博客 页面 14

翻看历史的旧账:从“共产主义”到“延退现实”的信任危机

0
翻看历史的旧账:从“共产主义”到“延退现实”的信任危机

作者:孙浩亮

一个政党的合法性不仅建立在权力的垄断上,更建立在它对人民做出的历史承诺与最终兑现的契约之上。回顾中国共产党从1921年建党至今的百年历程,其政治修辞的演变、核心叙事的转移,以及近期推出的社保延退政策,正在拼凑出一幅关于历史承诺与现实落差的讽刺画卷。

翻看历史的旧账:从“共产主义”到“延退现实”的信任危机

一、 消失的彼岸:被逐渐隐去的“共产主义”

在革命年代与建政初期,“共产主义”不仅是一个政治词汇,更是动员底层民众最核心的感召力量。“按需分配”、“消灭阶级”、“人人平等”的宏大蓝图,曾让无数普通百姓倾其所有,甚至付出生命去追随。彼时,这一愿景被描绘为触手可及的“明天”。

然而,随着时间的推移,这一绝对纯粹的乌托邦承诺在严酷的经济规律面前屡屡碰壁。从早期的激进尝试,到后来的“社会主义初级阶段”,再到如今转向“中国式现代化”与“共同富裕”,政治话语的重心发生了微妙而根本的位移。在官方的日常意识形态宣讲中,“共产主义社会”这一最初的终极奋斗目标正变得越来越抽象,甚至在很多公共讨论和政策文本中被选择性地淡化和隐去。这种叙事的转向,在很多观察者眼中,实际上是一种历史承诺的悄然退却——当最初构建的宏大愿景无法兑现时,话语体系便只能通过不断修正目标来掩盖早期的过度动员。

二、 契约的单方面修改:社保缴费年限延长的现实刺痛

如果说“共产主义”的淡化还属于形而上学的意识形态调整,那么近期中国政府单方面宣布延长社保缴费年限以及推迟退休年龄的政策,则直接刺痛了当代普通民众的现实利益。

社保制度在现代社会本质上是一种国家与公民之间的“社会契约”:公民在年轻时履行缴费义务,国家则承诺在公民年老时提供稳定的基本生活保障。然而,面对严重的人口红利消失、少子老龄化危机以及地方财政的巨大压力,政策制定者选择了一种“单方面修改合同”的方式:

缴费时间拉长:这意味着劳动者需要付出更多、更久的劳动成本。

领取时间推迟:这意味着原本触手可及的晚年保障被再度延后。

对于长期承受高强度劳动压力的当代年轻人和中年劳动力而言,这种单方面调整缺乏充分的民意博弈与社会共识过程。它让民众清晰地看到,在制度设计的风险面前,最终承担代价和托底的,依然是体制最底层的普通工薪阶层。

三、 信任的侵蚀:从宏大叙事到个体清醒

将历史的宏大承诺与当下的社保政策放在一起对比,其暴露出的核心问题在于政治信任的透支。

从建党之初许诺给工农阶层一个“人人有饭吃、人人有房住”的理想国度,到如今面对老龄化冲击时,要求普通人“多缴少领”、“延迟退休”,这构成了强烈的讽刺。这种政策走向让越来越多的人开始反思:曾经那些激昂的口号究竟是真诚的愿景,还是一种在不同历史时期为了维护统治、转嫁危机而不断变换的“修辞魔术”?

一个成熟的现代社会治理,需要的是透明、对等且受到监督的契约精神。当宏大的政治口号最终缩水为需要个体用肉身去硬扛的社保账单,那种依靠单向宣传维持的叙事红利便走到了尽头。历史的迷雾散去后,留给普通人的,只剩下如何面对越发沉重的生存现实。

编辑:冯仍 校对:冯仍 翻译:戈冰

A look back at history’s past: From “communism” to “delaying reality” the crisis of confidence

Author: Sun Haoliang

A party’s legitimacy is based not only on the monopoly of power but also on the historical promises it makes to its people and the contracts it ultimately fulfills. Looking back at the century-long journey of the Communist Party of China from its founding in 1921 to the present day, the evolution of its political rhetoric, the shift in its core narrative, and the recently introduced social security extension policy are piecing together a satirical picture of the gap between historical promises and reality.
翻看历史的旧账:从“共产主义”到“延退现实”的信任危机

1. The Lost Shore: Gradually Hidden “Communism”

During the revolutionary era and the early years of the People’s Republic of China, “communism” was not only a political term, but also the core inspirational force for mobilizing the grassroots people.“ The grand blueprint of distributing ”, “eliminating classes”, and “equality for all” on demand once made countless ordinary people give their all and even their lives to follow it. At that time, this vision was portrayed as within reach “tomorrow”.

However, over time, this absolutely pure utopian promise repeatedly hit a wall in the face of harsh economic laws. From the early radical attempts, to the later “primary stage of socialism”, and now to the shift towards “Chinese-style modernization” and “common prosperity”, the focus of political discourse has undergone a subtle and fundamental shift. In official, everyday ideological propaganda, the original ultimate goal of “communist society” is becoming increasingly abstract, even selectively diluted and obscured in many public discussions and policy texts. This shift in narrative is, in the eyes of many observers, actually a quiet retreat from historical commitments ——when the grand vision initially constructed cannot be fulfilled, the discourse system can only mask the early over-mobilization by constantly revising its goals.

2. Unilateral Amendment of the Contract: The Real Sting of Extending the Social Security Contribution Period

If the dilution of “communism” is still a metaphysical ideological adjustment, then the recent unilateral announcement by the Chinese government to extend the social security contribution period and postpone the retirement age directly stung the real interests of ordinary people in contemporary times.

In modern society, the social security system is essentially a “social contract” between the state and citizens: citizens fulfill their contribution obligations when they are young, and the state promises to provide stable basic living security when citizens are old. However, faced with a severe demographic dividend loss, an aging population crisis, and enormous pressure on local finances, policymakers have chosen a way to “unilaterally modify contracts”:

Longer contribution times: This means that workers have to pay more and longer labor costs.

Postponed collection: This means that the old-age protection that was once within reach has been postponed again.

For the contemporary young and middle-aged workforce, which has long been subjected to high-intensity labor pressure, this unilateral adjustment lacks an adequate process of public opinion game and social consensus. It allows the public to clearly see that in the face of the risks of system design, it is still the ordinary working class at the bottom of the system who ultimately bear the cost and support.

3. The Erosion of Trust: From Grand Narratives to Individual Lucidity

Contrasting the grand promises of history with current social security policies reveals that the core problem lies in the overdraft of political trust.

From the early days of the Party’s founding, when it promised an ideal country for the workers and peasants “everyone had food to eat and everyone had a house to live in”, to now facing the impact of aging, it requires ordinary people “to pay more but receive less” and “to delay retirement”, which constitutes a strong irony. This policy direction has led more and more people to reflect: Are those once passionate slogans sincere visions, or are they a kind of “rhetorical magic” that has been constantly changed in different historical periods to maintain rule and pass on crises?

A mature modern social governance requires a spirit of contract that is transparent, equal and supervised. When grand political slogans eventually shrank to social security bills that individuals had to carry physically, the narrative dividend that relied on one-way propaganda came to an end. When the fog of history has cleared, all that remains for ordinary people is how to face the increasingly heavy reality of existence.

Editor: Feng Ren Proofreader: Feng Ren Translation: Ge Bing

浅评《前进达瓦里希》

0
浅评《前进达瓦里希》

作者:戈冰

前言

当共产主义宏大的意识形态渗透进个体的日常生活时,其对人类心灵的规训便达到了最隐秘的境地。本片将镜头对准90年代初中国社会转型前夜的一个女孩。在这个由红色积木和苏俄历史人物名字构筑的微缩乌托邦里,本该纯真的童年游戏,却无意识地复制了冷酷的权力运行逻辑和“人民审判”。女孩最终在火光中的逝去,表面上是理想主义的落幕,实质上却是一场思想被高度异化后的精神殉葬。这种集体主义幻觉在面对现实的祛魅时,最终走向了毁灭。本文将以片中看似天真的儿童游戏为切入点,逐一剖析其背后隐喻的共产主义话语体系如何对个体思想进行异化与戕害,直面其严酷的精神规训本质。

一,童年乌托邦的崩塌:从红色积木到时代巨变

故事发生在20世纪90年代初中国的一个普通工业城市。一个小女孩在那个年代特有的集体氛围中长大。她拥有一套红色积木,这是她童年最重要的玩具。家里养了几只小动物,她分别给它们取了革命人物的名字,比如猫叫“弗拉基米尔”、小鸡叫“菲利克斯”,还有一只调皮的小鸭叫“贝利亚”。女孩经常模仿大人,以集体的名义“审判”那些犯错的小动物,沉浸在自己创造的平等和理想游戏当中。

后来,外部世界发生了剧烈变化。苏联解体带来的冲击波也传到了这里。女孩身边的“动物伙伴”一个个不见了。她用红色积木和童年幻想搭建起来的小世界,在现实压力下开始崩塌。她曾经坚信的东西正在迅速失去根基,这种成长与时代剧变的碰撞,让她感到强烈的失落和迷茫。

女孩不得不面对现实:家里和街上到处都是新出现的资本主义商品——芭比娃娃、米老鼠等各种洋玩具。但贝利亚离开前,给她留下一块带有红色标记的积木,上面刻着“达瓦里希(同志)”这个最高指示。在幻觉和现实不断交替中,女孩紧紧抱着这块积木和内心的理想,冲出了家门。最后,她在城市拆迁的火光与烟尘中离开了。

女孩的离去,象征着那个年代的理想主义彻底落幕。在她最后的意识里,她又回到了过去大家一起努力的时光。尽管周围满是废墟和变化,她还是选择朝着那个“很多人已经不再相信的梦想”继续走下去。

现在我们逐一分析影片中共产主义对于人类思想的侵蚀戕害。

二,被塑造的天真:意识形态如何进入儿童的游戏

浅评《前进达瓦里希》

影片前部,贝利亚因为偷盗一块积木而遭到主人公审判:“贝利亚因为盗窃社会主义和人民的积木而要受到处分。”这看似只是儿童游戏中的一句玩笑话,却暴露出影片一个值得关注的细节。小女孩并没有简单地指责贝利亚偷走了“我的积木”,而是将其上升为对“社会主义”和“人民”的侵害。

从这个角度来看,问题不在于女孩的天真,而在于她的天真已经被特定的政治话语所塑造。本应属于儿童的世界——游戏、友谊与好奇心——被宏大叙事重新编码。她不再只是给动物起名字,而是在赋予它们政治身份;她不再只是与动物玩耍,而是在模仿一种权力运行的逻辑。

更值得注意的是,在这场“审判”中,“人民”被作为最终的合法性来源,却始终没有被清晰界定。谁代表人民?谁有权解释人民的利益?谁又能够决定某种行为是否损害了人民?这些问题在游戏中并hu不存在,因为审判者、立法者和解释者实际上都是同一个人——女孩自己。

正是在这种意义上,这场儿童游戏成为一种政治寓言。它所呈现的并非现代法治所强调的程序、权利与制衡,而是一种以抽象集体名义进行裁决的思维模式。当“人民”被视为最高价值时,个体的声音反而容易被淹没;而当“人民”的定义掌握在权力者手中时,谁属于人民、谁不属于人民,也往往不再由个人决定。

三,想象的敌人:意识形态如何替代真实世界

影片中有一个引人思索的细节。在拥挤的电梯里,小女孩忧心忡忡地问母亲:“妈妈,我们的大楼会不会被美国炸掉?”

