反思：“我做这些的意义是什么？”“这个体制的运转逻辑对吗？”这就是体制希望达到的效果：用无意义的劳作耗尽个体的生命力，将活生生的人，驯化为流水线上不需要灵魂的螺丝钉。

当“假忙碌”与“乱折腾”成为体制内的通用语言，其带来的后果是灾难性的。首先，是组织的空转与资源的极度浪费。大量的公共资源、财政资金和人力成本，没有投入到真正关乎民生、创新和发展的刀刃上，而是消耗在了体制内部的自我循环中。文件从一个办公室传到另一个办公室，除了增加了纸张和油墨的消耗，什么都没有发生。其次，是逆淘汰机制的形成。在这样的体制里，那些真正想做实事、解决问题的人，往往因为不愿意把时间花在“演戏”和“扯皮”上，而被边缘化甚至被排挤。最让人痛心的，是个体生命力的枯萎。无数进入体制的年轻人，曾经也怀揣着改变世界、服务社会的理想。但在日复一日的“表格大战”和“加班表演”中，他们的眼神逐渐变得暗淡，锐气被磨平，最终变成了自己曾经最讨厌的那种唯唯诺诺、浑浑噩噩的官僚。

          极权主义现象之四十五：动辄得咎的基层干部

鲁迅先生曾在《灯下漫笔》中，将人类历史冷峻地划分为两个时代：一个是“想做奴隶而不得的时代”，另一个是“暂时做稳了奴隶的时代”。在过去很长一段时间里，人们习惯于用这句话去剖析那些动荡的旧社会。然而，当我们把目光投向高度集权的政治生态，尤其是审视那些身处金字塔最底层的基层干部时，我们会震惊地发现，这句残酷的断言，竟然在现代科层制（官僚体制）中找到了最精准的投影。

极权主义的核心特征是“总体性控制”，它试图消灭国家与社会的界限，把一切生活领域都纳入政治考核。在这个过程中，顶层垄断了所有的政策制定权、资源分配权、甚至对“什么是正确”的解释权。基层没有任何讨价还价、因地制宜的弹性空间。

然而，与权力向上集中相反，体制通过精致的数字化、表格化管理，将所有政治风险和执行后果全部打包“下沉”给基层（属地管理）。基层干部成为了“无权的无限责任人”——手里的资源是有限的，头上的枷锁是无限的。

在极权时代，体制为了展示其统治的完美性，会制造一个“既要、又要、还要”的指标黑洞。经济要爆炸式增长，环保要绝对清零，安全要万无一失，稳定要滴水不漏。当所有的指标都被各条线部门赋予“一票否决”的政治高度时，基层干部陷入了几何学的绝境：这些指令在底层逻辑上是互为天敌、互相打架的。作为工具，你执行了A命令，就必然违反B命令。工具的前提是“指令明确”，当指令本身就是矛盾体时，工具人便彻底失去了操作方向。

无论是历史上的苏联、朝鲜，还是任何一个走向极权的体制，基层的异化都在遵循着相同的政治物理定律。“干，要背责”——因为动辄得咎，只要做事就必然踩到某个新出台的规章红线；“不干，要被问责”——因为“不作为”、“躺平”同样是政治不正确。在“干与不干”的左右为难中，体制切断了所有可以安全退守的灰色地带，逼迫工具在互相矛盾的齿轮里自我摩擦、直至粉碎。

“求当奴隶而不得”，不是一句历史的笑话，而是基层干部在失去主体性、失去容错保护、失去清晰预期后的真实写照。他们活在“无法被驯服、无法被满足、随时被祭旗”的系统性恐惧与虚无中。

极权主义现象之四十六：运动不停歇

为什么极权国家必须一个运动接着一个运动？可以把极权政权比作一个必须不断疯狂踩踏板的“骑自行车的人”。它不能停下来，一旦停下回归常规，它就会倒摔。从极权的本质来看，最核心的逻辑其实就两条：第一，不搞运动，它的“大饼”就会穿帮；第二，不搞运动，它底下的“官僚官员”就会架空最高权力。

 第一，不搞运动，它的“大饼”（意识形态）就会穿帮

传统的独裁者（比如古代皇帝）想法很简单：我抢到了江山，大家老老实实听话，过安稳日子就行。但极权政权不一样，它是一边抢江山，一边给所有人画了一个巨大的、指向未来的乌托邦大饼（比如：我们要消灭所有阶级、实现完美的纯洁社会）。

常规生活是极权最大的敌人，如果社会进入和平、安宁、讲法律的常规状态，人们就会开始过自己的日子，关心柴米油盐、家庭幸福、个人权利。这时候大家就会冷静下来，抬头一看：“你当年画的大饼，怎么到现在还没实现？”宏大的意识形态一旦失去吸引力，政权的合法性就崩塌了。因此，用运动制造“永远在路上”的假象：为了不让大饼穿帮，领袖必须让社会始终处于“打仗、冲锋”的状态。运动，就是人为制造的“战役”。今天发动运动抓“潜伏的阶级敌人”，明天发动运动搞“经济大赶超”。领袖通过运动不断告诉民众：“我们还没过上好日子，是因为敌人还在破坏，革命还在进行！所以大家必须继续忍受牺牲，继续听我指挥。”

极权政权不是一种“稳定的状态”，而是一个“疯狂的过程”。它必须靠不断制造危机和运动来续命，一旦停下来享受安宁，它的神话就破灭了。

第二，不搞运动，它底下的“官僚官员”就会架空领袖

政权建立几年后，一定会形成一个庞大的官员和官僚体制（各部委、地方政府、法院等）。官僚体制的特点是：讲规章、讲程序、追求稳定和按部就班。但这恰恰是极权领袖最害怕的。

官员会形成自己的“小圈子”，如果一切都按规章制度办，官员们就会在自己的部门里扎根，互相抱团，形成利益集团。久而久之，领袖说话可能就不管用了，领袖的绝对权力就会被复杂的行政程序“软抵抗”或者架空。因此，当领袖发现官僚体制不够听话，或者追求安稳想“踩刹车”时，他就会发动运动，“砸碎”原有的官僚体系。领袖绕过法律和政府程序，通过运动，领袖可以轻而易举地把不听话的官员清洗掉，换上自己的人，从而把权力牢牢抓回自己手里。同时，用运动测试谁最忠诚：运动中提出的指标和口号往往是非常极端、甚至违背常理的。领袖其实是在用这种“不合理”来测试底下的官员：谁执行得最盲目、最卖力，谁就是忠臣；谁要是讲理性、犹豫了或者同情别人，谁就是缺乏“革命性”，就会在运动中被淘汰。

极权本质下的“不断运动”，逻辑非常闭环：通过第一点（意识形态运动），领袖紧紧地控制住普通民众的大脑，不让大家清醒和懈怠；通过第二点（政治清洗运动），领袖狠狠地敲打和清洗当官的，不让底下人结党营私。

极权主义现象之四十七：无人决策

      2026年6月26日傍晚，一架隶属通用航空公司的阿若拉SA60L轻型运动飞机（注册号B-12PP）从北京平谷石佛寺机场起飞，约10分钟后偏离航线飞入市区，在东三环附近失去联系，随后于17:55左右撞击位于朝阳CBD的中国尊（中信大厦，北京最高楼，528米）。飞机空中解体，飞行员死亡，地面13人受伤。真正令人震惊的，不只是撞击本身，而是暴露出的巨大疑问。北京一直被视为全国空域管控最严格的城市，那么一架有人驾驶的小型飞机为什么能够飞抵CBD，并最终撞上北京第一高楼？这起突发的低空灾难，不仅撞碎了标志性建筑的玻璃幕墙，更撞碎了精密控制的幻觉。它是一场重大安全事故的现场，更是高度集权化体制走向末梢瘫痪的终极隐喻。

一、“等批复”背后的体制性瘫痪

权力的高度集中往往伴随着一种看似矛盾的奇特景观：最高决策层拥有无上、绝对的控制力，而作为其神经末梢的整个执行系统，却在现实的危机与困难面前陷入瘫痪。“决策权的大幅上移”不再是提高效率的利器，而演变为一种慢性自杀的体制性瘫痪。面对变局，下级最本能、最理性的生存策略不再是因地制宜的临机决断，而是“层层上报，静待批复”。下级官员或管理人员的“不敢做决策”，绝非单纯的无能或懒政，而是在严酷的制度博弈下做出的、最符合个人利益的“理性最优解”：做对了一百件事，其功劳往往归属于顶层设计的英明；而一旦自主试错产生任何微瑕，就会被判定为“政治不坚决”或“擅权专断”。整个下层生态系统由此丧失了自主思考与代谢的功能，退化为等待指令盲目抽动的机械元件。

    二、“上报”的推责艺术

当危机或困难来临时，前线本应是信息最敏锐、反应最迅捷的阵地。然而在极权体制下，前线往往异化为最诡谲的“公文流转站”。在这里，“上报”是一种将政治风险合法化转嫁的精妙艺术；“等批复”是规避责任的挡箭牌。下级在撰写请示报告时，为了确保自身绝对免责，往往会运用娴熟的“模糊化”修辞，将具体、尖锐且迫在眉睫的现实矛盾，包裹在层层堆砌的套话与政治正确的话语体系中。这种报告既履行了“已告知”的程序义务，又成功将最终决策的火星抛给了上级。当全社会、全系统所有的疑难杂症无分巨细地涌向决策中枢时，最高领导层实际上陷入了“认知黑洞”。他们即便通晓大局，也绝无可能拥有足够的精力与跨学科知识去洞察每一个微观现场的复杂细节。高层只能依赖抽象的汇报、过滤后的数据进行悬空决策。其结果是，跨部门的协调、漫长的审议让公文在官僚体制的血管里缓慢爬行，而前线则在“等批复”的窒息状态中，眼睁睁看着解决危机的最佳窗口期灰飞烟灭。

三、确定性的迷思与不确定性风暴的对撞

极权主义的核心逻辑建立在“世界是可预测、可控制的”这一理性主义迷思之上。它试图通过建立一套无所不包的指令系统，来消灭所有的变量。然而，现代社会危机——无论是突发公共卫生事件、地缘政治冲突还是突发的低空安全漏洞——其核心特征恰恰是瞬息万变、高度不确定以及对现场决断的极高要求。当僵化的集权体制遭遇不确定性风暴时，其内部逻辑的内在矛盾便会发生剧烈对撞。前线防空、应急与安保人员即便拥有专业判断，但由于高度集中的指挥链条中缺乏前线当机立断的授权，只要没有拿到上级盖章的明文批复，便无人敢越雷池一步。这种“宁可坐视危机蔓延，绝不越权擅行半步”的心理，将本可通过局部处置解决的“微恙”，拖延成系统性防线的全面溃败。

