作者：张磊
一、 现实困境与宏大叙事的破产
今日中国正陷入深刻的社会危机与信任赤字：言论自由受到严厉限制，异见者遭受高科技监控与打压；房地产低迷、地方债务高企与青年就业困难相互交织；司法缺乏独立性，“依法治国”在现实中不断沦为“以法治民”。
与之形成鲜明对比的，是官方持续宣扬的“中国梦”与“中华民族伟大复兴”。这套宏大叙事试图以国家崛起的集体荣光，掩盖民生困境与公民权利的缺失。
现实迫使我们追问：一个统治着十几亿人口的政权，其权力正当性究竟从何而来？当最高决策层不断犯下系统性错误时，人民是否拥有监督、纠错乃至和平更换执政者的权利？
要回答这些问题，就必须重新审视中共的历史起源与百余年来权力演变的核心逻辑。
二、 历史基因：从革命夺权到毛时代的极权统治（1921—1976）
尽管中共信奉所谓的“枪杆子出政权”，但现代政权的正当性，不应建立在军事胜利或对国家机器的强制占有之上，而应建立在人民授权、权利保障与权力制衡之上。
1921年，中共在共产国际的影响与支持下成立，其早期组织建设、意识形态与活动经费均高度依赖苏俄。此后，中共加入共产国际体系，并于1931年在江西瑞金建立“中华苏维埃共和国”，强行移植俄国政治模式，形成独立于当时中央政府的割据政权。
革命时期，中共通过“打土豪”、强行没收财产等暴力剥夺方式筹措经费，延安时期大规模秘密经营鸦片（隐称“特货”）充实财政等史实，进一步揭示了其筹款手段对基本伦理的践踏。从江西苏区“反AB团”肃反到延安整风，政治审查、逼供与思想改造不断强化组织控制，逐步形成党性凌驾于个人权利与基本人性之上的政治逻辑。
1949年建政后，中共迅速背离了此前关于民主自由与联合政府的承诺，确立了一党专政制度。随后的土地改革、镇压反革命等政治运动，伴随着绕过正当司法程序的公开处决与私有产权剥夺，传统社会伦理与自治空间遭受毁灭性打击。
1950年代末，“大跃进”及激进政策酿成了造成数千万人非正常死亡的大饥荒。高度集中的权力结构与信息封锁，使重大决策错误长期无法得到内部纠正。至“文化大革命”，个人崇拜与阶级斗争被推向极端，社会信任、家庭伦理与基本法治秩序遭到严重破坏。
从革命时期的组织控制到毛时代的政治运动，其共同特征是权力不断集中于少数人甚至个人，而人民始终缺乏有效制约最高权力的制度性手段。
三、 制度转型与权力回归：改革开放以来的合法性危机（1976年至今）
1976年毛泽东逝世，文化大革命结束，中共进行了权力再分配。1978年，中共十一届三中全会开启重大政策转向。邓小平推动改革开放，试图以经济发展与有限的制度调整重建执政基础。
1. “绩效合法性”与六四血案
改革释放了社会生产力，改善了人民生活，也为中共建立起以经济增长为核心的“绩效合法性”。然而，经济发展并未改变权力的垄断本质。1989年，当学生与市民发起反腐败、争民主的抗议运动时，中共高层动用军队实施武力镇压，制造了血腥的“六四血案”。国家暴力对和平诉求的碾压，彻底摧毁了其统治的道德正当性，更暴露出一党专政体制缺乏公开问责与和平纠错的制度缺陷。
2. 香港变局与“一国两制”的破产
香港回归前，中方曾向国际社会承诺维持原有制度与高度自治“五十年不动摇”。然而，《中英联合声明》随后却被中共外交部定性为“不再具有任何现实意义的历史文件”。在2019年大规模“反送中”运动后，北京强推香港《国安法》，解散民主派组织，关闭独立媒体，限制新闻与言论自由。昔日东方之珠的彻底“内地化”与数十万居民移居海外，反映出缺乏权力制衡的极权体制对制度承诺的不可靠性。
3. 台海威胁与强权逻辑
台湾经过民主转型，建立了自由选举、政党轮替与宪政制度，证明在中华文化背景下完全能够实现民主政治。然而，北京持续强化常态化的军事威慑与政治施压，试图以武力威胁代替制度吸引力。这种依靠仇恨动员与武力胁迫维系的统一叙事，暴露出其统治伦理的贫瘠与对区域和平的严重威胁。
4. 疫情极端封控：治理神话的破灭
在三年的新冠疫情期间，权力不受约束的弊端被推向极致。官方将公共卫生问题政治化，强行推行层层加码的极端封控：暴力焊死居民大门、强推全员强制接种、粗暴转运隔离病患、阻断基本医疗救援，酿成无数次触目惊心的人道主义悲剧。这一场权力不受监督的极端演练，彻底撕下了“集中力量办大事”与“人民至上”的温情面纱，让全社会清晰地看到：在绝对的极权控制下，公民的生命尊严与基本生存权可以被任意剥夺。
5. 修宪集权与自我纠错机制的丧失
2018年，中共修宪取消国家主席连续任职不得超过两届的限制，彻底打碎了改革开放以来废除领导职务终身制的最重要制度遗产。随着权力高度集中于个人，集体领导与内部监督机制被摧毁殆尽。
制度最危险的时刻，不是领导人犯下错误，而是整个国家已彻底失去公开指出错误、追究责任并纠正决策的能力。
四、 结语：统治合法性的根本危机
纵观中共百余年历史，从依靠境外培植与暴力搜刮起家的早期史实，到毛时代数千万人丧命的人道灾难；从天安门的枪声打碎道德底线，到高压吞噬香港自由、武力威胁台海民主；从三年疫情期间将极端封控强加于人民的人道悲剧，到如今修宪集权、回归终身制——中共百年的历史向世人宣告了一个冷酷的真相：人民从来没有获得过自由选择的权利，而体制也早已切断了自我纠错的可能。
武力可以夺取政权，经济可以巩固政权，谎言与高压可以维持政权，却唯有人民基于自由意志的授权，才能赋予统治真正的正当性。当繁荣的神话破灭，当宏大叙事被现实刺穿，这个缺乏起源正当性、失去道德与绩效支撑，且彻底失去纠错能力的独裁政权，终将面临来自历史与人民的全面清算。
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰
The Illusory Grand Narrative and the Totalitarian Crisis: The Bankruptcy of the CCP’s Governing Legitimacy from the Perspective of Its Historical Genes
By Zhang Lei
I. Present Predicaments and the Bankruptcy of the Grand Narrative
Today, China is plunged into a profound social crisis and a severe trust deficit: freedom of speech is strictly restricted, with dissidents subjected to high-tech surveillance and suppression; the downturn in the real estate sector, mounting local government debt, and youth employment difficulties are intertwined; and the judiciary lacks independence, leaving the “rule of law” to continuously degenerate into “rule by law” in practice.
In stark contrast to this stands the official, non-stop promotion of the “China Dream” and the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” This set of grand narratives attempts to use the collective glory of the nation’s rise to cover up the hardships of people’s livelihoods and the absence of civil rights.