对于成年人而言,这或许只是儿童的胡思乱想。然而,一个从未见过美国人、不了解国际政治的孩子,为何会将美国与战争和毁灭自然地联系起来?这种恐惧显然不是来源于个人经验,而是来源于她所接触的政治叙事。

从这个角度来看,影片实际上呈现出一种值得警惕的现象:当个体尚未具备独立思考能力时,便已经学会按照既定的话语框架理解世界。世界被简单划分为“我们”和“他们”,“同志”和“敌人”,“人民”和“反人民”。在这样的叙事中,复杂的现实被压缩为道德判断,而抽象的政治身份则取代了真实的人。

这种思维模式在中国近代史上并不陌生。义和团运动时期,许多人相信外部世界是威胁自身生存的邪恶力量;而在互联网时代,部分极端民族主义者也习惯于将国际关系简化为善恶对抗。在两者之间虽然存在巨大的时代差异,但都反映出一种共同倾向:以想象中的敌人代替真实世界,以情绪化的身份认同代替理性分析。

影片中的女孩当然不是义和团成员,也不是今天所谓的“粉红”。但她身上已经出现了类似的心理结构——在尚未理解世界之前,先学会了恐惧世界;在尚未接触他者之前,先学会了定义他者。这或许才是影片无意间暴露出的更深层问题。

四,无法被隔绝的现代性:当商品文化击碎意识形态幻梦

影片中部还有一个颇具象征意味的细节。几位母亲谈论起从西方传入的新式洗发膏,她们兴致勃勃地讨论着产品功效:“对皮肤特别好,silk就是蚕丝的意思。”对于成年人而言,这不过是再平常不过的消费选择;然而在小女孩的耳中,这却意味着某种无法接受的背叛。她认为母亲已经背离了自己所坚信的那个世界,转而向另一个世界靠拢。

这里实际上呈现出一种耐人寻味的反差。儿童仍然生活在意识形态构筑的世界里,而成年人已经开始按照现实利益和生活需求作出选择。当小女孩还在维护自己幻想中的“社会主义”时,大人们却已经开始学习英文单词,讨论进口商品,并主动接受来自西方的消费文化。

这种现象并非第一次出现在中国历史上。晚清时期,统治者一方面以“夷夏之防”的观念警惕西方影响,另一方面又沉迷于西方带来的物质享受。正如圆明园中的西洋楼景观所展现的那样,皇帝和后妃并不排斥西方所代表的舒适与享乐,他们只是希望将这些东西控制在自己能够掌握的范围之内。

问题在于,现代化从来不是一种可以被局部接受的商品。技术、制度、思想与生活方式往往相伴而来。当统治者试图用高墙将西洋景观围起来,用传统秩序隔绝外部世界时,最终迎来的却是更剧烈的碰撞。大刀、梭标和土炮终究无法阻挡工业文明的到来,封闭的梦境也终究无法抵御现实的冲击。

影片中的小女孩实际上重复了同样的逻辑。她愿意接受红色积木构筑的乌托邦,却拒绝理解母亲为何会对“silk”产生兴趣;她试图把理想世界与现实世界彻底分开,却不知道现实早已悄悄进入家门。正如晚清中国最终无法将西方锁在国门之外一样,她也无法阻止那个由商品、市场和消费文化构成的新世界逐渐取代自己熟悉的一切。

五,当历史被美化:胜利叙事中的沉默与缺席

片尾出现的武器耐人寻味。波波沙冲锋枪、莫辛-纳甘步枪、DP-27轻机枪、Tu-2轰炸机、T-34坦克和喀秋莎火箭炮,都是苏联卫国战争时期最具代表性的装备。导演没有选择冷战后期的先进武器,而是将镜头停留在1945年的胜利时刻。这种选择并非偶然,因为1945年的红军象征着共产主义最辉煌、最容易被神话化的历史记忆。

然而,这种钢铁洪流的背后,却看不到大清洗、古拉格劳改营、政治迫害和长期经济困境。影片将复杂而充满争议的历史压缩成胜利与荣耀的叙事,使观众看到的是理想化的苏联形象,而不是共产主义制度在现实中的代价。因此,导演所怀念的并非真实存在过的苏联,而是经过选择性记忆塑造出来的苏联神话。

六,萌化的名字,血腥的历史:三只宠物背后的国家暴力谱系

更细思极恐的是,导演将三只宠物分别命名为弗拉基米尔、菲利克斯和贝利亚。

对于不了解苏联历史的观众而言,这不过是几个普通名字;但对于熟悉历史的人来说,它们分别对应列宁、捷尔任斯基和拉夫连季·贝利亚——苏联革命、秘密警察体系以及国家恐怖机器的重要象征。

导演并没有让这些人物以庄严肃穆的历史形象出现,而是将其降格为宠物。这种处理方式既消解了历史人物的神圣性,也削弱了他们身上的政治重量。曾经影响数千万人的革命领袖、秘密警察首脑和内务部负责人,在动画中变成了围绕主人打转的小动物。

这种反差构成了影片最黑色幽默的一笔。

如果进一步追溯这三个名字背后的历史,则会发现导演的选择并非偶然。

列宁奠定了一党专政的政治框架;捷尔任斯基创建契卡,使秘密警察成为国家统治的重要工具;贝利亚则成为大清洗、古拉格体系和国家恐怖的代表人物之一。

三个人的历史轨迹,恰好对应着苏联国家权力不断扩张的过程。从革命理想,到暴力维稳,再到制度化恐怖,影片用三个看似无害的宠物名字,浓缩了一段极其沉重的历史。

导演没有选择马克思、恩格斯或斯大林,而是选择了列宁、捷尔任斯基和贝利亚。这三个名字共同指向的并非共产主义理想本身,而是维护这一理想所建立起来的国家暴力机器。

结语

从“人民审判”的童年游戏到最终的精神殉葬,女孩的悲剧展现了宏大叙事对个体心灵的极限异化。那些被萌化的苏俄符号背后,是沉重的国家暴力机器。当虚无的集体主义幻觉被现实祛魅,她选择与红色积木一同走向毁灭。这不仅是理想主义的落幕,更是极权话语吞噬纯真、戕害思想的一声沉痛挽歌。

编辑:冯仍 校对:冯仍 翻译:戈冰

A Brief Review of “Forward Darvarian”

Author: Ge Bing

Preface

The discipline of the human mind reached its most secretive state when the grand ideology of communism permeated the daily lives of individuals. The film focuses on a girl on the eve of China’s social transformation in the early 1990s. In this miniature utopia constructed from red building blocks and the names of Soviet historical figures, what should be an innocent childhood game unconsciously replicates the cold logic of power operation and “people’s judgment”. The girl’s final death in the flames was, on the surface, the end of idealism, but in reality it was a spiritual burial after her thoughts were highly alienated. This collectivist illusion, faced with the disenchantment of reality, ultimately leads to destruction. This article will use the seemingly innocent children’s games in the film as a starting point to analyze one by one how the metaphorical communist discourse system behind it alienates and harms individual thoughts, and confront the harsh nature of its spiritual discipline.

I. The Collapse of Childhood Utopia: From Red Blocks to a Great Change of Times

The story takes place in an ordinary industrial city in China in the early 1990s. A little girl grew up in the collective atmosphere that was unique to that era. She owns a set of red building blocks, which were the most important toys of her childhood. The family had several small animals, and she named them after revolutionary figures, such as the meow of a cat “Vladimir”, the meow of a chicken “Felix”, and the meow of a mischievous duckling “Belia”. Girls often imitate adults, collectively “judging” the erring critters and immersing themselves in the game of equality and ideals they have created.

Later, the outside world changed dramatically. The shockwaves from the collapse of the Soviet Union also reached here. The “animal companions” next to the girl are gone one by one. The little world she had built with red blocks and childhood fantasies began to crumble under the pressure of reality. What she once believed in was rapidly losing its foundation, and this collision of growth and the upheaval of the times left her feeling intensely lost and lost.

Girls have to face reality: their homes and streets are full of new capitalist commodities —— Barbie dolls, Mickey Mouse and other foreign toys. But before Beria left, he left her a block with a red mark on it, engraved with the highest instruction “Darvarihi (comrade”. In a constant alternation of illusion and reality, the girl rushed out of the house, holding the block tightly and her inner ideal. Finally, she left in the fire and smoke of the city demolition.

The girl’s departure symbolizes the complete end of the idealism of that era. In her last consciousness, she returned to the time when everyone worked together. Despite the ruins and changes around her, she chose to continue walking towards that “dream that many people no longer believe in”.

Now let’s analyze the erosion of human thought caused by communism in the film one by one.

II. Shaped Innocence: How Ideology Enters Children’s Play

浅评《前进达瓦里希》

At the beginning of the film, Beria is tried by the protagonist for stealing a building block: “Beria is punished for stealing a building block of socialism and the people.” This may seem like just a joke in a children’s game, but it reveals a noteworthy detail of the film. Instead of simply accusing Beria of stealing “my building blocks”, the little girl raised it to an attack on “socialism” and “the people”.