这种“唯上是从、层层推诿”的恶性循环，最终会对整个政治或组织有机体造成不可逆的慢性、实质性损伤。最尖锐的悖论在于，集权原本是为了追求绝对的掌控，但当高层被无数事无巨细、旨在推卸责任的批复申请彻底淹没时，最高决策者实际上被剥夺了审视宏观战略、预判远期风险的宝贵时间，他们被异化为了处理日常琐碎庶务的“高级办事员”。

“不敢决策”与“等批复”僵局，不是哪个个体的道德或能力问题，而是权力结构设计上的必然宿命。只有将听得见炮火的现场裁量权与事实的知情权，真正、无条件地归还给前线，组织才能在无法预知的风暴来临时，让体制的末梢重新恢复自主呼吸与决断的血性。

极权主义现象之四十八：从“不折腾”到“不换肩”

在中国政治话语的演变长河中，“不折腾”堪称最温和也最耐人寻味的表述。它诞生于胡温时代，像一位宽厚长者轻轻按住躁动的手臂，劝告大家别瞎忙活。那个年代，每逢重大事故，领导必须亲临现场，几乎成了不成文的铁律。矿难坍塌、地震废墟、火灾现场、高铁事故……无论白天黑夜，中央领导都要赶赴一线，站在镜头前皱眉凝思、握手慰问、现场指示。这套流程被戏称为“现场清零”：实际问题未必能彻底根治，但“中央不管”“无人问津”的舆论风险必须先清零。

胡温时代的到场，核心价值在于象征意义。它不是万能的解决方案，而是一剂强有力的政治信号。领导一出现，就意味着资源、人员、政策会迅速跟进，地方官员不敢懈怠、救援力量不敢怠工。人们还记得温家宝总理在汶川地震废墟中抱起孩子、徒步走在泥泞山路上的画面，也记得胡锦涛在矿难口耐心听取汇报的场景。这些画面传递的不是“一切问题都能瞬间解决”的神话，而是一种“国家与你同在”的温度。它像一场精心设计的政治仪式，既安抚了受灾群众的情绪，也给基层干部施加了无形压力，让老百姓在绝望中看到一丝希望。尽管很多问题无法解决，但“中央有人来了”这句话本身，就足以让民怨的沸点降低几分。

然而，时代车轮滚滚向前，治理风格也悄然变迁。进入新时代，“不换肩”成了新的政治美学。担子再重，肩膀也绝不晃动一下。因为任何“换肩”的动作，都可能被解读为脆弱、犹豫，甚至是权威不足的信号。尤其是伟大人物，坚决不出现在灾难现场。原因深刻而现实：伟大人物肩负的是千秋万代的历史使命，千秋大计容不得半点闪失，绝不能以身涉险。灾难现场环境复杂、情况瞬息万变，安保工作根本无法做到绝对万无一失。一旦出现任何不可控因素，后果都将是无法承受的。伟大人物不出场，中央其他领导也就不好出场，集体保持低调。整个体系形成了一套精密的自我保护机制：高层不现身，下面各级便“专业处置”“低调善后”，进入“自生自灭”状态——地方自行消化，能压下去就压，压不下去就慢慢平息。没有最高层的直接关注，资源调集的速度和力度自然有所不同，舆论引导更侧重于“正能量”和“制度优势”，而非直面具体困境。老百姓感慨：以前是“领导来了会有点点希望”，现在是“领导不来才是常态”。

这种转变形成了鲜明而讽刺的对比。胡温时代，领导必须到场，是为了借象征意义稳住民心，凝聚共识；新时代，领导坚决不到场，既是为了绝对安全，更是为了防止任何人借机收获过多民心，形成第二权力中心。如果某位领导在重大事故中高调亮相、亲力亲为、成功组织救援，很容易在公众中树立起“亲民”“务实”“有担当”的高大形象。民心这东西，一旦向某一个具体人物集中，就可能打破精心维护的万山磅礴看主峰。在“千秋万代”的宏大框架下，这是绝不允许的潜在风险。民心必须高度集中、统一指向最高层，任何分散或旁落的可能性都要被提前扼杀。

于是，我们看到了一场治理哲学的悄然升级。从“必须到场才有象征”到“绝不到场才安全”，形式感被彻底抽象化。以前需要领导在废墟前站一站、说几句，现在只需要一份“高度重视”“始终关心”的通稿、一场远程视频调度即可完成政治流程。现场的残垣断壁、等待救援的群众、焦头烂额的地方官员，就留给时间、运气和基层去慢慢消化。伟大人物的肩膀越扛越稳，稳到纹丝不动，仿佛任何外部震荡都无法触及那份从容。

从“不折腾”到“不换肩”，表面是两个短语的更替，背后却是国家走向的深刻调整。它告诉我们：在追求千秋万代的征程中，任何可能带来不确定性的“换肩”动作，都被谨慎地摒弃了。而那些仍旧在废墟中等待的目光，终究要学会在新的规则里寻找属于自己的出路。

极权主义现象之四十九：偶像的祭坛

“任何行业都不需要被歌颂，只需要合理的报酬；不要神话任何人与群体，因为往往被你神话的，就是你苦难的根源。”我们太习惯于用“感动”、“牺牲”、“奉献”这些宏大的词汇来包裹现实，却往往忽略了：在一个现代社会中，所有的关系，本质上都应该是基于契约的理性交换。

 一、歌颂的代价，用“道德神话”掩盖“契约缺失”

为什么我们要警惕“歌颂”？因为歌颂是有代价的，而且这个代价往往由被歌颂者和歌颂者共同承担。当我们把医生塑造成“白衣天使”，把教师塑造成“燃烧的蜡烛”，把任何基层岗位塑造成“伟大的牺牲者”时，我们实际上是在进行一场道德绑架的合谋。这种叙事逻辑的可怕之处在于：它试图用“高尚”的评价，来置换“实际”的保障。当一个行业被赋予了极高的道德光环，它的从业者就仿佛失去了计较“报酬”和“权益”的资格。一旦他们提出增加工资、改善劳动条件或维护合法权利，社会舆论便会祭出“高尚”的大棒：难道你忘了你的崇高身份吗？难道你也要为了物质而玷污你的职业吗？

在这种逻辑下，“歌颂”成为了一种极其廉价的行政管理手段。它通过舆论压力，让劳动者在缺乏安全感、福利保障不足的现状中自我消解。一个健康的社会，根本不需要用“歌颂”来维持运行。一个真正文明的社会，应该承认职业只是分工的不同。无论是搬运工还是科研人员，只要是在法治框架内诚实劳动，他们获得体面的收入、优渥的保障，是理所当然的，这不需要被神话，这仅仅是公平。

二、造神的心理机制，将自由权拱手让人

人为什么热衷于“造神”？因为在面对复杂的世界时，人们内心深处有一种寻求安全感的脆弱。我们希望有一个强大的、完美的、超越现实的存在，能够为我们承担风险，能够为我们裁定是非。于是，我们亲手将一些人推上神坛。当你把某个人、某个群体神话时，你其实是在进行一场危险的权利让渡。你赋予了他们不容置疑的权威，也就自动放弃了你的监督权、质询权和理性判断权。你潜意识里认为他们是“神”，所以无论他们做什么，你都倾向于为其寻找合理化的理由，甚至当他们损害到你的具体利益时，你还会反思自己是不是“不够诚心”。

这种心理投射，是现代苦难的温床。当你把自己的希望寄托在“青天大老爷”或“完美救世主”身上时，你就主动放弃了作为一个现代公民最宝贵的特质——独立自主的博弈能力。你不再去争论制度的缺陷，不再去要求权力的透明，你只是在祈祷，在等待，这种被动的姿态，只会让你在面对不公时更加无助。

三、深刻的洞见：拒绝造神，就是拒绝苦难的循环

“被你神话的，往往就是你苦难的根源。”这句话有着深刻的社会学意义。如果你神话权力，那么当你遭遇行政不公时，你甚至不敢发出抗议的声音，因为你认为那是在亵渎神圣的权威。如果你神话某种特定的群体，你就会对该群体的内部问题视而不见，直到这些问题像滚雪球一样，最终压垮你所在的生活空间。

神话的存在，本质上是为了规避现实矛盾。它像是一层厚厚的滤镜，掩盖了粗糙、甚至残酷的真实生活。然而，滤镜可以欺骗眼睛，却无法改变现实的物理结构。当矛盾积累到临界点，当现实的重力最终将虚构的“神坛”击碎，那些长期依赖“信仰”而放弃“契约”的人，往往会遭受最深重的打击。

真正的成熟，是敢于正视神坛后的真相。你要看到，所谓“伟大的群体”，依然是由一个个会犯错、有私欲、受诱惑的“人”组成的。社会进步的动力，从来不是仰望神明，而是通过法治、程序和透明的博弈，将那些被我们捧上神坛的人，拉回到平等的权利框架内进行约束。

四、重塑现代人格：在契约与理性中站立

我们该如何构建一个现代人的自我？首先，要将“尊严”从“歌颂”中解绑。尊重不是别人赐予的荣誉，而是你通过履行契约、展现专业能力所获得的应有待遇。我们要把关注点从“他有多高尚”转移到“他的权责是否匹配”上。其次，要建立“契约思维”。在社会运行中，我与你，是平等的契约主体。你提供服务，我支付报酬；你拥有权力，就必须承担义务。不需要感谢对方的“恩赐”，因为那本就是你的权利；也不需要通过歌颂来乞求对方的垂怜，因为那是法治的底线。最后，要培养“审视的眼光”。不要被宏大叙事所裹挟，不要被任何光环所眩晕。当听到某种极度崇高的溢美之词时，要下意识地问自己：这后面是不是隐藏了某种不公平？当看到某些群体被塑造为绝对正确的楷模时，要意识到这是在诱导你放弃监督的权利。

这个世界并不需要神，也不需要那些被过度装饰的“英雄”。它只需要每一个普通人，都能够清醒地认知自己的权利，坚定地守护自己的底线。当你拒绝了歌颂，你也就拒绝了廉价的道德绑架，开始追求真实的回报。当你拒绝了造神，你也就拒绝了作为附属品的命运，开始重塑独立的人格。

