作者：蔡政
改变一个时代的，未必是惊天动地的壮举，也可能是无数普通人，在漫长岁月里不肯放弃的微小坚持。
当你走在今天中国许多城市的街头，高楼大厦林立，宽阔的道路四通八达，繁华的商业中心灯火通明。对于初次来到中国的外国游客而言，这样的景象或许足以令人惊叹。
我来到美国以后，曾与一些美国人谈起中国。当我向他们讲述中国的政治制度，以及普通人在现实生活中可能面对的问题时，他们往往感到惊讶。
因为他们看到的中国，更多是高铁、摩天大楼、庞大的制造业和繁华的现代都市。
但我想告诉他们，这并不是中国的全部。
一个国家的高楼越来越高，是否就意味着社会越来越文明？经济越来越发达，是否就意味着人民拥有越来越多的自由与尊严？
在我看来，要回答这些问题，首先必须弄清楚一件事。
一、中国不是中国共产党
中国是中国，中国人民是中国人民，中国共产党只是一个政治组织。
这三者绝不能混为一谈。
中国有数千年的历史，有自己的文化、土地和人民。中国共产党成立于1921年，1949年建立中华人民共和国政权。一个政党的历史，不能等同于整个中华民族的历史。
中国人民创造的财富，不是中国共产党的私人财产。中国劳动者付出的汗水，也不能被一个执政党全部据为自己的政治功劳。
长期以来，中国共产党将党的领导与国家发展紧密联系在一起。在官方政治话语中，党的利益、国家利益和人民利益往往被描述为高度一致。
我希望更多人能够看清这种叙事背后的逻辑，并学会区分政党、国家与人民。
一个政党可以声称自己代表人民，却不能因此剥夺人民批评它的权利。
一个政党可以宣称自己取得了执政成就，却不能因此免于为历史错误和现实中的权力滥用承担责任。
从“反右”运动、“大跃进”时期的严重饥荒、“文化大革命”，到1989年“六•四”事件中的武力镇压，中国共产党执政历史上发生过一系列造成重大人权伤害和社会灾难的事件。这些历史不能因为今天的高楼大厦而被抹去。
我对中国共产党的严厉批评，针对的是它的政治制度、历史责任以及权力运作方式，而不是中国人民。
中国人民中有无数勤劳、善良、诚实的人。他们同样可能是权力滥用和不公平制度的承受者。
批评中国共产党，不是反对中国；追究执政党的责任，也不是否定中国人民。
恰恰相反，正因为尊重中国人民，才更应该认真对待他们的权利、尊严和生活处境。
中国的未来不应该由任何一个政党独占定义权。无论一个政党执政多久，它都不应该凌驾于人民之上。
中国属于中国人民，而不属于中国共产党。
二、中国的经济奇迹，究竟是谁创造的？
今天中国的高楼大厦、庞大的制造业体系和繁华的商业中心，常常被当作中国共产党执政成就的证明。
但我们不能忘记，中国经济发展的重要转折，恰恰发生在打开国门、融入世界经济之后。
改革开放以前，中国长期受到计划经济体制的束缚。改革开放以后，中国逐步引入外国资本、技术和管理经验。尤其是2001年加入世界贸易组织，让中国进一步进入全球贸易体系，获得了更广阔的国际市场。
外国企业带来了投资与订单，国际市场提供了发展机会，而数以亿计的中国劳动者，则以自己的青春、汗水和相对低廉的劳动成本，支撑起中国制造业的迅速扩张。
因此，中国经济的发展，绝不是某个执政党关起门来创造的奇迹。
它离不开国际社会提供的历史机遇，更离不开中国人民的辛勤劳动。
然而，当中国逐渐成为世界制造业大国，当一座座现代化城市拔地而起，我们更应该追问：创造这些财富的普通劳动者，是否真正公平地分享了发展的成果？
一个长期掌握政治权力的执政党，不能把人民劳动和国际合作带来的经济成果全部归功于自己，却在面对腐败、社会不公和利益分配问题时，回避自身应当承担的责任。
经济建设的成果，不能成为拒绝政治监督的理由。
更不能因为修建了高铁、建设了城市，就认为人民应该放弃对自由、法治和公平的追求。
三、经济增长的数字，能否代表普通人的生活？
衡量一个国家的经济发展，人们常常习惯于关注国内生产总值、工业产值、出口规模以及城市建设。
这些数字固然重要，却无法完整反映普通人的生活。
一个国家可以拥有庞大的制造业产能，可以生产大量商品，也可以建设越来越多的基础设施，但如果普通家庭对收入、就业和未来缺乏信心，那么经济增长带来的成果，就未必能够充分转化为生活中的安全感。
经济发展的意义，不应该仅仅是让国家拥有更大的经济规模，也应该让劳动者获得合理的收入，让普通家庭拥有稳定的生活预期，让社会成员能够公平分享发展的机会。
我曾在中国经营公司，从事影院行业。后来来到美国，又开始从事建筑装修工作。
不同的工作经历，让我更加关注普通劳动者和经营者的实际处境。
一个人努力工作，究竟能否依靠自己的劳动获得合理的回报？一家企业认真经营，是否能够在公平的环境中参与竞争？
如果经济发展不能让更多普通人拥有安全感，那么再漂亮的经济数字，也不足以说明社会已经实现了全面进步。
四、当潜规则成为生存规则
正常的商业竞争，应该依靠产品、服务、信誉和经营能力。
然而，当行政权力过多地影响市场机会，而相关决定又缺乏透明度时，经营者就可能被迫把大量精力花在处理关系上，而不是改善产品和服务。
我认为，这种现象对社会的伤害，远不止增加企业的经营成本。
当一个人发现，认真遵守规则未必能够得到公平待遇，而拥有关系和背景的人却可能获得便利，他对规则的信任便会逐渐动摇。
起初，他可能感到愤怒，也可能试图坚持原则。但如果一次次坚持换来的都是损失，有些人最终便会选择妥协。
最令人担忧的，不是人们不知道什么是对错，而是明明知道，却逐渐觉得自己没有其他选择。
这就是我所理解的“劣币驱逐良币”。
一个原本诚实的人，可能先因为坚持原则而吃了苦头，随后对公平失去信心，最后开始模仿那些曾经伤害过自己的行为。
明明自己也是受害者，最终却成为了这条利益链中的一环。
明明自己不愿意这样做，却又觉得不这样做就无法生存。
当这种现象不断重复，不公平便不再只是个别人的行为，而可能成为一种不断自我延续的社会机制。
我并不认为所有普通人都失去了良知。恰恰相反，正因为仍然有人坚持诚信与原则，公平的制度才显得格外重要。