From this perspective, the problem is not the girl’s naiveté, but that her naiveté has been shaped by a particular political discourse. The world that should belong to children ——games, friendships and curiosity—— is recoded by the grand narrative. She no longer just names animals, but gives them political identities; she no longer just plays with animals, but imitates a logic of power operation.

It is even more noteworthy that in this “trial”, “the people” are presented as the ultimate source of legitimacy, yet they are never clearly defined. Who represents the people? Who has the right to interpret the interests of the people? Who can decide whether an action harms the people? These questions do not exist in the game, because the judge, legislator and interpreter are actually the same person —— the girl herself.

It is in this sense that this children’s game becomes a political allegory. It presents not the procedures, rights and checks and balances emphasized by the modern rule of law, but a mindset that adjudicates in the name of an abstract collective. When “the people” is regarded as the highest value, the individual voice is easily drowned out; and when the definition of “the people” is in the hands of those in power, who belongs to the people and who does not belong to the people are often no longer determined by the individuals.

III. Enemies of the Imagination: How Ideology Can Replace the Real World

There is a thought-provoking detail in the film. In the crowded elevator, the little girl asked her mother worriedly: “Mom, will our building be blown up by the United States?”

For adults, this may just be a child’s fantasy. Yet why would a child who had never met an American and did not understand international politics naturally associate the United States with war and destruction? This fear clearly stemmed not from personal experience but from the political narratives she was exposed to.

From this perspective, the film actually presents a phenomenon worth being wary of: when individuals do not yet have the ability to think independently, they have learned to understand the world according to the established discourse framework. The world is simply divided into “us” and “them”, “comrades” and “enemies”, “people” and “anti-people”. In such narratives, complex realities are compressed into moral judgments, while abstract political identities replace real people.

This mindset is no stranger to modern Chinese history. During the Boxer Rebellion, many people believed that the outside world was an evil force threatening their own survival; and in the Internet age, some extreme nationalists are also accustomed to reducing international relations to a confrontation between good and evil. While there are significant differences in time between the two, both reflect a common tendency to replace the real world with imagined enemies and rational analysis with emotional identities.

The girl in the film was certainly not a Boxer, nor is she what is known today as “Pink”. But a similar psychological structure has emerged in her ——learning to fear the world before she understands it; learning to define the other before she touches it. This may be the deeper problem that the film inadvertently exposes.

IV, the uninsoluble modernity: When commodity culture shatters ideological dreams

There is also a rather symbolic detail in the middle of the film. Several mothers talked about the new shampoos that had arrived from the West, and they enthusiastically discussed the product’s effects: “It’s especially good for the skin; silk means silk.” For adults, this is just another common consumption choice; however, in the ears of little girls, it means a certain unacceptable betrayal. She believed that her mother had turned away from the world she believed in and moved closer to another world.

There’s actually an intriguing contrast here. Children still live in an ideologically constructed world, while adults have begun to make choices based on real interests and life needs. While the little girl is still defending her fantasy “socialism”, the adults have begun to learn English words, discuss imported goods, and actively accept consumer culture from the West.

This phenomenon is not the first time it has appeared in Chinese history. During the late Qing Dynasty, rulers were wary of Western influence with the concept of “defense against the barbarians and the Xia”, while also indulging in the material pleasures brought by the West. As the view of the Western-style building in the Old Summer Palace shows, the emperor and his concubines did not reject the comforts and pleasures represented by the West; they simply wanted to keep these things within their grasp.

The problem is that modernization is never a commodity that can be accepted locally. Technology, institutions, ideas and lifestyles often go hand in hand. When rulers tried to enclose the Western landscape with high walls and isolate the outside world with traditional order, they ended up with a more violent collision. Big knives, shuttle markers and earthen cannons will not be able to stop the arrival of industrial civilization, and closed dreams will not be able to resist the impact of reality.

The little girl in the film actually repeats the same logic. She is willing to accept the utopia built of red blocks, but refuses to understand why her mother is interested in “silk”; she tries to completely separate the ideal world from the real world, but she doesn’t know that reality has already quietly entered the house. Just as China in the late Qing Dynasty was ultimately unable to lock the West outside its borders, she was also unable to prevent that new world of goods, markets, and consumer culture from gradually replacing everything she was familiar with.

V. When History is Beautified: Silence and Absence in Victory Narratives

The weapon that appears at the end of the film is intriguing. The Poposha submachine gun, Mosin-Nagant rifle, DP-27 light machine gun, Tu-2 bomber, T-34 tank and Katyusha rocket launcher are all the most representative equipment of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War. Instead of choosing advanced weapons from the post-Cold War period, the director kept the camera focused on the moment of victory in 1945. This choice was no accident, as the Red Army in 1945 symbolized communism’s most glorious and easily mythologized historical memory.

Yet, behind this torrent of steel, there is no sign of the Great Purge, Gulag labor camps, political persecution and long-term economic hardship. The film compresses a complex and controversial history into a narrative of victory and glory, allowing viewers to see an idealized image of the Soviet Union rather than the real-life cost of the communist system. Therefore, the director does not miss the real Soviet Union, but the Soviet myth shaped by selective memory.

VI. Cute Names, Bloody History: The Genealogy of State Violence Behind Three Pets

On closer reflection, the director named the three pets Vladimir, Felix, and Beria.

To viewers unfamiliar with Soviet history, these are just a few common names; but to those familiar with history, they correspond to Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, and Lavrentiy Beria ——important symbols of the Soviet Revolution, the secret police system, and the state terror machine.

Rather than presenting these characters as solemn and historical figures, the director reduces them to pets. This approach both dissolves the sanctity of historical figures and weakens the political weight they carry. The revolutionary leader, head of the secret police and head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who once influenced tens of millions of people, is transformed into a small animal that revolves around its owner in the animation.

This contrast constitutes the film’s darkest humor.

If the history behind these three names is further traced, it will be found that the director’s choice was not accidental.

Lenin laid the political framework for a one-party dictatorship; Dzerzhinsky created the Cheka, making the secret police an important tool for state rule; and Beria became one of the representatives of the Great Purge, the Gulag system, and state terror.

The historical trajectories of the three people correspond exactly to the process of continuous expansion of Soviet state power. From revolutionary ideals, to violent stability maintenance, to institutionalized terror, the film condenses an extremely heavy history with three seemingly harmless pet names.

The director chose not Marx, Engels or Stalin, but Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and Beria. Together, these three names refer not to the communist ideal itself, but to the state apparatus of violence built up by upholding it.

Conclusion

From the childhood games of “People’s Judgment” to the final spiritual burial, the girl’s tragedy demonstrates the extreme alienation of the individual psyche by grand narratives. Behind those cute Soviet symbols is a heavy state violence machine. When the collectivist illusion of nothingness is disenchanted by reality, she chooses to go to destruction with the red blocks. This is not only the end of idealism, but also a painful elegy for totalitarian discourse to devour innocence and harm ideas.

Editor: Feng Ren Proofreader: Feng Ren Translation: Ge Bing

国主确权动议

0

作者:左智海

诸位中国主人翁:

大家好!

我们被共产党给骗了。

当今的中华人民共和国并非社会主义国家,而是隶属于共产党的党权专制国家,与秦汉之后的皇权专制一般,你我正在被中共一党独裁。

从1949年至今,中共从没有实行过公有制,而是党有制,是中共高层领导所有制,中国包括土地在内的所有自然资源,所有的矿藏、森林、河流、海洋、天空等等,都已被中共以国有、公有的名义收为党有,归中共高层领导及其家属支配、享用,就你我这样的平民百姓一无所有。

中共也从未在中国实行按劳分配,而是按中共党内地位及权力大小、关系亲疏远近来分配,党内地位越高、权力越大,与领导干部关系越近越好者能享用的资源及社会财富就越多,无权、无关系、无地位者不得或只得极少分配。

且中共在中国推行的并非集体主义,而是个人主义,而这里的个人仅包括它们中共高层的领导干部及其家属,因为,中共从来没有把中国利益、民族利益或是人民利益放在首位,而是把中共高层领导干部及其家属的利益凌驾于国家、民族及人民利益之上。

诸位,所有的集体都是由个体构成的,也因为集体利益是个体利益的合集,所以,任何一个个体合法权益的损害都会侵害到集体的利益,因此,任何牺牲及损害个体合法利益的行为在本质上都是在侵害集体的利益。

那中共还为何一直倡导我们要牺牲小我,顾全大局?因为在中共的大局里只有中共高层领导及其家属的利益,而没有你我,也没有国家、民族及人民的利益,所以,它们不惜牺牲你我,谋夺国家、民族及人民的利益而只为去维护它们的统治和私利。

在中共的刻意混淆误导下,我们多数人并没有意识到私有制这个说法是有问题的,因为在当下的中国语境里,“私”这个字是带贬义的,所以,当读到私有制时多数人便会误以为这是不光彩、不应该提倡,甚至是不道德所有制的一种暗示。

但生而为人,我们凭什么不能拥有自己通过合法的努力,通过自己的勤劳、智慧和汗水换来的土地和财产?各位,我们有权力拥有个人财产,而也正是因为现代私有制的出现才让普通人真正成为了人。因为,一个无权拥有财产,一个随时随地都可以被皇帝、官员的命令,或被政党以国有、公有、集体所有的名义剥夺土地和财产的人其实不是人,而只是皇帝、官员或那群政党领导干部的半个奴隶。

事实上,现代私有制的实质是保护任何个人(包括普通人在内)的合法财产不受非法侵害。它的意义在于,当你不愿意出卖的时候,任何人都没有权力抢走你的土地和财产,不管是皇上国王、国家元首、政党领导、村干部或是其它人民群众都不行,这便能保护住你、我这样普通人的财产权,确保你的土地和财产不会因为皇上、国王、政府、某个党、某个领导或其它人民群众的某个决定而就被强占!没收!强拆!征用!

因此,普通人有权力拥有财产,且个人财产神圣不可侵犯,不是什么道德滑坡、自私自利,更不是什么落后倒退,普通人有权力拥有私产是生为一个人的基本权利,是社会的文明和历史的进步。

那中共又为什么要污蔑、抹黑现代私有制,这实在是因为现代私有制生来就是中共的天敌!