让我们做一群清醒的思考者，撕开那些浮华的标签，将权力归还于制度，将价值归还于劳动，将主体性归还于每一个具体的个人。只有这样，我们才能真正走出那条不断制造苦难的循环之径，走向一个更加真实、理性且充满尊严的未来。

极权主义现象之五十：站队现象

很多人习惯把体制内的站队当作“办公室政治”，当作一种职场生存的技巧、中国式的潜规则。然而，这是一种极其危险的误读。办公室政治只存在于公司和企业，而体制内站队的本质，是一场微缩的、无处不在的极权主义权力的日常演练。我们要用最深刻、最犀利的刀剖开这层皮肉，看一看：为什么极权权力的本质必然催生站队？而这种体制内站队的终极代价又是什么？

一、为什么要用“站队”绞杀中间状态？

极权主义的核心特征，从来不是简单的“独裁”或“暴力”，而是对个体生存空间的全面吞噬和对权力的绝对垄断。这种权力结构投射到微观的体制内，就表现为对“站队”的病态迷恋。

1.消除“不表态的自由”，制造全方位的精神奴役

在正常的契约社会里，权力与个体的关系是功能性的：你付出了劳动，我支付了薪水；你完成你的工作，我遵守法律的边界。

但在极权主义逻辑下，“中间状态”是绝对不被容许的。极权权力天然具有扩张性和吞噬欲，它不需要效率，它需要的是臣服。不站队，意味着你内心还有独立的空间，意味着你对权力保持着冷眼和距离——这在极权看来，是最大的政治不忠。因此，它必须用“站队”这把刷子，把整个组织涂抹成整齐划一的颜色。逼你选边，本质上是逼你交出灵魂的主权：“你必须当众向我下跪，把你的尊严踩在脚下，我才能睡得安稳。”

2.用“人身依附”瓦解“法治与契约”

极权权力的生命力，建立在“人身依附”而非“制度契约”之上。如果一个单位靠规章制度运转，那么领导的权力和权威就会被大大稀释。为了维持绝对的掌控，权力必须刻意制造一种“无序”和“危机感”——规则是模糊的，标准是随意的。在这样的环境下，你能不能过关、能不能晋升，不取决于你干了多少活、懂多少业务，而取决于你是不是“领导的人”。站队，就是用封建色彩的宗法契约，彻底绞杀现代法治和契约精神。权力通过让你依附于某一个人，进而将你牢牢绑死在它的战车上。

二、当站队成为体制的唯一法则

当“站队”成为体制内不可挑战的铁律时，它对人的塑造、对组织的吞噬，是系统性和毁灭性的。

1.“投名状”

在极权式的站队中，最阴险的设计莫过于“投名状”机制。

权力不会无缘无故地信任你，它必须通过让你参与作恶来测试你的忠诚。于是我们看到，在体制内，每当派系倾轧、路线斗争爆发时，最积极、最狠毒的往往不是大领导，而是那些急于表忠心的下属。为了向新主子证明自己，他们不惜落井下石、造谣中伤、构陷同僚。极权站队最恶毒的地方，就在于它逼迫每一个人都沾满污秽。当所有人都亲手或者眼睁睁看着别人作恶而选择沉默时，这个群体的集体道德就彻底破产了。

2.“劣币驱逐良币”的逆向淘汰

在一个以“忠诚度”和“听话”为最高标准的体系里，专业主义是最大的原罪，独立思考是最危险的病。那些懂业务、讲原则、有骨气的知识分子和实干家，因为不屑于钻营拍马、不肯向权力奴颜婢膝，天然地会被贴上“不合群”、“不服从”的标签，进而被边缘化、被打击。相反，那些毫无底线、精于钻营的政治投机客和奴才，却能平步青云。这种系统性的逆向淘汰，把整个体制改造成了一座驯化奴才的温床。

在站队文化盛行的体制内，真话是最高风险的奢侈品。当所有下属的唯一任务是揣摩上意、歌功颂德、表态站队时，谁还敢指出皇帝的新衣？无数次的重大灾难和资源浪费，恰恰都诞生在那些“全票通过”、“步调一致”的狂热欢呼声中。在这样的生态里，没有真正的同事，没有长久的战友，只有永远的利害关系。互相猜忌，最终让整个组织变成了一座冰冷的、充满毒性的互相绞杀场。

极权主义现象之五十一：极权逻辑下私自救援的“罪”

2026年5月22日，河南省蓝天救援队的伊川、宜阳、嵩县三支队伍，因未履行报备审批程序，前往湖南常德开展救援，拍摄发布视频和接受采访。随后，他们被责令立即全员撤回，并受到书面警告。这不是荒诞的个案，而是极权主义逻辑在21世纪的赤裸裸的展示。它把人类最原始的同胞之爱、自发互助，判定为“越界”；把志愿者自带装备、自筹经费的义举定性为“违规”。

极权国家的本质，绝非简单的“强政府”“管理严格”。它是一种对社会与个体进行全面征服与重塑的现代暴政体系。

极权国家垄断一切合法性的来源，制造全能神话。

极权主义的首要特征，是国家对社会生活的全面垄断，是对一切自主行动的零容忍。它不满足于统治政治权力，而是追求对一切行动的独占合法性。在这种逻辑下，任何未经国家授权的自主行动，都被视为潜在威胁。因为它打破了“只有国家才能组织、动员、定义‘善行’”的叙事。它恐惧的不是救援失败，而是来自民间的救援成功。任何未经国家授权的成功，都在无声地拆穿“全能政府”的神话。它必须垄断一切公共意义的定义权：只有国家才是“救世主”，民间只能是感恩的配角。极权恐惧公民发现自己无需等待指令也能有效行动，这等于在无声宣告——国家并非不可或缺；恐惧独立组织成为未来可能挑战权威的种子。因此，它必须把一切自主行为拖入审批的铁笼，用“程序正义”之名扼杀实质正义。

它不允许任何事实挑战官方叙事。灾情紧急，国家可能因信息迟滞、官僚拖沓而反应缓慢，但民间绝不能“抢跑”。因为“抢跑”本身就是在拆穿全能神话。极权需要持续制造“没有国家就没有一切”的幻觉，因此它宁可牺牲部分生命，也要维护叙事垄断。拍摄视频、接受采访，更是双重罪过——它让公众看到了“民间先于国家”的画面，这是极权宣传机器绝不能容忍的“视觉异端”。奥威尔在《1984》中描写的“真理部”在此复活：现实必须服从权力需要，善必须由权力定义，否则即为恶。

第二，极权国家致力于原子化社会，消灭公民社会。

极权主义最深刻的操作，是系统性地摧毁中间组织和公民自组织能力。《极权主义的起源》深刻指出：极权政权通过恐怖与宣传，将个体从家庭、社团、教会等传统纽带中剥离，使他们成为孤立的“原子”，只能直接面对全能国家。在这种结构下，独立救援队、志愿者组织、民间社团，都是潜在威胁。因为它们证明社会可以自我管理、自我修复。蓝天救援队事件正是这一逻辑的日常实践：不是救援本身有问题，而是“民间”二字有问题。它必须被警告、被撤回、被驯服，直至所有救援行动都变成国家机器的延伸。在极权体系中，独立社团是必须被驯服或取缔的对象。这与民主国家的逻辑形成鲜明对比，在民主国家，公民社会是国家权力的制衡与补充，而非附庸。美国、德国、日本等国红十字会、民间搜救团队在灾后行动迅速，政府往往公开感谢并提供后勤支持。因为民主制度承认一个基本前提：公共善不是国家专利，公民拥有结社自由、行动自由和言论自由。这些权利不是“恩赐”，而是天赋且受宪法保护。只要不违反法律，个人和组织就有权自主决定如何帮助同胞。政府可能事后评估、规范，但绝不会将“未报备”视为原罪，更不会将自发救援等同于“擅自行动”而惩罚。

第三，极权国家本质上是反人性的，它把人从目的贬低为工具。古典极权通过公开恐怖实现控制，当代极权则更精巧：通过无处不在的审批、监控、警告和自我审查，制造普遍的恐惧与自我阉割。志愿者不再问“如何救人最有效”，而是先问“是否合规”。善良变得危险，勇敢变得可疑，人性中最光辉的利他冲动被逐步磨灭。更深刻的是，这种逻辑正在制造整个社会的道德萎缩与人性异化。当救人必须先“请示”，当志愿者担心被追责而选择观望，公民责任感便被逐步阉割。久而久之，社会将只剩下两种人：冷漠的看客与等待指令的机器。这不是管理智慧，而是对民族生命力的慢性谋杀。

这一事件暴露了极权国家的行为逻辑：它不是在保护灾民，而是在保护自身脆弱的权威；它不是在服务人民，而是在阉割人民的主体性。当“私自救人”成为需要道歉的行为时，这个制度已与人性为敌。它正在把我们拖向道德荒漠与能力废墟。私自救援不是罪，极权政治才是这个时代最大的罪。

  极权主义现象之五十二：连夜表态的逻辑

当一个掌握大权的“一把手”轰然倒台、出事落马的那一刹那，他曾经如臂使指的那个领导班子，会做出一件什么事？答案极其统一，也极其迅速：连夜切割，急于划清界限。表态要坚决，调门要高亢，稿子要连夜赶出。那一纸声明、那一次表态的核心潜台词翻译过来只有一句话：“他是他，我们是我们；他贪腐是个人蜕化，班子一贯是纯洁伟岸；他的落马是个人的滑铁卢，而我们的大政方针、日常工作，还要继续高歌猛进。”

一、对外卸责——把“系统性病变”伪装成“个人偶发炎症”

我们要问的第一个问题是：为什么要急着切割？最直接的原因，是为了保住合法性的底裤。在任何一个高度集权、强调权威和意识形态纯洁性的体制里，权力最怕的不是遇到具体的困难，而是遇到信仰的破产和系统的崩塌。如果一个一把手贪腐数亿、飞扬跋扈了十几年，直到东窗事发前，他身边那些天天开会表态、天天举手通过的同僚们都“毫无察觉”，或者更直接点——大家心里跟明镜似的，却一路纵容、一路奉承、甚至分一杯羹。那么，当这个一把手倒下时，如果把真相赤裸裸地摆在社会公众面前：“这不是他一个人的问题，这是我们这个权力班子的共生生态，是制度性失控的结果。”