一个社会最深的危机，或许不是坏人越来越多，而是越来越多原本相信公平的人，开始不再相信公平。
五、权力不能只享受发展的成果，却不承担发展的责任
在我看来，要理解这些问题，就不能回避中国共产党长期执政所形成的政治体制。
在中国现行政治体制下，中国共产党居于国家政治生活的领导地位。普通民众无法通过全国性的竞争性选举更换执政党，新闻媒体和公共表达也受到政治限制。
当公共权力缺乏充分有效的外部监督，普通人面对不合理的行政决定时，便可能缺少足够有力的制衡渠道。
权力如果能够影响资源分配、经营机会和个人前途，而相关决定又不够透明，就容易产生寻租和利益输送的空间。
这种风险不仅存在于经济领域，也可能影响社会对公平的整体认识。
如果一个人是否获得机会，不仅取决于能力和表现，还受到政治背景、人际关系等因素影响，那么规则的公正性就值得追问。
有些人习惯于用经济增长回应政治批评。
谈到权力监督，就展示高铁；谈到表达自由，就展示城市建设；谈到社会公平，就列举经济总量。
但这些问题根本不能相互替代。
修建一条高速铁路，不能证明一个公民拥有充分的表达自由。
建设一座现代化城市，不能证明公共权力受到独立监督。
提高国家的经济总量，也不能自动证明财富分配公平。
中国共产党长期掌握国家政治权力，也应当对权力运行中的制度性问题承担相应的政治责任。
一个国家真正需要的，不只是能够推动经济增长的行政能力，也包括能够限制权力、保护权利、纠正错误的制度。
六、教育不只是学校里的课本
我认为，要打破这样的恶性循环，教育是不能回避的问题。
但教育不只是学校里的课程和考试。
有时候，一位身在海外的普通人，向国内一位年轻人分享一段真实的历史、一份可靠的资料，或者一种不同的思考方式，也可能成为教育的一部分。
一个孩子在课堂上学习诚实守信，走进社会却发现关系有时比能力更重要，投机取巧有时比遵守规则更容易获得利益，他究竟应该相信哪一套道理？
父母告诉孩子要善良，要诚实，可当孩子看到现实中的不公平时，父母又该如何解释？
社会本身也是一所学校。
一个人的价值观，不仅受到家庭和学校影响，也受到社会环境、历史知识、公共信息和日常经历的影响。
真正有价值的教育，不应该只是要求人们接受某种标准答案，更应该培养独立思考的能力，让人们学会寻找证据、比较不同观点，并且有勇气提出疑问。
学校不是教育的唯一来源。
书籍、互联网、海外研究、历史资料以及不同文化之间的交流，都可能帮助人们拓宽视野。
而这些看似微小的事情，恰恰是身在海外的普通人也能够参与的。
一个人分享一点可靠的信息，一个人帮助别人了解一段被忽略的历史，一个人愿意耐心解释事实。这些努力也许微不足道，但如果能够长期坚持，便可能逐渐汇聚成更大的力量。
与其只是在远方不断喊口号，不如认真想一想：自己今天究竟能够做些什么？
当然，来自外界的信息也不一定全部正确。真正的独立思考，不是从盲目相信一种说法变成盲目相信另一种说法，而是能够核对事实，形成自己的判断。
现实中，有些海外人士可能因为个人利益、过去受到的伤害，或者长期看不到改变的希望，而逐渐忘记了最初的理想。
但我们真的非要等待某位“伟大领袖”出现，才能开始做一些事情吗？
如果每个人都在等待别人站出来，那么改变又从何开始？
七、海外的舒适生活，不应成为脱离现实的理由
1989年“六•四”事件之后，美国通过包括1992年《中国学生保护法》在内的措施，为当时符合条件的中国公民提供了移民身份方面的保护。
几十年过去，当年的许多留学生和海外中国人，已经在美国有了稳定的生活。
获得安全和稳定的生活，本身没有任何值得指责的地方。
编辑：李晶 校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰
Beneath the Skyscrapers: The Distance Between Prosperity and Civilization
Author: Cai Zheng
What changes an era is not necessarily earth-shattering feats, but may also be the small, persistent efforts that countless ordinary people refuse to give up over the long passage of time.
When you walk down the streets of many Chinese cities today, high-rises and skyscrapers line the avenues, broad roads stretch in all directions, and bustling commercial centers are brightly lit. For foreign tourists visiting China for the first time, such scenes may well be enough to trigger awe.
After I came to the United States, I talked about China with some Americans. When I told them about China’s political system and the problems ordinary people might face in real life, they often felt astonished.
This is because the China they see consists mostly of high-speed rail, skyscrapers, vast manufacturing industries, and bustling modern metropolises.