大家想想,要是新中国的每个人民百姓、每个普通人都有权拥有土地和财产、自然资源,且人民百姓拥有的私产神圣不可侵犯,那么,中共还怎么去共人民群众和老百姓的产,它们还怎么以国有、公有、集体所有的名义去抢劫国家的资源和财富。

普通人拥有个人财产并没有损害任何人的合法权益,也造不成什么社会危害,唯一损害的就是像中共这样欲要共你产的政党私利,因为这样它们便无法再共你和共国家的产了。普通人拥有个人财产是一种完全正当的利己行为,天生应该得到法律的保护和社会的尊重。

而且,不知道大家反应过来没有,只有奴隶主才不允许奴隶拥有私产,也只有奴隶主和奴隶才害怕其它奴隶拥有私产。

但更重要的是:各位国主,请擦亮你们的眼睛,中共从来只为剥削我们,而没有为人民服务过。

大家好好看看,1949之后中共做的都是些什么?

中共利用手中的国家权力,将中华人民共和国打造成了一架“人民收割机”,而在这收割机下大多数中国人民不可能不贫穷,因为在其“新中国收割系统”当中,绝大多数中国人的勤劳、天赋和努力都会被这套社会系统给无效化,所以,无论你怎么拼命的刻苦努力,也无论你有多么好的才能和天赋,你都赶不上中共这套社会系统对你的收割、利用和锁死、打压。

看,中共先以公有制,以国有、公有、集体所有的名义骗走了本该属于你的国家资源,盗走了本该属于你的公共财富,它们将本该供中国民众使用的、归中国民众所有的国家资源和公共财富(包括国家财政收入)都占为中共私有,并为它们所专用专享优享。中共让中国人民无权享用国家资源,无权享受公共财富,它们甚至将国家财政也变成了控制、搜刮民众的工具。它们规定人民无权拥有土地及其它自然资源,想方设法的把国家资源、公共财富从老百姓身上剥离出来,把中国人民变成了真正的无产阶级,让你我一无所有,让中国人丧失了现代人所应该享有的最基本的国家民生和社会保障。

同时,中共再以垄断的方式扼住了中国人民生存之必须的资源,它们将党企伪装成国企央企集体企业,然后抓住中国人民的衣食住行,从中国人民的生存繁衍下手,把新中国的土地、住房、医疗、教育、养老、社会保障、市场、金融、水、电、煤气、石油、矿藏、通信、交通、烟草等等民生之必须都统统打造成为收割中国人民之利器,并冠以国家的名义,打着为人民服务为幌子收割、压榨人民。

以至于,我们最广大的人民群众始终只能在中共打造的中华人民共和国里被中共给控制、收割、压榨,然后只能在苦、穷、忙、卷中为中共的领导干部和其家属们的岁月静好疲于奔命、负重前行,并成为了中共的社会制度其“新中国社会系统”所生产制造的国家奴隶。

于是,今天的中国人成为了全世界工作最勤劳,却又生活最辛苦的民族。于是,我们甚至成为了只有考试及无休止的工作、劳动,而几乎没有生活,只有一辈子劳苦到死的民族。

但可惜在中共的洗脑和舆论宣传之下,多数中国人并不清楚自己之所以活得贫穷劳累、艰难困苦、毫 无希望,是因为我们陷入了中共社会制度所造成的系统性贫穷与结构性困境当中。所以,今天的我们买不起房、结不起婚、供不起小孩、也养不起老。而且,我们当中的大多数无论如何努力的学习工作、劳动都改变不了自己的命运和生活。

更过分的是,中共还掌握着中国人的生杀予夺,它们可以轻易的动用公检法将任何无罪的人逮捕、定罪、判死、消失、关精神病院,甚至是做成人体标本,或贩卖、活摘人民器官,它们更可以动用公检法合法的掠夺民营资产,打劫人民的房子土地公司,没收老百姓合法购买的财产(如电动车),充公小摊贩赖以维持生计的财物(如瓜果蔬菜、三轮车)等。

但是,各位主人翁,我等不是中国的国家主人吗?中国明明白白也只应当是中国人之中国,而非一党一姓之中国!那为何我等今天大多数中国人却活成了这样?近乎于成了中共之半奴?

因为我们被共产党给耍了。

诸位,国家主人并非只是一个空洞的口号,更不是一个虚名,他实打实的是一种伴随着具有国家主人权力及享有国家主人利益的身份。而不是毛泽东站在天安门头挥挥手喊几遍“人民万岁”,来一句“中国人民从此站起来了”我们就成国家的主人了。也不是共产党说我们是“国家的主人翁”,是“社会主义接班人”我们就真的是了,我们得真实的具有中国国家主人的权力,得真正的享有中国的国家利益。

那么,身为中国国家主人的我们,应当具有哪些权力?

第一、我们有权力决定谁在中国当官当政,并且有权力让这些政府及官员下台。

就是说,我们国家的元首、省长、市长、区县镇乡长由谁来担任,或是由什么党来主政当政(如:共产党或国民党)都得由我们这些国家主人通过投票说了算,并且,我们这些国家主人也有权力让他们下台,当然,身为国家主人的我们也有权力自己参与竞选。

而不是像现在共产党高层指定谁是国家主席,谁就是国家主席,它们让谁当省长、市长、区长,谁就成了省长、市长、区长。

就习近平你们有谁给他投过票选他当主席的?从你们当地的省长到乡长,你们谁有权投过票了?请问这市长除了蒋万安外你们还认识谁了?是不是只认识南京市长江大桥?

各位,其实我们连选谁来当县长的权力都没有,就这我们还TM的是什么国家主人?

但当下最恐怖的是什么?共产党说它们要当政时,我们就只能拍手,习近平说它要做主席了,我们就只可以叫好称赞。因为我们这些国家主人要是敢反对,那共产党就能给我们判刑或直接让我们被消失,而更不要提你想去竞选个市长或省长,你今早刚宣布参选,夜里就会被它们关到精神病院。

就这,我们算哪门子的国家主人翁?

由于在中共的刻意歪曲误导之下,大多数中国人并不知晓选举的意义是什么?

选举是把那些能够发现并有能力解决我们国家、民族现阶段问题,并能真心实意的为我们这些国家主人翁服务的人给选出来为我们服务;是把那些能够真正解决你们当地问题,能够真正的为你们争取权力及带来利益的人选出来,为你们争取权和利。

而当你们发现主政的这国家元首、这些省长、市长等等没有能力或尸位素餐,不真心实意为你们服务,不能真正代表你们的权力及利益的时候,你们就有权弹劾他们,或下次不再选他们,让这元首、这些官员不敢不真心实意的用心为你们服务,并淘汰那些能力不合格或是贪污受贿违法犯罪的官员。

就像目前中华人民共和国95%的中共官员都是贪污犯,可即使我们明知道它们每天都在违法犯罪,在贪污受贿,在肆意的滥用民脂民膏,但我们这些国家主人又能有什么办法?只有我们能有权力让它们下台,能有办法让它们的违法犯罪行为受到法律的惩罚时,它们才会敬畏人民,才会不敢不为人民服务。

而也只有人民有了选票,只有那什么主席、省长、市长、县乡镇长需要你们的选票才能够当选时,那些官员才不敢在你们面前摆谱耍官威,才会拼命的讨好你们,争先恐后的推出有利于你们民生及福利的政策以为赢得竞选。

否则,权力只会对权力的来源负责,只要这些官员是由共产党领导任命的,那它们的官位、地位和权力、利益也都只来自共产党领导干部的提拔,那么,它们也只会为那些能任命并废除它们官职的共产党高层服务,而不用理会我们这些屁民。

第二、政府有多少权力,取决于我们给政府多少的授权,如果没有我们的授权政府就没有任何的权力。

政府不是国家,也不天然的代表国家,政府只是一个用来服务国民的公共机构。其实不光是政府,包括国家元首、立法机构、公安检察院法院、军队和所有其它国家机构的权力及他们的构建、设立、选举方式、任免办法等等都需要由我们这些国家主人来通过《宪法》授权,如果没有我们的授权他们的设立就是非法的,即使有了我们的授权,他们也只能在我们授权的职权范围内行事,一旦他们的行为超越或是违反了我们于《宪法》的授权,那这就是违宪,我们就有权力依法追究他们的行为责任。而且,只要我们高兴,我们这些国家主人随时可以依照宪法来撤换这些政府和其它任何的国家机构。

只有这样,我们才是这些政府及其它国家机构、公务机关的主人,他们也才会规规矩矩的为我们这些国家主人服务,而不是如同目前的中共政府这般,我们不仅没有权力告诉它们,它们应该怎么为我们服务,它们还反过来强制洗脑PUA诱导我们,让我们努力的为中共和其政府领导干部及家属的私利做出牺牲和奉献。

为什么会这样?因为今天的中华人民共和国政府并非是中国政府,它也不隶属于中国人民,其实质是中共政府,是中国共产党一手操控并设立、组建的只隶属于中共,并用来维持共产党在中国统治人民,是它们用来控制并收刮压榨中国及中国人民的工具。

而更可恶的是,今天的中共政府天天打着国家的旗号,扛着国家的大旗,以“国家规定”“国家大局”来控制、收刮、盘剥我们这些国主。

它们划一条红线,你家的房子、土地就得拆了归它们。

它们出一份文件,你的电动车就可以被它们没收了卖到非洲。

它们画一个圈,就可以把景区变成收费站。

它们出一纸公文,国家一级公路就可以再次收费。

它们出几项政策,烟草、电信、石油、燃气、电力等等所有能赚钱的、垄断、暴利的行业都只能它们做。

它们下一道法律,就能每年在老百姓身上收刮出二十多万亿的税费。

因为它们说:上面这一切统统都是国家规定。

但,各位,政府不是国家,政府也不是国家的主人,人民才是国家,我们中国人民才是中国真正的国家主人,没有我们人民明确的授权,没有我们这些国主的同意,中共政府它就没有任何的权力可以代表或处分国家。

那中共政府目前的所作所为是什么?它们其实在做着曹操的勾当,在挟国家之名以令我们中国人!是在没有经过我们这些国家主人授权同意的情况下,就私自制定有利于它们享有并维持特权的政治制度、经济政策、资源和财富分配方式,及始终在以国家的名义规制和剥削、压榨我们这些国家主人,掠夺我们国家的资源财富。