试问，公众会怎么想？系统的公信力将瞬间归零。所以，切割的第一大作用，就是精准的“错觉阻断”。体制必须在第一时间向社会宣告：这是一场“个人意外”，是一只蛀虫熏心烂透了，而我们这棵大树的主干依然坚不可摧。他们用最快的速度把落马者从“集体”中剥离出去，切得干干净净。这就像是一列高速行驶的列车，发现某个车厢着火了，唯一的办法不是全车停下来查明为什么管理疏漏，而是立刻把着火的那节车厢强行脱钩，任由它坠入深谷，好让剩下的列车继续开进。这很冷血，但对权力机器的生存来说，极其有效。

二、对内避险——用“集体负责”当护城河，用“个人牺牲”换全员平安

我们再看第二个极其尖锐的现实：班子成员真的一点责任都没有吗？这就触及了现代官僚体制中最荒诞、也最耐人寻味的一个悖论——“平时标榜集体领导，出事全赖个人独断”。在日常运转中，一把手的权力往往是绝对的。他说一不二，签字画押，下面的人哪怕心里觉得荒唐、方案违规，为了前途、为了保饭碗，也得闭着眼睛鼓掌通过。这时候，一把手是至高无上的神。

然而，一旦风向变了，纪委进驻了，这套神圣的权力游戏规则就瞬间反转。那些平时唯唯诺诺、甘当背景板的班子成员，突然变脸比翻书还快。他们翻出当年的会议记录，指着上面微不足道的反对意见，或者干脆找出“一把手个人凌驾于组织之上、搞一言堂”的铁证，大义凛然地跳出来划清界限。为什么要这样？因为在政治和法律的硬杠杠面前，没人想当陪葬品。如果不切割，同僚们就会面临灭顶之灾：要么被扣上“严重失察、默许纵容”的失职帽子，要么被牵连进复杂的利益输送网络。为了不被一锅端，最好的办法就是把所有的罪责、所有的过失、所有的权力滥用，全部打包塞进那个已经倒下的“个人”背囊里。“是他个人无视组织原则，是他个人擅权妄为，我们也是受害者，我们一直是被蒙蔽的。”这种切割，本质上是官僚机器在危机时刻启动的本能防御——拿出一个人的尸骨，去平息风暴，换取其余所有人的平安着陆。

三、运转延续——“铁打的衙门，流水的官”与工作的无缝衔接

我们还要看到第三个层面，也是极为现实的一个层面：工作还得继续，机器不能停摆。极权或高度科层化体系有一个极其强悍的特性，那就是极强的去人格化惯性。在老百姓眼里，某某大人贪了、倒了，天是不是塌了？对于社会治理和庞大的行政机器来说：天塌不塌不知道，但明早八点的晨会、下季度的KPI、堆积如山的公文、各项既定的工程，一分钟都不能耽误。一把手出事，权力的真空期是危险的。如果承认“这个班子从头到尾烂透了，所有的决策都是错误的”，那就意味着过去几年乃至十几年的政策全部失去了合法性，整个单位或地区的治理会陷入彻底的瘫痪和合法性真空。

这绝不允许。所以，体制必须通过表态切割来完成一次“金蝉脱壳”。它一方面宣告那个腐败的“个人”已经死了、废了；另一方面又强行宣称：“决策是集体作出的，工作是长期延续的，虽然人换了，但我们的方向、我们的规划、我们的既定部署没有任何改变。”通过这种巧妙的切割与嫁接，行政机器迅速换上了一颗新零件，抹去了血迹和污点，油门一踩，继续轰鸣着向前开去。至于这个新换上去的零件将来会不会走同样的老路？那是下一个周期再去考虑的事了。

当我们把这层层伪装、宏大叙事和义正词严的表态全部剥开，你会发现，极权与高度官僚体制下这种“一把手出事，连夜切割”的现象，本质上是一场高度成熟、冷酷无情的自我净化与自我保全戏剧。制度的自我保护永远优先于对个人的同情。为了让机器能够继续运转，为了让大厦不至于倾覆，任何一个具体的个人——哪怕他曾经权倾一时、不可一世——在体制眼里，也只不过是一枚随时可以被抛弃、被切割、被粉碎的耗材。

极权主义现象之五十三:从干部使用角度看经济繁荣的短暂性

没有民主监督和法治轨道的权力，其所驱动的经济繁荣终究是短暂的；而在这个过程中被推上前台的能干官员，不过是体制在特定历史阶段的消耗品。

在一个没有民主、没有法治监督的体制里，官员越是能干，越是搞好经济、建好项目，他就越会贪污，不断示范，体制为了发展经济会继续纵容，腐败越来越严重；腐败蔚然成风，党为了平息民愤，必须开展“反腐败”。在发展经济阶段，能干事、能把经济搞上去的官，是体制的功臣，在反腐阶段，死得越快。

一、干事就有“原罪”

在任何社会，发展经济都需要官僚体系具备极强的执行力和开拓精神。然而，当权力缺乏来自公众的民主监督、缺乏独立的司法约束时，官员的“能干”是一种治理优势。一个想干事的官员，如果完全按照现有的程序走，审批要几年，划线要几年，手续要几年，他这辈子一件事情都干不成。上级催着要政绩、要GDP、要形象工程，怎么办？只有一条路：破规矩、走捷径。要拆迁，就得强硬；要引资，就得给商人特殊政策；要项目快速落地，就得暗箱操作、特事特办。这就形成了一个可怕的公式：干事＝违规，大干＝大违规。

于是，能干的官员从他为了“干成事”而踩过第一条红线的那一天起，他的“罪证”就被体制记录在案了。他的政绩越高，他的“原罪”就攒得越多。

二、经济热度，就是利益漩涡

在没有民主监督的地方，所有的资源——土地、资金、批文、项目，都牢牢控制在官员手里。一个能干的官员，手握成百上千亿的项目，把经济搞得风生水起。这时，他身边会迅速聚拢两种人：一种是想套现的商人，一种是想分一杯羹的上下级。在一个权力不受约束的封闭环境里，道德是根本靠不住的。你手里的权力能决定几亿资金的去向，天天面对巨大的利益诱惑，在利益集团的围猎和官场潜规则的挟持下，没有任何一个“能干人”能做到独善其身。他的“能干”，让他成为了资源的枢纽；而资源的枢纽，必然成为腐败的暴风眼。他搞活了经济，也顺便把自己推进了权钱交易的泥潭。

三、从整顿纪律到体制的自我清理

当民怨太大、经济放缓、矛盾积聚，或者上层需要重新调整权力结构时，对这些“能干型官员”的清洗便拉开了序幕。而最顺理成章、最具有合法性的工具，就是“反腐败”。在没有民主的体制中，反腐败往往呈现出深刻的内在逻辑：查不查你，不取决于你是否腐败，而取决于政治上的需要、权力的重新洗牌，或者是上层需要找人对经济失误或社会矛盾承担责任。在经济需要冲刺时，能干官员是体制的“功臣”；在体制需要转嫁矛盾、充实财政或树立威严时，他们就变成了“贪官”。他们曾经创造的政绩被抹去，他们曾经违规操作留下的痕迹，全都变成了定罪的铁证。

    当反腐败开始后，腐败网络不断延伸、更多问题被挖出时，新上任的干部就开始躺平，无所作为，经济就开始熄火，最终留下来的是停滞不前的经济，是一个失去了所有活力与信任的体制。如果党足够命长，经济足够差，他们就会开始又一个轮回，允许能干的大干和贪污，发展经济。

编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：沈美花

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 43: Structural Injustice in Distribution is Inevitable

Author: Zhang Xiaohua

Many people share a misconception that because a totalitarian regime chants slogans of “equality for all” and “common prosperity,” it must at least achieve relative fairness in wealth distribution. However, this is merely being duped by superficial appearances. We must understand a basic common sense: how a cake is divided depends entirely on who holds the knife. Under a totalitarian system, unfairness is neither the result of poor policy execution nor isolated official corruption; rather, it is because the system itself must distribute the cake extremely unfairly in order to survive.

1. When You Lack Even the Right to Refuse, How Can You Bargain?

In a normal society, where does your bargaining power come from when negotiating salary with an employer? It comes from having choices. If one company pays poorly, you move to another; or you join fellow workers to negotiate collectively; as a last resort, the law guarantees your minimum basic rights. This is a multi-party game. Under a totalitarian regime, however, all independent choices in society are eradicated. Resources are monopolized by a single entity: land, oil, large enterprises, and even the approval rights to open a small shop—nominally owned “by the state”—are actually dictated by the few individuals holding power. The state becomes the sole super-boss of the entire society. You hold no leverage, have no truly independent trade unions to protect your rights, no free media to expose abuses, and administrative orders even lock down your freedom to change jobs or relocate. At this point, the value of your labor is unilaterally dictated by this “super-boss.” Facing an opponent who monopolizes all your means of survival and holds the guns, you have no room to bargain. Taking away the vast majority of wealth while leaving you just enough food to stay alive is an inevitable outcome determined by the power structure.

2. If You Don’t Feed the Regime Supporters, How Can You Keep the Throne Stable?

What does the supreme ruler of a totalitarian system fear most? It is not whether ordinary people live well, but whether their own position remains secure. Because their power does not originate from votes, they feel no accountability toward the populace. The maintenance of their authority relies entirely on a massive bureaucracy, military, police, and intelligence network. This apparatus of violence and surveillance, which keeps the regime in power, burns money every single day. To ensure the absolute loyalty and obedience of this group, the ruler must play a “game of spoils”: taking the largest, sweetest slice from the wealth created by society and prioritizing it to feed these “defenders of the regime.” This gives rise to institutional privilege: while ordinary people struggle to access medical care and face exorbitant schooling costs, the privileged class enjoys exclusive supplies, dedicated hospitals, and lavish welfare benefits. Only by allowing those inside the system to enjoy privileges far beyond the reach of ordinary citizens will they willingly serve as shields for the regime and suppress popular resistance to protect their vested interests.

3. The “Hunger Games” of Population Control

From the perspective of governance techniques, keeping the general public in a state of scarcity—where they have “just enough to survive”—is a deliberate tactic. Consider this: if ordinary people had abundant savings, no worries regarding healthcare or eldercare, and possessed ample leisure time and financial freedom, what would they do? They would begin seeking spiritual freedom, interfering in public affairs, and demanding oversight of power. To a totalitarian regime, this represents a fatal threat. Therefore, through heavy taxation, state-monopolized housing prices, and expensive healthcare and education, the system acts like a pump, continually draining money from the pockets of ordinary people. When a person wakes up every morning thinking only about “how to pay the mortgage,” “what to do if I fall ill,” and “where to find money for my child’s tuition,” their entire life energy is consumed by the struggle for basic survival. They completely lose the energy and confidence for independent thought and resistance. In the eyes of the regime, the right to distribute bread is the leash used to control you—obey to eat, or disobey and have your meal bowl smashed.