However, I want to tell them that this is not the entirety of China.
Does a country’s skyscrapers growing taller and taller mean that its society is becoming more civilized? Does an increasingly developed economy mean that its people possess more and more freedom and dignity?
In my view, to answer these questions, one must first clarify one matter.
I. China Is Not the Chinese Communist Party
China is China, the Chinese people are the Chinese people, and the Chinese Communist Party is merely a political organization.
These three must never be conflated.
China has thousands of years of history, with its own culture, land, and people. The Chinese Communist Party was founded in 1921 and established the regime of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. The history of a political party cannot be equated with the history of the entire Chinese nation.
The wealth created by the Chinese people is not the private property of the Chinese Communist Party. Nor can the sweat poured out by Chinese workers be entirely claimed by a ruling party as its own political credit.
For a long time, the Chinese Communist Party has tightly bound the leadership of the party together with national development. In official political discourse, the interests of the party, the interests of the state, and the interests of the people are often described as being highly aligned.
I hope more people can see through the logic behind this narrative and learn to distinguish among the political party, the state, and the people.
A political party can claim to represent the people, but it cannot thereby deprive the people of their right to criticize it.
A political party can proclaim its achievements in governance, but it cannot thereby be exempted from taking responsibility for historical mistakes and real-world abuses of power.
From the Anti-Rightist Movement, the severe famine during the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, to the violent suppression in the June Fourth Incident of 1989, a series of events causing major human rights violations and societal disasters occurred throughout the history of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. This history cannot be erased by today’s skyscrapers.
My severe criticism of the Chinese Communist Party targets its political system, historical responsibility, and manner of exercising power, not the Chinese people.
Among the Chinese people are countless hardworking, kind, and honest individuals. They, too, may bear the brunt of abuses of power and unfair systems.