第三,身为国家主人,每年交多少税费只应由我们来表决,并且这些税费用在什么地方,也只应当由我们说了算。

国家财政是国家对国家财富的收支和管理,现代化国家财政最主要的收入来源就是税收,在现代化社会,国家财政属于公共财政,因为其国家财政的所有权及支配权都被国家主人公民们牢牢的握在自己手中,而不是被那政府或哪个党派给掌控,且其国家财政的使用都必须满足“公共性”这个目的,所有非因公共性的目的而使用的国家财政都是非法的。

而且,最重要的是这些现代化国家他们的税怎么征收?收多少?怎么存放管理?用在哪里?归根都是由公民共同来决定的。

因为现代化国家都根据《宪法》设有立法院(或是议会),由公民通过选举产生的民意代表组成。关于怎么征税?征收多少?如何存放管理?用在哪里?都只能由法律来规定,而这些与税相关的法律制定,都必须经立法院民意代表的投票表决,只有获得多数民意代表的同意这税法才能通过,否则就是不予批准;关于政府、警察、检察院、法院、军队的运转经费和公务人员的工资及其它的公共开支、预算也都必须经过立法院的同意,否则就是不予批准。如果没有立法院的同意,这些行政机关、司法部门、军队的运转经费和其公职人员的工资就一毛钱都拿不到。

而这些立法院的民意代表每个适龄公民都有权力参与竞选,且只能由公民选举产生,只有真正能够反映公民的意愿,能够有能力胜任公民的委托,能够被公民喜欢的人才能够当选。如果你觉得你选的这个民意代表不好,你选错了,你上当了,这个代表当选前后不一,前恭而后倨,或别有居心,不能真实的反映民意,又或是其能力不足以胜任的,你下次就可以不再选他,而另选一个你认为能反映你民意的人。如果你觉得这届参选的都不行,都不能真正代表你或是都能力不足,那么,你也可以亲自下场参选,去实现你的公民权利。

就是在这种民意代表制度之下,公民可以通过控制立法院来掌控国家财政的预算、收支和管理,而且,所有的财政预算、收支、管理都会由《宪法》规定的机构进行审计,如果审计机构发现国家财政的预算、收支、管理出现问题,便须立马就出现的问题上报立法院并向全社会公开,同时由警察、检察院、法院等司法部门介入调查,若其中有违法犯罪问题,则当即启动刑事追责,并追回流失的公共财产。

并且,所有的国家财政预算、收支、管理都必须向全社会公开,媒体、记者、律师、独立团体、公民个人随时有权就国家财政的预算、收支及管理进行询问、监督、检查,以履行公民职责,确保国家财政只使用于“公共性”的项目事务。

而且,为了防止公职人员贪污受贿,滥用公权力侵吞国有资产,现代化社会还设立了公职人员财产公开制度,上到国家元首,下到村长,包括公民民意代表、公检法、军官等等,只要身上有公职的都必须将所有家庭财产,将本人及配偶、子女的劳务所得、投资收益、买卖交易、赠与和赔偿、债务、房地产等等向全体公民公开,并且必须是定期向社会更新申报。这样,便有效的防止了公职人员滥用公民授予的权力将国家资源和公共财产以隐秘、非法的手段流入公职人员家庭,也有效的防止了公职人员以权谋私、贪污受贿。

而你们再看看,中共所谓的新中国是没有公职人员财产公开制度的,这为什么?

因为,中共只要设立了公职人员财产公开制度就会动摇中共的国本,到时,我们这些国家主人便会立马反应过来,这改革开放四十多年来中国的国家财产和社会财富到底流入了谁的口袋?到时,大多数国家主人就会幡然醒悟,会立马看清这中共和其新中国的实质。

大家觉得,新中国改革开放所获得的资源、财富大多数流向了哪里?

答案并不是阿里、腾讯、百度这些民营公司和企业家,也不是流向科学家、知识精英、高管、白领、教师、运动员、艺术家,更不是流向工人、农民、司机、骑手、个体户、小商小贩这些最广大的人民群众,而是流向了那些党和国家领导人,流向了那些所谓的红色家族,流向了那些部级省级、厅级高官、国企领导和各个市县的领导干部班子,以及流入上面这些各级领导的家属、亲友、二奶、白手套。

为什么会这样?

因为,堂堂一个所谓的新中国,一个号称社会主义公有制的国家,但它的国家财政却是私有的。对,你没听错,就连那些共产党口诛笔伐的资本主义社会的国家财政都是公有的,属公共财政,但社会主义新中国的国家财政却是私有的,是独属于中国共产党顶层领导的私有财政,而这也正是导致你我之所以是穷人的真正原因。

为什么这样说?

因为,新中国国家财政的预算、收支、管理和使用都不在最广大的人民群众手中,而在中共这个私党手中。

因为,新中国国家财政运转的后果就是将国家资源和公共财富及民企民脂民膏都统统尽可能的收刮进中国共产党的领导干部和骨干成员及其家属的口袋。

各位国主可知,中共新中国的税收和罚没收入最大最关键的问题在哪里?

问题就在于现代化国家的政府收税只能用于公共事项,只能用于改善民生,用于医疗、教育、养老、育儿、失业保障、社会救济、科技、国防这些公共事务。而且,这些税金怎么花,用在什么地方,也只能由公民及公民代表投票来决定,并且公民有权对这些公共项目资金的使用进行监督。

但在新中国,每年二十多万亿的税费被中共这样收刮走之后,就与你我这些国家主人无关了,中共和它的政府想怎么享用就可以怎么享用,领导干部们爱怎么浪费就可以怎么浪费。

因为新中国的政府及国家财政预算的批准执行机构全国人民代表大会是中共自己家开的,那些所谓的人民代表也是中共指定的,而不是由人民群众和老百姓选的,所以,这些人民代表它们代表的并不是人民,它们代表的只能是给它们带来利益和职位的中共领导,它们也只需对权力的来源负责,为中共这私党服务,而不用对人民负责,所以,对于新中国的财政支出人民百姓无权参与表决,更无权参与分润、花销,中共高层领导可以随意的批准和执行国家财政的预算,这也是之所以说中国的财政收入是中共的,是独属于中共领导私有的原因。

所谓的“取之于民,用之于民”在中共这里就是个口号,它们只需东拼西凑、堂而皇之的列出一堆项目表格假装这些税钱和罚没收入都已用于教育支出、科学技术支出、社会保障和就业支出、卫生健康支出、节能环保支出、城乡社区支出、农林水支出、交通运输支出等,就算是给我们这些国家主人一个交代了。

至于你人民百姓信还是不信,它们根本不在乎。因为人民百姓没有任何的权力和手段能去监督、审查这些税收和罚没收入到底被用到了那里。因为新中国所有的行政机关、立法机构、司法部门都是中共家自己开的,甚至连军队也都是中共自家的党卫军,如果你胆敢质疑,胆敢根究,那么,你最终的结局不是被公检法收押,就是被精神病。

所以,这些从人民、老百姓、国家身上收刮得来的钱财,会很容易、极快的通过各种方法手段被中共拿去给领导干部和它们的八千万同志们发工资、发福利、发奖金,拿去给它们盖豪华政府大楼,拿去开会摆国宴、省宴,拿去培养人民大会堂的女服务员、培养天安门的持伞黑衣人,拿去公款吃喝,拿去购买豪华座驾,拿去公款旅游,拿去搞烟酒、绿色食品特供,拿去国企分红,拿去建老干部病房,拿去无上限的报销领导干部医疗,拿去给领导们配备警卫、司机、生活秘书、随身护士,拿去给白手套然后分赃等等等,但,人民百姓对此又能有什么办法?我们对此没有任何的办法。

又如2026年5月1日以后,中共所有大小官员及公职人员们,其巨额财产来源不明罪的定罪门槛已经从30万涨到了300万人民币,但期间农民的养老金只涨了20块钱,尽管很多国家主人对此强烈不满,可丧失了国主权力的我们又能有什么办法呢?

再则,身为中国主人的我们,应当享有的国家利益和社会保障有哪些?

一、中国所有的国有资源及国有企业我们都享有1/13亿的所有权及分红;

二、我们有权拥有包括土地在内的个人资产,且我们的个人财产神圣不可侵犯;

三、我们有权自由选择职业,有权享受公正合适的工作条件并享受免于失业的保障;

四、我们有权通过工作获得公正合适的报酬,以保障我们本人和家属享有尊严生活所必须之条件(我们的工资收入必须能够满足一家人的衣食住行及育儿医疗教育养老等);

五、我们享有休息和闲暇之权利,包括工作时间有合理限制和定期给薪休假之权利(如:八小时工作制,每年带薪年假不低于15天);

六、当我们遭受失业、疾病、残废、守寡、衰老、或其它不能控制情况下丧失谋生能力时,有权享受国家提供的为维持本人和家属之健康和福利所需之生活水准,包括食物、衣着、住房、医疗和必要之社会服务;

七、当我们在海外遭遇恐怖分子绑架勒索嘎腰子时,中国政府有营救及保护我们之义务;

八、当我们的海外华人、侨胞遭遇种族屠杀时,中国政府有出兵护侨之义务;

九、任何外国人都不得在中国获得超国民之待遇(如:一众有女大学生陪读的外国留学生老爷们);

十、等等等······

诸位国主,请问你们有真实的享受过上述这些本应当属于国家主人的权力和利益没有?如果,你们连这些身为一个国家主人所应当享有的最基本的国主权力和国主利益都没有,那还凭什么觉得自己是中国的国家主人翁?

而且,身为国家主人所应当享有的权力和利益还有很多很多,限于篇幅恕我不能一一列明,但其实这一切的一切归根结底就只一点:这中国到底由谁说了算?或者说,这中国的规矩该由谁来定?

是习近平?

是共产党?

是那些领导干部官员?

还是应当由我们人民说了算!应当由我们中国人民来定中国的规矩?