4. A Black Box Dressed in “Public Interest”

Totalitarian systems excel at playing word games. In their narrative, there are no “private capitalists,” only the “collective” and the “state.” Yet anyone with basic common sense knows that the state is an abstract concept incapable of spending money; those who actually manage and spend money are always concrete individuals—the officials. This gives birth to a “new privileged class” wearing an invisibility cloak.

Since everything is done “for the state,” how money is spent, whose pockets it enters, and how much taxpayer money the privileged class consumes each year are all packaged as “state secrets.” Without transparent fiscal budgets or independent audits, ordinary citizens do not even have the right to look. Injustices in capitalist societies are at least out in the open; the shareholdings of billionaires are public, and market fluctuations can bankrupt them. In contrast, the privileged class under a totalitarian regime is far more hidden: nominally, they may not own a single share, but they monopolize positions of authority. Holding these positions grants them access to countless official vehicles, exclusive supplies, luxury residences, and even the ability to place their descendants into lucrative state monopolies. This “hereditary power” is far more entrenched, domineering, and unjust than the mere inheritance of money.

Structural distribution injustice under totalitarianism ultimately drives society into a dead end. Because this system does not reward genuine labor or innovation, but instead rewards sycophancy and submission to power, the foundational workforce and private sector lose all incentive over time. As people begin to “lie flat,” the overall economic cake grows smaller.

When the cake shrinks, will the privileged class voluntarily trim their own welfare? Absolutely not. To keep the stability-maintenance apparatus running and sustain their lavish lifestyles, the regime’s sole option is to snatch an even larger share of the cake from ordinary people through increasingly ruthless means.

This creates a vicious cycle of drinking poison to quench thirst: the poorer society becomes, the more aggressively power plunders; and the more power plunders, the poorer society becomes. The wealth gap under totalitarianism is not merely a gap in money; it is a permanent chasm between servitude and enslavement.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 44: Fake Busyness and Chaotic Meddling

Within the institutional structure, we frequently observe a scene of intense activity: office lights burning through the night, desks piled high with endless documents awaiting review, and constant notification chimes from communication apps like WeChat and DingTalk as everyone rushes around exhausted. However, if we step back and coldly inspect the results of this busyness, we often discover a suffocating truth: countless individuals are “faking busyness,” and vast amounts of energy are wasted on “chaotic meddling.” This is not merely a workplace pathology; it is an “internal institutional landscape” spawned by bureaucratic totalitarianism.

1. The Survival Logic of “Fake Busyness”

In traditional efficiency models, busyness correlates directly with output. Under the logic of this specific regime, however, the purpose of busyness changes—it no longer answers to “results,” but to “power.” The core characteristic of a totalitarian regime is the upward concentration of power accompanied by the downward dumping of accountability. In such a structure, superiors hold absolute control over resource distribution and personal advancement, while their criteria for evaluating subordinates are subjective and vague. When real performance cannot be quantified, or when structural rigidity prevents genuine breakthroughs regardless of effort, displaying the proper “pose” becomes the sole line of defense. “Fake busyness” is essentially a performance of loyalty staged for superiors. It creates visual symbols of “dedication”—where leaving work on time is branded as an “improper attitude.” Consequently, employees stay late to perform overtime, even if they spend that time playing games or online shopping at their computers, just to remain until the boss leaves. Through formalistic self-justification, people frantically generate documents, draft reports, and organize pointless mobilization meetings simply to prove they are not idle. Spreadsheets grow increasingly complex and PowerPoint presentations ever more ornate. This busyness does not aim to solve real problems; it exists purely as a performance.

2. “Chaotic Meddling” as a Technique of Power Control

If “fake busyness” represents a subordinate’s active attempt to pander to power, “chaotic meddling” is a superior’s strategy to consolidate it. In a totalitarian system, entangling middle and lower tiers in endless, chaotic tasks is a covert technique of governance and control. A person whose day is consumed by trivialities has no time to think. The system incessantly fabricates “meddling” tasks—a sudden surprise inspection today, a complex reporting system to fill out tomorrow, and a formalistic study session the day after. These tasks appear urgent and vital on the surface, yet alter nothing in reality. Through constant, chaotic meddling, an individual’s capacity for independent thought is systematically eroded, and their critical spirit is worn away. When you are exhausted from daily survival and sleep becomes a luxury, you lack the spare energy to ask: “What is the meaning of what I am doing?” or “Is the operating logic of this system correct?” This is precisely the outcome the regime desires: consuming individual vitality through meaningless labor to tame living human beings into soulless cogs on an assembly line.

When “fake busyness” and “chaotic meddling” become the common language within the system, the consequences are disastrous. First comes organizational idling and immense resource waste. Vast amounts of public resources, fiscal funds, and human capital are not channeled into critical areas like public welfare, innovation, or economic development; instead, they are consumed within the internal self-circulation of the bureaucracy. Documents pass from one desk to another, consuming paper and ink without producing real-world change. Second, it triggers a mechanism of adverse selection. Within such a system, those who genuinely wish to accomplish real work and solve problems are marginalized or pushed out because they refuse to invest time in “acting” and “internal friction.” Most heartbreaking is the lingering death of human vitality. Countless young people enter the system harboring ideals of changing the world and serving society. Yet, amid daily “spreadsheet wars” and “overtime performances,” their eyes dim, their sharp edges wear down, and they eventually turn into the very thing they once despised: submissive, muddle-headed bureaucrats.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 45: Grassroots Cadres Caught in Constant Jeopardy

In his essay Lamplight Observations, Lu Xun coldly divided human history into two eras: “the era in which we failed to secure the status of slaves,” and “the era in which we temporarily secured the status of slaves.” For a long time, people were accustomed to using this quote to analyze turbulent ancient societies. However, when we turn our gaze toward a highly centralized political ecosystem—specifically examining the grassroots cadres at the bottom of the pyramid—we are shocked to find that this cruel assertion finds its most precise projection in the modern bureaucratic apparatus.

The core feature of totalitarianism is “totalitarian control,” which seeks to eliminate the boundary between the state and society, subsuming all spheres of life into political assessment. In this process, the top level monopolizes all power over policy-making, resource allocation, and even the interpretation of what is “correct.” The grassroots level is left with zero leverage or flexibility to adapt to local realities.

Yet, contrary to the upward centralization of power, the system utilizes refined digital and administrative management to package all political risks and execution consequences and dump them onto the grassroots level (“territorial management”). Grassroots cadres become “powerless entities with unlimited accountability”—holding limited resources, yet shackled by infinite burdens.

In the totalitarian era, to showcase the perfection of its rule, the system creates a black hole of metrics that demands everything simultaneously: economic growth must explode, environmental compliance must reach absolute zero-emissions, safety must be ironclad, and stability must remain leak-proof. When every metric is elevated by various line departments to the political height of a “one-vote veto,” grassroots cadres find themselves trapped in a geometric deadlock: these directives are inherently contradictory and mutually destructive at their core. Acting as a tool, executing Command A inevitably violates Command B. The prerequisite for an effective tool is receiving clear instructions; when the instructions themselves are contradictory, the human tool completely loses operational direction.

Whether in the historical Soviet Union, North Korea, or any regime heading toward totalitarianism, the alienation of the grassroots follows identical political physics. “To act means taking the fall”—because any action risks stepping on a newly issued regulation; “to refrain from acting means being held accountable”—because “inaction” and “lying flat” are equally politically incorrect. Torn between action and inaction, the system cuts off all grey zones of safe retreat, forcing its human tools to grind against conflicting gears until they break into pieces.

“Failing to secure the status of slaves” is not a historical joke; it is the lived reality of grassroots cadres who have lost agency, fault tolerance, and clear expectations. They exist in a state of systemic fear and futility—unable to be fully tamed, unable to satisfy the system, and constantly at risk of being sacrificed for the regime.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 46: Endless Political Campaigns

Why must a totalitarian state launch one political campaign after another? A totalitarian regime can be compared to a cyclist who must frantically pedal at all times. It cannot stop; the moment it halts to return to normalcy, it collapses. Looking at the essence of totalitarianism, its core logic rests on two principles: first, without political campaigns, its ideological promises (“the grand pie”) will be exposed as a fraud; second, without political campaigns, the internal bureaucracy will sideline the supreme power.

1. Without Political Campaigns, the “Grand Pie” (Ideology) Will Be Exposed

Traditional dictators (such as ancient emperors) possessed a simple mindset: having seized power, as long as everyone obeyed and lived peacefully, that was enough. A totalitarian regime is different; while seizing power, it paints a massive utopian grand pie pointing to the future (e.g., eliminating all classes and achieving a pure society).

Normal life is the greatest enemy of totalitarianism. If society enters a peaceful, tranquil, and rule-of-law state, people begin to live their own lives, focusing on daily necessities, family happiness, and individual rights. At that point, people cool down and look up, asking: “Why hasn’t the grand pie you promised been realized?” Once a grand ideology loses its appeal, the regime’s legitimacy collapses. Therefore, political campaigns are used to manufacture the illusion of being “forever on the road.” To prevent the narrative from collapsing, the leader must keep society in a perpetual state of “war and charge.” Campaigns are artificially engineered battles: today launching a campaign to catch “hidden class enemies,” tomorrow launching one for “economic leapforward.” Through campaigns, the leader continuously tells the public: “We haven’t reached the good life yet because enemies are still sabotaging us and the revolution is ongoing! Therefore, everyone must continue to endure sacrifices and follow my command.”

A totalitarian regime is not a “stable state,” but a “frantic process.” It must rely on perpetually manufacturing crises and political campaigns to sustain itself; once it stops to enjoy tranquility, its myth vanishes.

2. Without Political Campaigns, the Bureaucracy Will Sideline the Leader

A few years after a regime is established, a massive apparatus of officials and bureaucrats inevitably forms (ministries, local governments, courts, etc.). The characteristic of a bureaucracy is its reliance on rules, procedures, and the pursuit of stability and routine. Yet this is precisely what the totalitarian leader fears most.