Reality forces us to question: Where on earth does the legitimacy of power come from for a regime that rules over a population of more than a billion people? When the highest decision-making echelon makes systematic errors time and again, do the people possess the right to supervise, correct, or even peacefully replace those in power?
To answer these questions, one must re-examine the historical origins of the Chinese Communist Party and the core logic of its power evolution over the past century and more.
II. Historical Genes: From Revolutionary Seizure of Power to Totalitarian Rule in the Mao Era (1921–1976)
Although the CCP adheres to the belief that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” the legitimacy of a modern regime should not be built upon military victory or the forced possession of the state apparatus, but rather upon popular authorization, the protection of rights, and checks and balances of power.
In 1921, the CCP was established under the influence and support of the Kuomintang (KMT), and its early organizational development, ideology, and activity funds were all highly dependent on Soviet Russia. Subsequently, the CCP joined the Kuomintang (KMT) system and established the “Chinese Soviet Republic” in Ruijin, Jiangxi in 1931, forcibly transplanting the Russian political model and creating a separatist regime independent of the central government of the time.
During the revolutionary period, the CCP raised funds through violent expropriation methods such as “fighting local tyrants” and forcibly confiscating property. Historical facts—such as the large-scale secret trade of opium (under the discreet name “special goods”) to enrich its treasury during the Yan’an period—further reveal how its fundraising tactics trampled upon basic ethics. From the Anti-AB Group purge in the Jiangxi Soviet to the Yan’an Rectification Movement, political screening, forced confessions, and thought reform continuously reinforced organizational control, gradually giving rise to a political logic that placed party spirit above individual rights and basic human nature.
After founding the regime in 1949, the CCP rapidly reneged on its prior promises regarding democracy, freedom, and coalition government, establishing a system of one-party dictatorship. Subsequent political movements, such as the Land Reform and the Suppression of Counter-revolutionaries, were accompanied by public executions bypassing due process of law and the expropriation of private property rights, dealing a devastating blow to traditional social ethics and autonomous space.
In the late 1950s, the “Great Leap Forward” and radical policies precipitated a Great Famine that caused tens of millions of unnatural deaths. A highly centralized power structure and information blockade rendered major decision-making errors impossible to correct internally over a long period. By the “Cultural Revolution,” the cult of personality and class struggle were driven to extremes, inflicting severe destruction upon social trust, family ethics, and the basic legal order.