其实,“只有将中国《国家最高规则》的制定权力牢牢掌握在我们人民手中时,只有中国的规矩由我们人民来定时,我们中国人民才能真正的成为中国之国家主人。”

而这也正是为什么从秦汉到现在两千多年来,我们中国的老百姓都命如草芥的原因。也是我们中国历朝历代都是天下兴百姓苦,天下亡百姓苦的原因。也是为什么我们每朝历史上都不乏岁大饥,人相食的原因。更是为什么无论何朝何代那穷苦、吃亏、上当、受罪的都全是老百姓的根本原因。

因为,从秦汉到现在,历来中国的《国家最高规则》制定权力都不在国人手中,因为中国的规矩一向都不由老百姓说了算,而是在皇帝、独裁者、中共领导、专制政党这些私人私党手中,中国的一切都只由它们说了算。

在1912年2月12日以前,中国的皇帝们口含天宪、至高无上,掌握着国人百姓的生杀予夺,它们皇帝说什么什么就成了《国家最高规则》,就成了老百姓需要去敬畏拜伏遵守的规矩,朝廷和王侯将相都只是其维护皇权的工具,而我们的国家和国人百姓全都只是皇帝的私人财物。

而1949年10月1日之后,中共以人民民主专政、以为人民服务、以始终代表最广大人民群众利益的名义骗走了包括制宪权、行政权、立法权、司法权、军权在内的所有中国国家公权力。从此,它们说什么是法什么就是法,它们说什么合法什么就合法,它们说什么违法什么就违法,它们将包括中国《宪法》在内的所有法律法规,将中国的国家规则和国人都玩弄于股掌之间。它们更是将中国人民的政府、立法机构、公检法、军队这些国家公共服务机关都变成了其私党的工具,从此,我们的国家及国家权力、国家机关都不在人民手中,而在中共这私党手中并成为了它们掌控、收割我们人民的工具。为此,我们中国人民才从本应该的国家主人,跌落成了中共新中国的国家奴隶,以至于我们今天十三亿的中国人民从生至死都处于中共的愚弄、规制、操控、役使、收割、压榨当中,且人民无法拒绝、无力抵抗。

那么,现在,不知各位是要继续如同我们这两千多年来的祖祖辈辈那般,世世代代的被这些皇帝、国贼、独裁者、中共领导、专制政党继续规制?继续成为它们餐桌、菜单上的食材?继续的被它们玩弄、鱼肉、收割、践踏?还是要勇敢的去争取属于我们国家主人的权力?去勇敢的坐上餐桌,勇敢的成为真正的国家主人,成为能够上桌参与国家规则的制定,并以此国家规则来确保我们能够掌握国家主人的权力,确保我们能够享受到国家资源、公共财富及其它的国家利益。而,不再如同现在这般,新中国的一切繁华、富强都是领导干部及其家属的与你我无关。

时至2025年,中国出生人口仅792万,甚至远低于战争时期1949的1391万,再加之最近几年中国人口的莫名消失、减少,验证了我们中国人民已经无法在中共的这套社会收割制度下正常的生存繁衍。各位,我们当下只会有越来越多的人被中共社会剥夺其生存及繁衍之权利,将来等待我们的就只有慢性的绝后、死亡和消失。

诸位,中共必须死,中国人民才能生。今天的我们要想活下去,要想活得幸福,要想成为真正的国家主人,要想摆脱当下的贫穷与困境,唯有从中共手中夺回我们的国家,拿回我们身为国家主人的权力,然后砸烂中共这套收割我们的国家规则,重建一套真正能够让每一位中国人当家作主,能够真正确认并维护每一位中国人的国主权力及国主利益的《国家最高规则》,然后再依照这《国家最高规则》重新组建真正隶属于中国人民,并只为服务、保障和维护中国人民的国主权力和国主利益而存在的公共政府、国民立法机构、正规警察局、正规检察院、正规法院、正规国家军队,并将我们的国家资源与公共财富(包括国家财政收入)都真正用在国计民生,用于保障每一位国人的生活条件,保障每一位国人的健康安全,保障国家及国民个人的发展。并让所有的国家机关,所有的公共及社会机构、部门、组织、团体、法人,所有的人都处在此《国家最高规则》的约束之下。并把新中国按权力、血缘、关系的分配方式更改为按劳分配、按创造力分配、按贡献分配,我们必须让勤劳能够致富,让每位国人的才能和天赋都有用武之地,让那些为国家和民族做出牺牲和奉献的人得到丰厚的奖赏。只有这样,我们中国人才能真正的成为国家的主人,才能摆脱中共或其它专制政党对我们的掌控和收割,才能真正建立公平、良性的社会制度及分配方式,也才能过上富足、闲暇、健康、体面的生活。

而在现代化社会,一国的《国家最高规则》或是国家的最大规矩通常被称之为《宪法》,这种有权利参与国家统治的国民被称之为公民(公民的实质就是国家的主人),这种以全体国家主人一起约定的《宪法》作为治理国家的最高规则及最根本法的治理模式被称作“宪政”,而这种全体国家主人一起参与制定宪法,并将《宪法》确立为国家最高规则及最根本法的过程被称之为“制宪、立宪”。

也就是说,当下我们中国人民要想成为真正的国家主人就得解决两个问题:1、如何推翻共产党在中国的独裁与专制;2、如何建立一套能够确保中国人民享有国主权力及国主利益的国家最高规则(即宪法)。

但,现在要推翻共产党在中国的统治有多难?其难度不亚于人类第一次登月。不信,你随便问一位中国或是外国人,告诉他们我们能推翻中共在中国的统治,他们大多数的反应就只会如同在100年前你告诉当时的人们,说人类可以坐火箭登上月球一般。

那我们今天要想绝大多数中国人一起参与制宪、立宪,然后合议表决,创造出一套真正能够保障中国人民的国主权力及国主利益的规矩,或一套国家最高规则出来有多难?难于古时候的人类上青天。

为什么?因为在中共的愚化、奴化教育,洗脑灌输、信息封锁,舆论宣传、管控之下,今天的中国最少有70%的中国人不知道《宪法》是什么?他们更不知道要如何及怎样才能设计出一套能够确认并保障他们国主权力及国主利益的国家规则。甚至他们中还有很多不知道自己一直在被中共给控制和收割,并误认为今天的中国人之所以能吃饱饭是因为有中共的恩赐才养活了他们,误以为要不是有着中共的保护,中国早就被那些莫须有的帝国主义国家给消灭了。

而且,就算那30%清醒的中国人也因为缺少民主实践,缺乏政治运动的经验,所以他们还没有学会或是说还不知道该如何才能团结到一起制定并协商表决出一套国家规则出来。可这也恰恰成为了今天的反共民主人士不善于群,不会团结,无法形成合力的一大原因。

是的,今天那么多反共的人士、团体、组织之所以一盘散沙是因为没有共识,因为我们达不成一致的政治共识,我们不知道应当建立一个什么样的国家?更找不到一套大多数中国人都能够接受的国家规则。

尽管我们都知道我们应该反共,知道民主宪政,知道现代化国家的构建,知道三权分立、公民权利、人权的普遍性共识,知道我们应该团结到一起等等。但我们或者各有自己的政治观点、意见和主张,或者我们不知道什么才应该是正确的政治观点、意见和主张,或者我们容不下他人的政治观点、意见和主张,或者我们干脆认为只有自己才是正确的,甚至于有些反共人士认为只有自己才是高尚纯洁的,而其他和自己行为、观点不一样的反共人士就都是卑劣,甚至是别有用心的。

所以,我们今天那么多反共的人士、团体、组织始终无法形成合力对抗中共。

所以,我们今天绝大多数的中国人很难团结起来,并建立一套能够确保中国人民享有国主权力及国主利益的国家规则。

所以,尽管我们当中有很多人想反抗中共,但却又不知道该如何反?不知道我们该如何组织起来积蓄力量推翻中共改变中国?不知道我们该加入哪个组织?该如何下手?如何的使力?

所以,我们今天的中国人没有方向,也找不到自己的出路到底在哪里?

但,我要告诉大家,天佑中华!是的,因为老天爷一直给我们中华民族留了一条路,我们大陆中国人的出路其实一直就摆在那个地方,只要你能洞穿中共的骗局和谎言就能够看到,那就是——台湾。

是的,我们根本无需从无到有苦思冥想的去设计一套完美的国家规则,我们也不消几乎不可能完成的去动员十几亿的国人,然后各种耗时耗力耗钱无休止的去争论协商开会表决,各位,我们何必要摸着石头过河?我们可以直接走桥的,只需照抄台湾的民主制度就好。

诸位国主,天佑中华!

从1912年2月12日清帝退位开启的那场中国政治现代化民主革命并没有结束,更没有失败,中华民国他一直都在,而且已经在台湾开出了民主之花,如今中华民国台湾地区的台湾人民已经真正成为了台湾的主人,他们已经实现了民治民享民主共和之国,已经成为了中华民族政治现代化、文明化、民主化转型之实例,已经破除了中华民族不适合民主化之谣言,更为我们大陆的中国人指明了中华民族的出路。

当然,不可否认,民主并非是完美的社会制度,台湾也一样存在着他的问题,但是,民主虽然不是最好最完美的社会制度,但却是最不坏的社会制度。关键在于,这世上本就没有完美的社会制度,又或者说就以我们现阶段的人类智力及经验而言,根本设计不出完美的社会制度,但,相比较中共的那套对人民群众的收割制度而言,台湾这套民主规则下人民所掌握的国主权力及所享有的国主利益至少在及格分数以上(台湾68分、美国70分),而在中共那套一党专制、毛习独裁的规则之下,我们中国人民连TM的人都算不上,只是它们那群领导干部的盛世之牛马,乱世之炮灰。

诸位,政治是现实的需切实可行,从现实层面来讲,不要一来就想什么完美座驾,我们最好先脚踏实地的登上台湾这辆民主的大巴,先让人民坐上民主的车,先用台湾的这套民主规则落实我们中国国主们最基本的身份、权力、利益及福祉,然后在实践的过程当中再依据大陆的现实情况,逐渐的学习民主,积累民主的经验,根据中国实际的社会问题去逐步的修改和完善。

而且,从中国的法统来看,中华民国的这套民主国家规则(台湾制度)才是我们中国合法的正统制度。各位国主,中国的法统其实一直在台湾,在中华民国,其1912年2月12日的清帝退位诏书当中已明确清帝退位让予大中华民国。

而中共政权的实质是什么?是一帮靠撒谎骗民、打家劫舍起家的赤匪黄俄,一帮在苏联的扶持、资助下祸乱中国的反革命、反中华、反文明的武装叛乱抢劫分子。

中共为什么一直对攻陷台湾深怀执念?它为什么一定要拿下台湾?因为中共的来路不正,因为它们害怕人民反应过来中华民国才是我们中国的正统!