Officials form their own cliques. If everything is conducted according to regulations and systems, officials will take root in their respective departments, form alliances, and build vested interest groups. Over time, the leader’s words lose influence, and absolute power is quietly resisted or sidelined by complex administrative procedures. Therefore, the leader uses political campaigns to “smash” the bureaucracy and pull the emergency brake whenever the apparatus proves disobedient or seeks stability. Bypassing legal and governmental procedures, the leader uses campaigns to easily purge disobedient officials, replace them with loyalists, and re-establish a firm grip on absolute authority. At the same time, campaigns serve to test loyalty: the targets and slogans raised during campaigns are often extreme or even irrational. The leader uses this irrationality to test officials below: those who execute blindly and aggressively are deemed loyal subjects, while those who advocate reason, hesitate, or show sympathy are branded as lacking “revolutionary spirit” and eliminated.

The logic of “endless campaigns” under totalitarianism forms a closed loop: through the first mechanism (ideological campaigns), the leader tightly controls the minds of the general public, preventing clarity and relaxation; through the second mechanism (political purges), the leader hammers and purges the officialdom, preventing lower tiers from forming factions.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 47: Decision-Making Paralysis

On the evening of June 26, 2026, an Aurora SA60L light-sport aircraft (registration number B-12PP) belonging to a general aviation company took off from Beijing Pinggu Shifosi Airport. Approximately 10 minutes later, it deviated from its flight path and entered urban airspace, losing contact near the East Third Ring Road. At around 17:55, it struck China Zun (CITIC Tower, Beijing’s tallest building at 528 meters) in the Chaoyang CBD. The aircraft disintegrated in mid-air, killing the pilot and injuring 13 people on the ground. What shocked the public was not merely the impact itself, but the massive questions it exposed. Beijing has long been regarded as having the most stringently controlled airspace in the country; how could a piloted light aircraft fly all the way into the CBD and collide with Beijing’s tallest landmark? This sudden low-altitude disaster shattered not only the glass curtain wall of an iconic skyscraper, but also the illusion of precision control. It was both a scene of a major safety disaster and an ultimate metaphor for a hyper-centralized system suffering terminal paralysis.

1. The Institutional Paralysis Behind “Awaiting Approval”

Hyper-centralization of power often brings a paradox: while the top decision-making tier holds supreme, absolute control, the execution system at its nerve endings falls into complete paralysis when confronted with real-world crises and challenges. The massive upward shift of decision-making authority ceases to be a tool for efficiency, evolving instead into a form of chronic institutional paralysis. In the face of unexpected developments, the most instinctive and rational survival strategy for lower tiers is no longer on-the-spot adaptation, but “reporting up layer by layer while quietly awaiting approval.” The refusal of lower-level officials or managers to make decisions stems not from sheer incompetence or laziness, but represents the “rationally optimal choice” under a harsh system: accomplishing a hundred tasks correctly yields praise that is credited to the wise design of the top, whereas making a single slight mistake through independent trial-and-error is judged as “politically unsteadfast” or “unauthorized presumption.” The lower ecosystem thus loses its capacity for independent thought and response, devolving into mechanical components twitching only while awaiting instructions.

2. The Art of Shifting Blame Through “Reporting Upward”

When crisis strikes, the front line should be the most agile and responsive position. In a totalitarian system, however, the front line often degenerates into a bureaucratic routing station. Here, “reporting upward” becomes a refined art for legally transferring political risk, and “awaiting approval” serves as a shield against accountability. When drafting reports, subordinates use ambiguous language to ensure their own absolute immunity, wrapping concrete, sharp, and urgent realities in layers of boilerplates and politically correct discourse. This type of report fulfills the procedural obligation of having “informed the superiors,” while successfully tossing the spark of final decision-making upward. When every societal problem pours indiscriminately toward the decision-making center, the top leadership falls into a “cognitive black hole.” Even if they grasp the big picture, they lack the time and cross-disciplinary expertise to understand the micro-level complexities of every scene. The top is forced to make detached decisions based on abstract reports and filtered data. Consequently, cross-departmental coordination and lengthy reviews crawl slowly through the veins of the bureaucracy, while the front line suffocates in a state of “awaiting approval,” watching the optimal window for resolving the crisis slip away.

3. The Collision Between the Illusion of Certainty and Unpredictable Storms

The core logic of totalitarianism rests on a rationalist illusion that “the world is predictable and controllable.” It attempts to eliminate all variables by building an all-encompassing system of directives. Yet modern societal crises—whether sudden public health events, geopolitical conflicts, or unexpected low-altitude security breaches—are characterized by rapid change, high uncertainty, and a reliance on immediate field judgment. When a rigid, centralized system collides with an unpredictable storm, the internal contradictions of its logic erupt violently. Even if frontline air defense, emergency, and security personnel possess professional judgment, the lack of authorization for decisive frontline action within a hyper-centralized command chain means that without an official stamped approval from above, no one dares to act. This mindset of “preferring to watch a crisis spread rather than make an unauthorized move” turns minor issues into systemic line collapses.

This vicious cycle of “submitting to superiors and shifting blame across tiers” inflicts chronic and irreversible damage on the political and organizational body. The sharpest paradox is that while centralization aims for absolute control, inundating the top with minor requests designed to shift blame deprives top decision-makers of the time needed to evaluate macro-strategies and anticipate long-term risks, reducing them to high-level clerks handling daily trivialities.

The deadlock of “fearing to decide” and “awaiting approval” is not a matter of individual morality or capability, but an inevitable consequence of the power structure’s design. Only by returning field discretion and factual awareness unconditionally to those on the front line can an organization recover its capacity for autonomous response and decisive action when confronted with unpredictable storms.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 48: From “No Meddling” to “Never Switching Shoulders”

In the evolution of Chinese political discourse, “no meddling” (bu zheteng) stands as one of the most gentle and intriguing expressions. Originating during the Hu-Wen era, it acted like a kindly elder gently pressing down a restless arm, advising everyone to refrain from chaotic actions. During that era, whenever a major disaster occurred, it was an unwritten rule that top leaders had to visit the scene in person. Mining collapses, earthquake ruins, fire scenes, high-speed rail accidents—day or night, central leaders rushed to the front line, standing before cameras with furrowed brows, shaking hands, offering condolences, and giving on-site directives. This routine was mockingly dubbed “clearing the scene”: while actual issues might not be thoroughly solved, the political risk of perceived “central neglect” or “indifference” had to be cleared immediately.

In the Hu-Wen era, the presence of leadership carried symbolic value. It was not an all-powerful solution, but a strong political signal. The appearance of a leader signaled that resources, personnel, and policies would quickly follow, forcing local officials to stay alert and rescue teams to avoid slacking off. People still recall Premier Wen Jiabao holding children in the ruins of the Wenchuan earthquake and walking along muddy mountain roads, as well as President Hu Jintao patiently listening to reports at mine entrances. These scenes conveyed not a myth that “all problems can be solved instantly,” but a reassuring signal that “the state is with you.” Functioning as a performance of political ritual, it comforted victims while applying pressure to grassroots cadres, lowering the boiling point of public grievance. Though many problems remained unresolved, the phrase “someone from the central leadership has arrived” was enough to offer a glimmer of hope amid despair.

However, as time progressed, the style of governance subtly shifted. In the new era, “never switching shoulders” (bu huanjian) became a new political aesthetic. No matter how heavy the burden, the shoulder must not flinch. Any movement to “switch shoulders” could be interpreted as weakness, hesitation, or a sign of compromised authority. Great figures, in particular, firmly refrain from appearing at disaster scenes. The underlying reason is real and profound: great figures bear an eternal historical mission that leaves no room for error, and they must never put themselves in harm’s way. Disaster scenes are complex and volatile, making absolute security impossible to guarantee. Should any uncontrollable factor occur, the consequences would be unimaginable. When the paramount leader does not appear, other central leaders refrain from appearing as well, maintaining a low profile as a collective. The entire system forms a precise mechanism of self-preservation: when top leadership does not appear, lower levels handle matters “professionally and discreetly,” entering a state of “self-containment”—where local authorities handle issues internally, suppressing what they can and allowing the rest to settle over time. Without direct attention from the highest level, the speed and scale of resource deployment differ, and media coverage shifts to highlighting “positive energy” and “institutional advantages” rather than confronting specific plights directly. Citizens observe: previously, “a leader’s arrival brought a glimmer of hope”; now, “the absence of leaders is the norm.”

This shift reveals a striking contrast. In the Hu-Wen era, leaders had to appear on-site to stabilize public sentiment and build consensus through symbolic presence; in the new era, leaders firmly refrain from appearing on-site to ensure absolute safety and prevent anyone from capturing excessive public support that could create an alternative center of power. If a leader were to make high-profile appearances, work on the front lines, and successfully organize rescues during major disasters, they could easily build an image of being “approachable,” “pragmatic,” and “responsible” among the public. Once public support coalesces around a specific individual, it risks undermining the carefully maintained paradigm of “looking to the main peak among thousands of mountains.” Within the grand framework of an eternal legacy, this represents an intolerable potential risk. Public support must remain concentrated and unified toward the top, with any possibility of fragmentation neutralized in advance.

Thus, we witness a quiet upgrade in governance philosophy: from “presence as necessary symbolism” to “absence as absolute security,” the sense of formality has been abstracted. Where leaders were once required to stand before ruins and speak, the current political process requires only a press release stating “attaching great importance” and “showing constant care,” or a remote video conference. The jagged ruins at the scene, the waiting victims, and the frantic local officials are left for time, luck, and the grassroots to process. The shoulder of the great figure bears the load with steady composure, unruffled by external disruptions.

From “no meddling” to “never switching shoulders,” the surface change in terminology reflects a shift in the nation’s trajectory. It demonstrates that in the pursuit of an eternal legacy, any shoulder-switching movement that might introduce uncertainty has been discarded. Meanwhile, those still searching through the ruins must learn to navigate their fate under these new rules.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 49: The Altar of Idols

“No industry needs to be praised; it only requires reasonable compensation. Do not mythologize any person or group, because those you mythologize often become the root of your suffering.” We are overly accustomed to wrapping reality in grand terms like “touching,” “sacrifice,” and “dedication,” while overlooking a basic truth: in a modern society, all relationships should essentially be rational exchanges based on contracts.