Criticizing the Chinese Communist Party is not opposing China; holding the ruling party accountable is not denying the Chinese people.
On the contrary, precisely because of respect for the Chinese people, their rights, dignity, and living conditions should be taken even more seriously.
The right to define China’s future should not be exclusively held by any single political party. No matter how long a political party rules, it should never stand above the people.
China belongs to the Chinese people, not to the Chinese Communist Party.
II. Who Exactly Created China’s Economic Miracle?
Today, China’s skyscrapers, vast manufacturing system, and bustling commercial centers are often cited as proof of the Chinese Communist Party’s governance achievements.
However, we must not forget that the key turning point in China’s economic development occurred precisely after opening its doors to the outside world and integrating into the global economy.
Before Reform and Opening Up, China was long bound by a planned economy system. After Reform and Opening Up, China gradually introduced foreign capital, technology, and management experience. In particular, joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 enabled China to further enter the global trading system and gain a broader international market.
Foreign companies brought investments and orders, the international market provided opportunities for development, and hundreds of millions of Chinese workers supported the rapid expansion of Chinese manufacturing with their youth, sweat, and relatively low labor costs.
Therefore, the development of China’s economy is by no means a miracle created behind closed doors by any single ruling party.
It could not have occurred without the historical opportunities provided by the international community, and even more so, it could not have occurred without the hard work of the Chinese people.
However, as China gradually became a major global manufacturing powerhouse and as modern cities rose one after another, we should ask all the more: Have the ordinary workers who created this wealth truly shared in the fruits of development in a fair manner?
A ruling party that has long held political power cannot claim all the economic achievements brought by the labor of the people and international cooperation as its own credit, while evading the responsibilities it ought to bear when facing corruption, social injustice, and issues of benefit distribution.
The achievements of economic construction cannot become a justification for rejecting political oversight.
Still less should anyone believe that simply because high-speed railways have been built and cities constructed, the people ought to abandon their pursuit of freedom, the rule of law, and fairness.
III. Can Economic Growth Statistics Represent the Lives of Ordinary People?
When measuring a country’s economic development, people often habitually focus on gross domestic product, industrial output, export volume, and urban construction.
While these statistics are certainly important, they cannot fully reflect the lives of ordinary people.
A country can possess vast manufacturing capacity, produce immense quantities of goods, and build more and more infrastructure, but if ordinary households lack confidence in income, employment, and the future, then the achievements brought by economic growth may not necessarily translate fully into a sense of security in daily life.
The meaning of economic development should not merely be enabling the state to possess a larger economic scale; it should also allow workers to gain reasonable incomes, afford ordinary households stable expectations for life, and permit members of society to share fairly in opportunities for development.
I used to run a company in China operating in the cinema industry. Later, after coming to the United States, I began working in construction and renovation.
These different work experiences have made me pay even closer attention to the actual situations of ordinary workers and business operators.
If a person works hard, can they truly rely on their own labor to receive reasonable returns? If a company operates conscientiously, can it compete in a fair environment?
If economic development cannot allow more ordinary people to possess a sense of security, then no matter how impressive the economic figures are, they are insufficient to demonstrate that society has achieved comprehensive progress.
IV. When Unspoken Rules Become Rules for Survival
Normal business competition should rely on products, services, reputation, and operational capability.
However, when administrative power excessively influences market opportunities while relevant decisions lack transparency, business operators may be forced to spend a great deal of energy handling personal connections rather than improving products and services.
In my view, the harm of this phenomenon to society goes far beyond increasing the operating costs of enterprises.
When a person discovers that conscientiously obeying the rules does not necessarily bring fair treatment, whereas those with connections and backgrounds may gain conveniences, their trust in the rules will gradually begin to waver.
At first, they might feel angry, or they might try to uphold their principles. But if upholding principles repeatedly leads only to losses, some people will ultimately choose to compromise.
What is most worrying is not that people do not know right from wrong, but that even though they know clearly, they gradually feel they have no other choice.
This is what I understand as “bad money driving out good.”
An originally honest person may first suffer for sticking to principles, subsequently lose faith in fairness, and finally begin imitating the very behaviors that once harmed them.
Even though they themselves were a victim, they ultimately become a link in this chain of interests.
Even though they were unwilling to act this way, they feel they cannot survive without doing so.
When this phenomenon repeats continuously, injustice is no longer just the behavior of isolated individuals, but can become a self-perpetuating social mechanism.