大家翻开历史,共产党从来没有保护过中国,二战期间真正保住中国的是中华民国国军将士的一寸河山一寸血。当年的中共除了配合苏俄卖国、破坏、捣乱、割让土地之外,它们唯一做的就是清算、屠杀、关押当年国军的抗战英雄,及斗死、流放、劳教清末民国期间我国在科学、教育、文化、工业、商业、艺术等各方面各阶层涌现出来的民族精英,以及饿死了5000多万的中国农民。而现今,中共这帮土匪一直在做的也还是它们的老本行,以为人民服务为借口,以公有国有集体所有的名义抢劫全中国。

所以,各位国主醒醒,中华民国才是我们中国的正统,我们今天也理应当在中国实行中华民国的这套国家规则——台湾民主制度,而并非共匪或其它人士、团体、组织所制作的什么国家规则制度。

当然,非常高兴有很多反共的朋友集思广益提出了许多关于在中国应该实行什么样国家规则的设想和建议,比如:有的认为中国应该实行联邦制,有的认为应该各省独立,也有的认为某些省份应单独脱离中国独成一国等等。

但大家必须考虑的是,我们所提出的这些政治观点、意见和主张是否有群众基础?能否得到中国老百姓们的支持?像联邦制、各省独立、某省单独建国等这些,绝大多数的中国老百姓是无法接受的,而如果我们的政治主张得不到老百姓支持的话,那这反共就成了无源之水,我们又还如何能推翻中共?

且就认知层面分析,我们必须考虑在中共70多年的愚化教育下中国老百姓们的认知程度。如果我们现在提出一个什么全民立宪共和,或是来个联邦宪法的制定讨论,或构建个中国民主议会,老百姓们根本就参与不了。其实,不要说什么三权分立、代议制、统治权的公共化这些现代化政治概念,就连“公民”两字都还有一半的中国人不解其含义,更有一大半的中国人连国家和政府都分不清楚。而就在这种情境之下,其实很难向老百姓们解释清楚我们的政治目标,也很难让他们理解清楚我们所需要追寻的是什么样的社会?如此,我们要想将他们动员起来就更不可能了。

但只要我们将这些对中国老百姓来说抽象的国家规则、社会制度、政治概念具象为他们看得见摸得着的台湾,告诉他们我们应当学台湾,应当过台湾人一样美好的生活,那么,国内的老百姓们才能够理解我们说的具体是什么,也才能明白我们在追求并为之抗争的是什么。

且尽管中共尽力的筑防火墙封锁外网,管控国内互联网操纵舆论愚化人民思想意识,但还是有部分中国民众开始觉醒,他们开始逐渐认识到中国近代历史的真相,知道了推翻清朝结束中国两千年皇权专制并真正推行国之权在民的是中华民国,知道了中华民国国军将士才是抗日战争的中流砥柱。而当尤其再看到如今台湾完善的民生与医疗保障,看到台湾保有的传统文化比中国还中国,看到台湾的经济、股市、科技行业正在飞速的发展与增长,看到台湾的官员在老百姓面前卑躬屈膝的拉票,看到台湾的公务人员对老百姓极尽讨好的求好评,中国人民对孙中山先生的天下为公,对其三民主义,对蒋介石先生及国军将士的抗日功绩,和对中华民国及台湾的认同度都在前所未有的飙升!所以,我们只有主张在中国实行中华民国台湾地区的这套民主制度,才能够获得越来越多中国老百姓们的支持与认同。

况且,东德西德,朝鲜韩国,中共治下的我们与台湾的现实都摆在那里,但凡有脑子的中国人迟早都会看清楚。

然后,必须明确我们反共的目的到底是为了什么?是为了夺取中国的政权,然后替代中共成为新的特权阶级统治中国,控制人民,收割老百姓?又或是为了成为一省小国的统治者,以实现自己的人生理想,满足权力的欲望?还是说,我们反共的目的是为了秀学识,为了提出个与众不同标新立异的政治方案?

但如果,大家反共的目的是为了争取每一位中国人的国主权力及国主利益,建立一个国之权及国之利在于民的社会,为打破中国政治的私有化,实现中华民族政治上的公共化,那么,我们就得遵循民主,那关于中国应该实行联邦、各省独立、或某省单独建国等等就不应当只由少部分人来决定。

当然,大家可以提出任何的政治观点、意见及政治主张,但其能不能在中国实行只应当由13亿的中国人民通过全民公投说了算,因为这13亿中国人民才是真正的中国国主,只有他们才有权力来处分中国。

而且,也必须是依照《中华民国宪法》及《中华民国宪法增修条例》来进行表决,因为中华民国和其这套国家最高规则才是我们中国的正统。

更迫于实际的一点是:只有我们这些反共的个人、团体、组织都先放下异议重拾中华民国的这套国家规则,我们大家才能够团结起来,才能形成合力而不再是一盘散沙,这样,我们才能够有赢的希望。否则,我们有的要求搞联邦、有的要求各省独立、有的要求某省单独建国等等,都用不着中共动手,大家的力量就会在彼此相互间消耗、抵消,甚至是互为攻击、敌视,如此就算再过几代人我们还是成不了事,更推不翻了中共。

诸位,中共目前能在中国无法无天、为所欲为的一大原因是什么?中共的领导又没有什么神魔伟力?它们凭什么把我们十多亿的中国人按在地上摩擦、收割?

其答案就在先秦诸子的一句话里:“力不若牛,走不若马,而牛马为用,何也?”曰:“人能群,彼不能群也。”因为中共能群,是一个有8000万在编人员,有军队、有财政收入、有行政的严密政党组织,而我们这十多亿的中国人却不能群,却形不成自己的组织力量。

诸位,人类个体的力量是非常有限、脆弱和渺小的,单个的我们不要说战胜中共,我们这些一个、一个、一个的社会个体沙粒,在现实中就连和中共对抗的资格都没有,不要说中共碰下你就碎,就连县委书记打个喷嚏你我也挨不住。但只要我们将这一个一个个看似普通、平凡、弱小的个体集结起来,逐步尽可能多的把我们的人力、财力、物力整合到一处形成组织、团体、联盟,那我们就能够汇聚成为一股新的能与中共抗衡,并一定能战胜中共的政治洪流,因为中共只有8000万在编人员,而我们中国人民有十多亿。而这也正是中共禁止中国人民组党、结社的真正原因,因为这里面蕴藏着摧毁中共的力量。

到这里,要如何确权并拿回我们的国主权力及国主利益,及如何与中共对抗,并战胜中共的方法和路径都已经明摆着了。也就是说,要与中共对抗、并战胜中共说简单也简单,只要我们这些被中共做局欺骗、愚弄、控制、收割压榨的十多亿国人学会能群,大家能够醒来举起中国正统中华民国的这杆民主旗帜,然后以中国法统中华民国的最高国家规则《中华民国宪法》及其宪法性文件为共识团结起来,组织成反共的团体、联盟,并建立反共统一战线,只要我们这十多亿的中国国主们能团结到一起一致合力的对抗中共,那么,中共便会在瞬间融化。

但要说难,就难在我们这十多亿的中国人要怎样才能学会团结起来一致的对抗中共!

如果,我们这群十多亿被中共愚弄、收割的中国人连台湾已经走出来、摆好、放在面前可以让你照抄的制度,我们都学不会、抄不来。那么,就依我们这群人的这种智力和尿性,我们还真活该被中共统治,也活该被中共这样一代代的给控制、收割、压榨、迫害下去。

或许,这是一种自然选择,智力高的、有胆气的、能群的、会协作的淘汰或奴役那些智力低、懦弱、不能群、不会协作的。

那么,你是要选择被中共控制、收割利用完了淘汰,还是要选择学会以中华民国的这套国之权在于民的规则,以民主的方式来群,来相处,来协作,来团结一致的驱除中共,恢复中华!

诸位:中共必须死,因为中国必须生!

最后,诸位国主!我今天以中国国主之一的身份,向其余所有的中国国主们提出动议:建议所有的中国国主们一起联合起来团结一致的推翻中共,并以台湾民主制度重塑中国,以确认与保障我们13亿中国国主的国主权力及国主利益。

并为了推翻中共!为了我们13亿中国人民能够真正的成为中国之国家主人!为了我们中国人人如龙!天下大同!本人再附行动建议如下:

一、有请所有不甘沦为中共牛马、炮灰的国主们尽可能的一起努力,将“应当在中国实行中国正统——中华民国的台湾民主制度”塑造成中国共识;

二、有请所有反共的人士、团体、组织相互间尽可能的包容、互助、合作、支援,并争取早日达成反中共统一战线;

三、有请所有中国国主们能站出来的出人,有钱的出钱,有力的出力,一起构建反共的团体组织,并筹集反共资金,建立反共基金或金库支援反共,及尽可能的组建或动员解放军从党卫军回归国家军队,整合所有中国国主的力量一致推翻中共。

动议人:海外中国人权律师联盟成员 左智海

编辑:Geoffrey Jin 校对:冯仍 翻译:戈冰

Motion on the Sovereign’s Authority

Author: Zuo Zhihai

Abstract: This paper examines China’s current political and economic systems from a critical perspective, arguing that China has not achieved theoretical socialism but has instead formed a highly centralized governance model dominated by the Communist Party of China. The author argues that the distribution of national resources and wealth has long been influenced by power structures, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to enjoy equal rights and benefits. At the same time, the author questions official interpretations of collective interests, individual interests, and the concept of ownership, calling on the public to rethink issues such as rights, property, and political participation. The entire text takes a distinctively critical political stance, aiming to spark discussion on state governance and citizens’ rights.

To the People of China:

Hello, everyone!

We have been deceived by the Communist Party.

The People’s Republic of China today is not a socialist state, but a party-ruled autocracy under the Communist Party—much like the imperial autocracies that followed the Qin and Han dynasties. You and I are currently living under the one-party dictatorship of the CCP.

From 1949 to the present, the CCP has never implemented public ownership; rather, it has enforced “party ownership”—a system of ownership by the CCP’s top leadership. All of China’s natural resources, including land, as well as all mineral deposits, forests, rivers, oceans, and the skies, have been appropriated by the CCP under the guise of state or public ownership and made the property of the Party. These resources are controlled and enjoyed by the CCP’s top leadership and their families, while ordinary people like you and me possess nothing.