1. The Cost of Praise: Replacing “Contracts” with “Moral Myths”

Why must we be wary of “praise”? Because praise carries a price, one borne jointly by those being praised and those doing the praising. When we frame doctors as “angels in white,” teachers as “burning candles,” or grassroots workers as “heroic sacrifices,” we are participating in a collective moral trap. The logic of this narrative is concerning: it uses “noble” evaluations to substitute for “practical” guarantees. Once an industry is wrapped in a moral halo, its workers seem to forfeit the right to negotiate over “compensation” and “rights.” Should they request pay raises, improved working conditions, or the protection of their legal rights, public opinion wields the stick of “nobility”: Have you forgotten your elevated identity? Are you going to tarnish your profession for material gain?

Under this logic, “praise” becomes a cheap tool of administrative management. It uses public pressure to compel workers to accept inadequate security and welfare benefits. A healthy society does not rely on “praise” to function. A civilized society recognizes that professions represent different divisions of labor. Whether one is a laborer or a researcher, as long as they work honestly within the framework of the law, earning a decent income and receiving solid benefits is natural; it requires no mythologizing, only fairness.

2. The Psychology of Deification: Surrendering Freedom

Why do people zealously “create gods”? Because when facing a complex world, people experience a desire for security. We long for a powerful, perfect, and elevated existence to bear risks for us and judge right from wrong. Thus, we elevate individuals onto altars. Yet when you mythologize a person or group, you perform a dangerous surrender of rights. By granting them unquestioned authority, you automatically forfeit your rights to oversight, questioning, and rational judgment. Subconsciously viewing them as “divine,” you rationalize whatever they do—and even when they harm your concrete interests, you reflect on whether you were “sincere enough.”

This psychological projection serves as a breeding ground for modern suffering. By pinning your hopes on a “savior,” you abandon the most precious trait of a modern citizen: the capacity for independent bargaining. You cease arguing over institutional flaws or demanding transparency of power, opting instead to pray and wait. This passive stance leaves you helpless when facing injustice.

3. A Deep Insight: Rejecting Deification Means Breaking the Cycle of Suffering

“Those you mythologize often become the root of your suffering.” This statement carries deep sociological significance. If you mythologize power, then when you encounter administrative injustice, you dare not voice protest, believing it would violate sacred authority. If you mythologize a specific group, you turn a blind eye to its internal problems until those issues snowball and crush your living space.

The existence of myths serves to evade real-world contradictions. It acts like a thick filter, masking the coarse realities of life. Yet while filters can deceive the eye, they cannot alter physical reality. When contradictions reach a tipping point and reality shatters the fabricated “altar,” those who relied on “faith” while abandoning “contracts” suffer the hardest blow.

True maturity lies in facing the reality behind the altar. One must recognize that “great groups” are composed of flawed individuals susceptible to mistakes, self-interest, and temptation. The driving force of social progress is not gazing up at deities, but constraining those on the altar through the rule of law, procedure, and transparent bargaining within an equal framework of rights.

4. Reshaping Modern Character: Standing on Contracts and Reason

How should we construct a modern identity? First, we must decouple “dignity” from “praise.” Respect is not an honor bestowed by others, but the treatment you earn by fulfilling contracts and demonstrating professional competence. We must shift our focus from “how noble someone is” to “whether their power matches their responsibilities.” Second, we must build a “contractual mindset.” In society, you and I are equal contractual subjects. You provide a service, and I pay compensation; you hold power, and you must assume obligations. There is no need to thank others for “charity,” as these are your rights; nor is there a need to beg for pity through praise, as this forms the baseline of the rule of law. Finally, we must cultivate a “critical eye.” Do not be swept away by grand narratives or dazzled by halos. When hearing overly elevated praise, ask yourself: Is an injustice being hidden behind this? When seeing groups portrayed as absolute role models, realize that you are being induced to surrender your right of oversight.

The world needs neither gods nor artificially decorated “heroes.” It simply requires ordinary individuals who clearly understand their rights and stand firm on their baselines. By rejecting cheap praise, you reject moral manipulation and pursue tangible returns. By refusing to create gods, you reject the fate of being a subordinate and reshape an independent character.

Let us be clear-headed thinkers who strip away superficial labels, returning power to systems, value to labor, and agency to every individual. Only then can we step out of the cycle of suffering and move toward a realistic, rational, and dignified future.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 50: The Phenomenon of Taking Sides

Many people view taking sides within the system as mere “office politics”—a survival skill or a form of unspoken rule. However, this is a dangerous misreading. Office politics exists in corporate settings, whereas taking sides within an official apparatus represents a miniature, ubiquitous daily exercise of totalitarian power. We must dissect this phenomenon to examine why totalitarian power inevitably spawns taking sides, and what ultimate price this exacts.

1. Why Must Taking Sides Eliminate the “Middle Ground”?

The core feature of totalitarianism is never simple “dictatorship” or “violence,” but the total subsumption of individual survival space and the absolute monopoly over power. When projected into the micro-level of the system, this structure manifests as an obsession with making individuals “take sides.”

A. Eliminating the “Freedom to Remain Neutral” to Create Total Mental Servitude

In a normal contractual society, the relationship between power and the individual is functional: you contribute labor, I pay a salary; you perform your duties, I respect the boundaries of the law.

Under totalitarian logic, however, a “middle ground” is unacceptable. Totalitarian power possesses an inherent impulse to expand and consume. It prioritizes submission over efficiency. Failing to take sides implies that you retain an independent inner space and maintain a detached distance from power—which the regime views as political disloyalty. Thus, it uses the requirement of “taking sides” to paint the entire organization in a uniform color. Forcing you to choose a side is essentially forcing you to surrender your spiritual sovereignty: “You must kneel publicly and trample your dignity before I can sleep peacefully.”

B. Replacing “Rule of Law and Contract” with “Personal Subservience”

The vitality of totalitarian power relies on “personal subservience” rather than “institutional contracts.” If an organization operates according to rules and regulations, the authority of the leader becomes diluted. To maintain absolute control, power deliberately creates disorder and a sense of crisis—keeping rules vague and standards arbitrary. In such an environment, your advancement depends not on your workload or professional expertise, but on whether you are “the leader’s person.” Taking sides uses patriarchal bonds to eliminate modern rule of law and contractual spirit. By forcing you to depend on a specific individual, power binds you firmly to its chariot.

2. When Taking Sides Becomes the Sole Rule of the System

When “taking sides” becomes an unchallenged rule within the system, its destruction of individuals and organizations is systemic and profound.

A. The “Pledge of Loyalty” (Toumingzhuang)

In totalitarian side-taking, the most insidious element is the mechanism of the “loyalty pledge.”

Power does not trust you without cause; it tests your loyalty by requiring you to participate in wrongdoing. Consequently, when factional conflicts or line struggles erupt, those acting most aggressively are often subordinates eager to demonstrate loyalty. To prove themselves to a new master, they do not hesitate to kick others while they are down, spread rumors, or frame colleagues. The malice of taking sides lies in forcing everyone to get their hands dirty. When everyone participates in or silently witnesses wrongdoing, the collective morality of the group collapses entirely.

B. Reverse Selection: “Bad Money Drives Out Good”

In a system where “loyalty” and “obedience” serve as the highest standards, professionalism is treated as a flaw, and independent thought is viewed as a threat. Competent, principled, and upright intellectuals and practical workers are marginalized or targeted because they refuse to flatter or bow to power. Conversely, opportunistic figures who lack baselines thrive. This systemic reverse selection turns the apparatus into an environment that nurtures sycophancy.

Where a culture of taking sides prevails, speaking the truth becomes a high-risk luxury. When the sole task of subordinates is to guess the leader’s intent, sing praises, and declare allegiance, who dares to point out the emperor’s new clothes? Countless major disasters and resource wastes originate amid unanimous approvals and enthusiastic cheers. In such an ecosystem, there are no genuine colleagues, only shifting interests. Mutual suspicion ultimately transforms the organization into a cold, toxic arena of mutual destruction.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 51: The “Crime” of Unauthorized Rescue Under Totalitarian Logic

On May 22, 2026, three branches of the Blue Sky Rescue Team from Yichuan, Yiyang, and Songxian in Henan Province traveled to Changde, Hunan, to carry out disaster relief without completing registration and approval procedures. After posting videos online and accepting interviews, they were ordered to retreat immediately and issued written warnings. This was no absurd isolated incident, but a stark demonstration of totalitarian logic in the 21st century. It framed primitive human empathy and voluntary mutual aid as “overstepping,” while labeling acts of self-equipped, self-funded volunteers as “violations.”

The essence of a totalitarian state is not merely “strong government” or “strict management.” It is a modern system of tyranny that seeks total conquest and reshaping of both society and the individual.

1. Monopolizing All Sources of Legitimacy to Create an All-Powerful Myth

The primary feature of totalitarianism is the state’s complete monopoly over social life and its zero tolerance for autonomous action. It is not content with holding political power; it demands an absolute monopoly over the definition of legitimate action. Under this logic, any autonomous action taken without state authorization is viewed as a potential threat because it disrupts the narrative that “only the state can organize, mobilize, and define good deeds.”

The regime fears not rescue failure, but unguided civilian success. Any successful effort without state backing quietly dismantles the myth of an “all-powerful government.” The state insists on monopolizing the definition of public good: only the state can act as the “savior,” while the public is relegated to the role of grateful spectators. Totalitarianism fears citizens realizing they can act effectively without awaiting orders, which demonstrates that the state is not indispensable; it fears that independent organizations could become seeds capable of challenging authority. Therefore, it drags all autonomous behavior into an administrative cage, stifling substantive justice in the name of “procedural compliance.”

It permits no reality to challenge its official narrative. During urgent disasters, the state apparatus may react slowly due to information delays and bureaucratic inertia, yet the public must not “act ahead.” Doing so exposes the fragility of the all-powerful myth. Totalitarianism relies on sustaining the illusion that “without the state, there is nothing”; thus, it would rather sacrifice lives than lose its monopoly over the narrative. Filming videos and accepting interviews represent a double offense—showing the public images of “civilians arriving before the state,” which is an intolerable visual anomaly for the propaganda apparatus. The “Ministry of Truth” described by George Orwell in 1984 revives here: reality must conform to the needs of power, and good must be defined by power; otherwise, it is deemed evil.

2. Atomizing Society to Destroy Civil Society

The most profound operation of totalitarianism is the systematic destruction of intermediate organizations and civil self-organization capacities. As The Origins of Totalitarianism points out, totalitarian regimes use fear and propaganda to sever individuals from traditional ties like families, associations, and churches, turning them into isolated “atoms” facing an all-powerful state directly. Under this structure, independent rescue teams, volunteer groups, and civic associations are viewed as potential threats because they prove that society can self-manage and self-repair.