I do not believe that all ordinary people have lost their conscience. On the contrary, precisely because there are still people who uphold honesty and principles, a fair system becomes all the more crucial.
The deepest crisis of a society is perhaps not that bad people are becoming more numerous, but that more and more people who originally believed in fairness begin to believe in fairness no longer.
V. Power Cannot Merely Enjoy the Fruits of Development Without Bearing the Responsibility of Development
In my view, to understand these issues, one cannot evade the political system formed by the long-term rule of the Chinese Communist Party.
Under China’s current political system, the Chinese Communist Party occupies a leading position in the country’s political life. Ordinary citizens cannot replace the ruling party through nationwide competitive elections, and the news media and public expression are also subject to political constraints.
When public authority lacks sufficient and effective external oversight, ordinary people may lack adequately powerful channels of checks and balances when facing unreasonable administrative decisions.
If power can influence resource allocation, business opportunities, and personal futures while related decisions lack transparency, it easily creates room for rent-seeking and the conveyance of benefits.
This risk exists not only in the economic sphere, but may also affect society’s overall perception of fairness.
If whether a person obtains opportunities depends not only on ability and performance, but is also influenced by political background, interpersonal relationships, and other factors, then the justice of the rules becomes open to question.
Some people are accustomed to using economic growth to respond to political criticism.
When discussing the oversight of power, they showcase high-speed rail; when discussing freedom of expression, they showcase urban construction; when discussing social fairness, they cite aggregate economic output.
However, these issues cannot substitute for one another at all.
Building a high-speed railway cannot prove that a citizen possesses full freedom of expression.
Constructing a modern city cannot prove that public power is subject to independent oversight.
Raising a country’s aggregate economic output cannot automatically prove that wealth distribution is fair.
The Chinese Communist Party has long held the state’s political power and should likewise bear corresponding political responsibility for institutional problems in the operation of power.
What a country truly needs is not only administrative capacity capable of driving economic growth, but also institutions capable of limiting power, protecting rights, and correcting errors.
VI. Education Is Not Just Textbooks in Schools
In my view, to break such a vicious cycle, education is an issue that cannot be evaded.
However, education is not merely the curricula and exams inside schools.
Sometimes, an ordinary person living overseas sharing a piece of genuine history, a reliable document, or a different way of thinking with a young person back home may also become a part of education.
When a child learns honesty and trustworthiness in the classroom, yet enters society only to find that connections are sometimes more important than ability, and that opportunism and corner-cutting are sometimes easier to profit from than obeying the rules, which set of principles should they believe?
Parents tell their children to be kind and honest, but when children witness injustices in reality, how are parents to explain them?
Society itself is also a school.
A person’s values are influenced not only by family and school, but also by the social environment, historical knowledge, public information, and daily experiences.
Truly valuable education should not merely require people to accept a certain standard answer; it should all the more cultivate the capacity for independent thinking, enabling people to learn to seek evidence, compare different viewpoints, and possess the courage to raise questions.
Schools are not the sole source of education.
Books, the internet, overseas research, historical documents, and exchanges between different cultures can all help people broaden their horizons.
And these seemingly tiny things are precisely what ordinary people living overseas can also participate in.
One person sharing a piece of reliable information, one person helping others understand a forgotten chapter of history, one person willing to patiently explain the facts. These efforts may be insignificant, but if maintained over the long term, they may gradually coalesce into a greater force.
Rather than merely shouting slogans repeatedly from afar, it is better to reflect seriously: What, after all, can I do today?
Of course, information from the outside world is not necessarily entirely correct either. Genuine independent thinking is not switching from blindly believing one narrative to blindly believing another, but being able to verify facts and form one’s own judgment.
In reality, some overseas individuals may have gradually forgotten their original ideals due to personal interests, past trauma, or a long-term inability to see hope for change.
But do we really have to wait for a “great leader” to appear before we can begin doing something?
If everyone is waiting for someone else to step forward, then where does change begin?
VII. A Comfortable Life Overseas Should Not Become a Reason for Detachment from Reality
After the June Fourth Incident in 1989, the United States provided protection regarding immigration status for eligible Chinese citizens at the time through measures including the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.
As decades have passed, many of the international students and overseas Chinese from back then have already established stable lives in the United States.
Attaining a safe and stable life is, in itself, nothing to be faulted.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Bing Ge