From organizational control during the revolutionary era to the political movements of the Mao era, the common feature was the continuous concentration of power in the hands of a few or even a single individual, while the people consistently lacked institutional mechanisms to effectively constrain the supreme power.
III. Institutional Transformation and the Return to Power: The Crisis of Legitimacy Since Reform and Opening Up (1976–Present)
The death of Mao Zedong in 1976 brought an end to the Cultural Revolution, after which the CCP conducted a redistribution of power. In 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CCP Central Committee initiated a major policy pivot. Deng Xiaoping promoted Reform and Opening Up, attempting to rebuild the foundation of governance through economic development and limited institutional adjustments.
1. “Performance Legitimacy” and the June Fourth Bloodshed
Reform unleashed social productive forces, improved people’s standard of living, and established for the CCP a “performance legitimacy” centered on economic growth. However, economic development did not alter the monopolistic essence of its power. In 1989, when students and citizens launched protest movements against corruption and for democracy, the top leadership of the CCP deployed the military to execute a crackdown by force, creating the bloody “June Fourth Bloodshed.” The crushing of peaceful demands by state violence thoroughly destroyed the moral legitimacy of its rule and further exposed the institutional defect of the one-party dictatorship system: its lack of public accountability and peaceful self-correction.
2. The Hong Kong Transformation and the Bankruptcy of “One Country, Two Systems”
Prior to Hong Kong’s handover, the Chinese side promised the international community that the original system and high degree of autonomy would remain “unchanged for fifty years.” However, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was subsequently characterized by the CCP’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a “historical document that no longer has any practical significance.” Following the large-scale “Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill” movement in 2019, Beijing forcibly imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, disbanded pro-democracy organizations, closed independent media, and restricted freedom of the press and speech. The thorough “mainlandization” of the former Pearl of the Orient and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of residents overseas reflect the unreliability of institutional commitments made by a totalitarian system lacking checks and balances on power.
3. The Cross-Strait Threat and the Logic of Might
Through democratic transition, Taiwan established free elections, peaceful transfer of power between parties, and a constitutional system, proving that democratic politics can be fully realized within a Chinese cultural background. However, Beijing continuously intensifies normalized military deterrence and political pressure, attempting to substitute military threats for institutional appeal. This unification narrative, sustained by the mobilization of hatred and military coercion, exposes the poverty of its governing ethics and poses a serious threat to regional peace.
4. Extreme Pandemic Lockdowns: The Shattering of the Myth of Governance
During the three years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the evils of unconstrained power were pushed to the absolute extreme. The official authorities politicized public health issues and forcibly implemented extreme lockdowns with escalating mandates at every level: violently welding shut the main doors of residents’ homes, aggressively pushing mandatory universal vaccinations, brutally transferring and isolating patients, and blocking basic medical emergency care, precipitating countless shocking humanitarian tragedies. This extreme exercise of unmonitored power thoroughly ripped away the warm facade of “concentrating resources to accomplish big things” and “putting the people first,” enabling the entire society to see clearly that under absolute totalitarian control, the life dignity and basic right to survival of citizens can be arbitrarily stripped away.
5. Constitutional Amendments to Centralize Power and the Loss of Self-Correction Mechanisms
In 2018, the CCP amended the constitution to remove the limitation that the President of the State shall serve no more than two consecutive terms, thoroughly shattering the most important institutional legacy since Reform and Opening Up: the abolition of lifelong tenure in leadership positions. As power became highly concentrated in a single individual, collective leadership and internal supervision mechanisms were completely destroyed.
The most dangerous moment for a system is not when leaders commit errors, but when the entire nation has thoroughly lost the capacity to publicly point out errors, hold officials accountable, and correct decisions.
IV. Conclusion: The Fundamental Crisis of Governing Legitimacy
Taking a comprehensive view of the CCP’s history over the past century and more—from its early historical facts of relying on foreign cultivation and violent plunder to start out, to the humanitarian disasters in the Mao era that cost tens of millions of lives; from the gunshots at Tiananmen shattering the moral bottom line, to high-pressure coercion devouring Hong Kong’s freedom and military threats imperiling Taiwan’s democracy; from the humanitarian tragedies during the three years of the pandemic where extreme lockdowns were forced upon the people, to today’s constitutional amendments to centralize power and the return to lifelong tenure—a century of CCP history announces a cold truth to the world: the people have never obtained the right to choose freely, and the regime has long since severed the possibility of self-correction.
Force can seize political power, economic growth can consolidate political power, and lies and high pressure can maintain political power; yet only authorization from the people based on free will can endow governance with genuine legitimacy. When the myth of prosperity shatters, and when the grand narrative is pierced by reality, this autocratic regime—lacking legitimacy of origin, devoid of moral and performance support, and having thoroughly lost its capacity for self-correction—will ultimately face a comprehensive reckoning from history and the people.
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