The Blue Sky Rescue Team incident exemplifies this logic in practice: the issue was not the rescue itself, but the word “civilian.” The team had to be warned, recalled, and tamed until all rescue operations became mere extensions of the state machinery. In a totalitarian system, independent associations must be tamed or dismantled. This stands in stark contrast to democratic systems, where civil society serves as a check and supplement to state power rather than a subservient appendage. In countries like the United States, Germany, and Japan, organizations like the Red Cross and private search-and-rescue teams act swiftly after disasters, with governments publicly expressing gratitude and providing logistical support. Democratic systems accept a foundational premise: the public good is not a state monopoly, and citizens hold rights to association, action, and speech that are inherent rather than “bestowed.” As long as laws are not broken, individuals and organizations have the right to decide how to help their fellow citizens. Governments may review or standardize operations after the fact, but they do not treat “lack of pre-approval” as a crime, nor do they punish self-motivated rescue as “unauthorized action.”

3. Devaluing Human Beings from Ends to Tools

While classical totalitarianism maintained control through open terror, contemporary totalitarianism operates more subtly: utilizing pervasive approvals, surveillance, warnings, and self-censorship to instill widespread fear and self-castration. Volunteers stop asking “how to save lives effectively” and instead ask “whether it is compliant.” Kindness becomes dangerous, bravery suspicious, and altruistic impulses are gradually eroded.

More profoundly, this logic induces moral atrophy and human alienation throughout society. When saving lives requires prior permission, and volunteers watch passively out of fear of accountability, civic responsibility is systematically neutered. Over time, society is left with only two groups: indifferent bystanders and obedient machines. This is not administrative wisdom, but a slow murder of a nation’s vitality.

This event exposes the behavioral logic of a totalitarian state: it acts not to protect disaster victims, but to preserve its fragile authority; it serves not the people, but strips them of their agency. When “unauthorized rescue” becomes an act requiring an apology, the system stands opposed to humanity, dragging society into a moral desert and an operational ruin. Unauthorized rescue is no crime; totalitarian politics is the true crime of this era.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 52: The Logic Behind Overnight Declarations of Loyalty

When a powerful top official (“First-in-Command”) suddenly falls from grace and is investigated, what is the immediate reaction of the leadership team they once commanded? Their response is uniform and swift: sever ties overnight and draw a clear boundary. Declarations must be resolute, tones elevated, and statements drafted through the night. Translated into plain language, the core message reads: “They are them, and we are us; their corruption is an individual degeneration, whereas our leadership team has always been pure and noble; their downfall is a personal Waterloo, while our general line and daily work will continue to advance boldly.”

1. External Shift of Responsibility: Disguising “Systemic Disease” as an “Isolated Incident”

Why the rush to sever ties? The most direct reason is to preserve the baseline of legitimacy. In any highly centralized system that emphasizes authority and ideological purity, power fears not concrete difficulties, but the collapse of belief and systemic failure. If a top official embezzled hundreds of millions and acted tyrannically for a decade, while their colleagues—who attended meetings and voted in favor daily—”noticed nothing,” or worse, understood the situation completely yet enabled, flattered, and profited alongside them, then presenting the truth openly to the public upon the official’s downfall would mean admitting: “This is not an isolated problem; it is a shared ecosystem within our leadership team, the result of a systemic loss of control.”

How would the public react? Systemic credibility would evaporate instantly. Thus, the primary function of severing ties is “illusion interruption.” The system must immediately declare to society: this was an “individual anomaly,” a single corrupt element, while the trunk of the tree remains firm. They strip the fallen official from the “collective” as quickly as possible. It resembles a high-speed train discovering one carriage is on fire: rather than stopping the entire train to investigate administrative oversights, the burning carriage is decoupled and allowed to plunge into the ravine so the remaining train can keep moving. Cold-blooded as it is, this tactic is effective for the survival of the power apparatus.

2. Internal Risk Avoidance: Using “Collective Responsibility” as a Shield and “Individual Sacrifice” for Group Safety

Do members of the leadership team bear zero responsibility? This touches upon a paradoxical dynamic within modern bureaucratic systems: “claiming collective leadership during normal times, while blaming individual tyranny when things go wrong.” In daily operations, the authority of a top official is absolute. They hold sole decision-making power, and subordinates—even if they find a scheme absurd or non-compliant—applaud and approve it to protect their careers. During these moments, the top official is treated as absolute.

However, once political winds shift and investigators arrive, the rules of this power game invert overnight. Subordinates who were once submissive turn around rapidly. They dig up past meeting minutes to point out minor objections they once raised, or produce evidence that the “top official placed themselves above the organization and ran a one-man show,” boldly drawing line boundaries. Why? Because before strict political and legal standards, no one wants to become a sacrificial offering. Without severing ties, colleagues face total ruin: either branded with negligence for “failing to observe and allowing wrongdoing,” or implicated in complex networks of corrupt interests. To avoid being swept away together, the best option is to bundle all guilt, missteps, and abuses of power into the fallen official’s baggage. “It was their personal disregard for organizational principles; it was their personal arbitrary action; we were victims who were kept in the dark.” This act of severing ties is an instinctive defense mechanism of the bureaucratic apparatus in times of crisis—offering up one person’s fall to appease the storm and secure a safe landing for the rest.

3. Continuation of Operations: “Institutions Endure While Officials Change”

There is a third, practical dimension: work must continue, and the apparatus cannot halt. Totalitarian and highly bureaucratic systems possess a strong depersonalized inertia. In the eyes of the public, when a high official falls, does the sky collapse? For social governance and the administrative machinery, tomorrow morning’s 8:00 AM meeting, next quarter’s KPIs, piles of documents, and scheduled projects cannot be delayed for a single minute. A power vacuum at the top is dangerous. Admitting that “this leadership team was rotten from top to bottom and all decisions were wrong” would invalidate years of policy, plunging regional governance into paralysis and a vacuum of legitimacy.

This is never permitted. Therefore, the system uses public declarations to execute a maneuver of “shedding its skin.” On one hand, it declares that the corrupt individual is gone; on the other, it insists: “Decisions were made collectively, work continues over the long term, and though personnel have changed, our direction and planned deployments remain unaltered.” Through this blending of severance and continuity, the administrative apparatus installs a new component, wipes away the stains, steps on the gas, and roars forward. As to whether this new component will follow the same old path in the future? That is a question left for the next cycle.

When we strip away the layers of pretense, grand narratives, and righteous declarations, we see that the phenomenon of “overnight tie-severing upon a top official’s downfall” under totalitarian and bureaucratic systems is essentially a cold-blooded drama of self-purification and self-preservation. Institutional self-protection always takes precedence over sympathy for individuals. To keep the machine running and prevent the building from collapsing, any specific individual—no matter how powerful they once were—is, in the eyes of the system, merely a consumable part that can be discarded, severed, and replaced at any time.

Phenomenon of Totalitarianism No. 53: The Transience of Economic Prosperity Through the Lens of Official Cadre Usage

Power unconstrained by democratic oversight and the rule of law produces economic prosperity that is ultimately transient; the capable officials thrust to the fore during this process are merely short-term consumables of the system during specific historical stages.

In a system lacking democracy and independent judicial oversight, the more capable an official is at driving the economy and completing projects, the more likely they are to engage in corruption, setting an example for others. To develop the economy, the system initially tolerates this, allowing corruption to spread. Once corruption becomes rampant, the ruling party is forced to launch “anti-corruption campaigns” to appease public anger. During economic expansion, capable officials who drive growth are viewed as heroes of the system; during anti-corruption phases, they are the first to fall.

1. Doing Real Work Carries “Original Sin”

In any society, economic development requires execution capability and an entrepreneurial spirit within the bureaucracy. However, when power lacks public oversight and independent judicial constraints, an official’s “capability” turns into a double-edged sword. If a capable official strictly follows existing procedures, approvals, land allocations, and paperwork would take years, rendering accomplishments impossible within their tenure. Faced with pressure from superiors demanding performance metrics, GDP growth, and vanity projects, what choice do they have? There is only one path: break rules and take shortcuts. To carry out demolitions, they must be aggressive; to attract investment, they must offer special deals to business operators; to land projects quickly, they must operate in black boxes and grant special exemptions. This creates a formula: doing work = violating rules; doing big work = violating big rules.

Thus, from the day a capable official crosses their first red line to “get things done,” their “evidence of guilt” is recorded by the system. The higher their performance achievements, the more their “original sin” accumulates.

2. Economic Activity as a Vortex of Vested Interests

Where democratic oversight is absent, key resources—land, capital, approvals, and projects—remain firmly controlled by officials. A capable official managing massive projects and driving local economic growth becomes surrounded by two types of people: business operators seeking to cash in, and superiors or subordinates looking for a piece of the pie. In an enclosed environment lacking checks on power, morality alone is ineffective. Holding power that directs vast funds, facing immense financial temptations daily, and caught in the web of interest groups and unwritten rules of officialdom, no “capable official” remains untouched. Their capability transforms them into a hub of resources—and a hub of resources inevitably becomes the epicenter of corruption. In invigorating the economy, they simultaneously slide into the mire of power-for-money transactions.

3. From Disciplinary Cleanup to Systemic Self-Purification

When public grievance accumulates, economic growth slows, contradictions heighten, or the upper echelons need to restructure power, purges of these “capable officials” begin. The most natural and legitimate tool for this purpose is “anti-corruption.” In a system lacking democratic checks, anti-corruption operates under an internal logic: whether an official is investigated depends less on the fact of their corruption and more on political necessity, power reshuffling, or the need for a scapegoat to take accountability for economic missteps or social contradictions. When the economy requires a boost, capable officials are “heroes of the system”; when the system needs to deflect social contradictions, replenish fiscal coffers, or re-establish authority, they become “corrupt elements.” Their past achievements are erased, and the traces of their procedural violations are converted into evidence for conviction.

Once an anti-corruption drive expands into a wide net that uncovers widespread corruption, newly appointed cadres respond by “lying flat” and opting for inaction out of self-preservation. The economy subsequently stalls, leaving behind a stagnant market and a system stripped of vitality and trust. Should the ruling party endure long enough and the economy deteriorate significantly, the cycle restarts: once again permitting capable officials to act aggressively and engage in corruption to jumpstart economic growth.

Editor: Hu Lili

Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao

Translator: Shen Meihua