Nor has the CCP ever implemented distribution according to work in China; instead, distribution is based on one’s status and power within the Party, as well as the closeness of one’s connections to Party leaders. Those with higher status, greater power, and closer ties to leading officials enjoy more resources and social wealth, while those without power, connections, or status receive nothing or only a meager share.

Moreover, what the CCP promotes in China is not collectivism, but individualism—where “individuals” refer exclusively to the CCP’s top leadership and their families. This is because the CCP has never prioritized the interests of China, the nation, or the people; instead, it places the interests of its top leadership and their families above those of the state, the nation, and the people.

Ladies and gentlemen, every collective is composed of individuals. Since the interests of the collective are the sum of individual interests, any infringement upon the legitimate rights and interests of a single individual inevitably harms the collective’s interests. Therefore, any act that sacrifices or infringes upon the legitimate interests of an individual is, in essence, an infringement upon the collective’s interests.

So why does the CCP persist in advocating that we sacrifice our individual interests for the greater good? Because in the CCP’s “greater good,” there are only the interests of the CCP’s top leaders and their families—there is no room for you or me, nor for the interests of the nation, the nation, or the people. Therefore, they are willing to sacrifice you and me, and to plunder the interests of the nation, the nation, and the people, all to maintain their rule and private interests.

Under the CCP’s deliberate obfuscation and misdirection, most of us have failed to realize that the very concept of “private ownership” is problematic. In the current Chinese context, the character “private” carries a negative connotation. Consequently, when people read the term “private ownership,” they often mistakenly assume it implies a form of ownership that is disgraceful, unworthy of advocacy, or even immoral.

But as human beings, why should we not be allowed to own the land and property we have acquired through legitimate efforts, through our own diligence, wisdom, and hard work? Ladies and gentlemen, we have the right to own personal property, and it is precisely the emergence of modern private property that has truly made ordinary people human. For a person who has no right to own property—a person whose land and property can be seized at any time by the orders of an emperor or officials, or by a political party under the guise of state, public, or collective ownership—is not truly human, but merely a half-slave to the emperor, officials, or those leading cadres of the political party.

In fact, the essence of modern private property is to protect the lawful property of any individual—including ordinary citizens—from unlawful infringement. Its significance lies in the fact that when you are unwilling to sell, no one has the right to take your land and property by force—not the emperor, the king, the head of state, party leaders, village officials, or any other members of the public. This safeguards the property rights of ordinary people like you and me, ensuring that your land and property will not be forcibly seized, confiscated, demolished, or expropriated simply because of a decision made by an emperor, a king, the government, a political party, a leader, or any other member of the public!

Therefore, ordinary people have the right to own property, and personal property is sacred and inviolable. This is not a moral decline, selfishness, or backward regression. The right of ordinary people to own private property is a fundamental right of every human being; it represents the civilization of society and the progress of history.

So why does the CCP slander and smear modern private property? It is simply because modern private property is, by its very nature, the CCP’s natural enemy!

Think about it: if every citizen and every ordinary person in New China had the right to own land, property, and natural resources—and if the private property owned by the people were sacred and inviolable—how could the CCP possibly “collectivize” the property of the masses? How could they continue to plunder the nation’s resources and wealth under the guise of state, public, or collective ownership?

Ordinary people possessing personal property does not harm anyone’s legitimate rights and interests, nor does it pose any social harm. The only thing it harms is the self-interest of political parties like the CCP that seek to expropriate your property, because this would prevent them from seizing your property and the nation’s assets. Ordinary people possessing personal property is a completely legitimate act of self-interest that should naturally be protected by law and respected by society.

Moreover, I wonder if everyone has realized this: only slave owners forbid slaves from owning private property, and only slave owners and slaves fear other slaves possessing private property.

But more importantly: Leaders of the nation, please open your eyes. The CCP has always existed solely to exploit us; it has never served the people.

Take a good look: what has the CCP been doing since 1949?

The CCP has used its state power to turn the People’s Republic of China into a “people’s harvester,” and under this harvester, the vast majority of the Chinese people cannot help but be poor. This is because within its “New China harvesting system,” the diligence, talents, and efforts of the overwhelming majority of Chinese people are rendered ineffective by this social system. Therefore, no matter how hard you work or how talented you are, you cannot escape the CCP’s social system, which reaps, exploits, locks you in, and suppresses you.

Look: the CCP first deceived the people by using the guise of public ownership—state-owned, public, and collectively owned—to swindle away national resources that rightfully belong to you and steal public wealth that is yours by right. They have appropriated national resources and public wealth (including state fiscal revenue)—which should be used by and belong to the Chinese people—as private property of the CCP, reserving them exclusively for their own use, enjoyment, and privilege. The CCP has deprived the Chinese people of the right to use national resources and enjoy public wealth; it has even turned the national treasury into a tool for controlling and plundering the people. It has decreed that the people have no right to own land or other natural resources, devising every possible means to strip national resources and public wealth from the common people. It has turned the Chinese people into a true proletariat, leaving you and me with nothing, and depriving the Chinese people of the most basic national livelihood and social security that modern citizens should enjoy.

At the same time, the CCP uses monopolistic practices to strangle the resources essential to the Chinese people’s survival. It disguises party-controlled enterprises as state-owned enterprises, central enterprises, and collective enterprises, then seizes control over the Chinese people’s basic necessities of food, clothing, housing, and transportation. By targeting the very foundations of the Chinese people’s survival and reproduction, it has transformed New China’s land, housing, healthcare, education, elderly care, social security, markets, finance, water, electricity, gas, oil, mineral resources, telecommunications, transportation, tobacco, and other essentials of daily life—all into tools for exploiting the Chinese people. Under the guise of the state and the pretext of “serving the people,” they exploit and oppress the people.

As a result, the vast majority of our people have been perpetually controlled, exploited, and oppressed by the CCP within the People’s Republic of China it has created. We are forced to struggle endlessly amidst hardship, poverty, exhaustion, and cutthroat competition, bearing heavy burdens to sustain the comfortable, carefree lives of the CCP’s leading officials and their families. We have thus become state slaves produced by the CCP’s social system—its “New China Social System.”

As a result, the Chinese people today have become the hardest-working yet most hard-pressed people in the world. Consequently, we have even become a people defined by nothing but exams and endless work and labor, with almost no life to speak of—a people who toil until death.

Unfortunately, under the CCP’s brainwashing and propaganda, most Chinese people do not realize that the reason they live in poverty, toil endlessly, face hardship, and have no hope is because we are trapped in the systemic poverty and structural predicaments created by the CCP’s social system. That is why today we cannot afford to buy homes, get married, raise children, or support our elderly. Moreover, no matter how hard most of us study, work, or labor, we cannot change our fate or improve our lives.

What is even more outrageous is that the CCP holds the power of life and death over the Chinese people. It can easily mobilize the public security, procuratorate, and judicial systems to arrest, convict, sentence to death, make disappear, or commit to psychiatric hospitals any innocent person—or even turn them into human specimens, or traffic and harvest organs from living people. It can also use the public security, procuratorate, and judicial systems to legally plunder private assets, rob the people of their homes, land, and businesses, confiscate property legally purchased by ordinary citizens (such as electric scooters), and seize the goods that street vendors rely on to make a living (such as fruits, vegetables, and tricycles).

But, fellow masters of the nation, are we not the masters of China? It is crystal clear that China should belong solely to the Chinese people, not to a single party or a single family! So why have most of us Chinese people ended up living like this today? Why have we become little more than semi-slaves to the CCP?

Because we have been duped by the Communist Party.

Ladies and gentlemen, being the masters of the nation is not merely an empty slogan, nor is it a hollow title; it is a tangible status that comes with the power and benefits of being the nation’s masters. It is not simply because Mao Zedong stood atop Tiananmen Gate, waved his hand, shouted “Long live the people” a few times, and declared, “The Chinese people have now stood up,” that we became the masters of the nation. Nor does it mean that simply because the Communist Party calls us “the masters of the nation” or “the successors of socialism,” we actually are. We must genuinely possess the power of the masters of the Chinese nation and truly enjoy the benefits of the nation.

So, as the masters of the Chinese nation, what powers should we possess?

First, we have the power to decide who holds office and governs in China, and we have the power to remove these governments and officials from office.

In other words, who serves as our head of state, provincial governors, mayors, and heads of districts, counties, towns, and villages—or which party governs (such as the Communist Party or the Kuomintang)—must be decided by us, the masters of the nation, through voting. Furthermore, we, as the masters of the nation, have the power to remove them from office. Of course, as the masters of the nation, we also have the right to run for office ourselves.

It should not be the case, as it is now, where the Communist Party leadership simply designates someone as President, and that person becomes President; or where they appoint someone as a provincial governor, mayor, or district chief, and that person automatically becomes a provincial governor, mayor, or district chief.

As for Xi Jinping, has any of you ever voted for him to be President? From your local provincial governor down to the township chief, who among you has ever had the right to cast a vote? May I ask, aside from Jiang Wan’an, who else do you know among these mayors? Do you only recognize the Yangtze River Bridge in Nanjing?

Folks, the truth is we don’t even have the power to choose who becomes our county chief. With this, what the hell kind of “masters of the country” are we?

But what is the most terrifying thing right now?

Just as 95% of Chinese Communist Party officials in the People’s Republic of China today are corrupt, even though we know full well that they commit crimes every day—engaging in embezzlement, accepting bribes, and recklessly squandering public funds—what can we, the masters of this country, do about it? Only when we have the power to remove them from office and ensure that their criminal acts are punished by law will they respect the people and dare not fail to serve them.

And only when the people hold the ballot—when those so-called chairmen, governors, mayors, and county and township heads need your votes to get elected—will those officials dare not act high and mighty or wield their authority in your presence. They will instead scramble to curry your favor, rushing to roll out policies that benefit your livelihood and welfare in order to win the election.

Otherwise, power will only be accountable to its source. As long as these officials are appointed by Communist Party leaders, and their positions, status, power, and interests all stem from the promotion of Communist Party cadres, they will serve only the high-ranking Party officials who can appoint or remove them—and pay no heed to us common folk.

Second, the extent of the government’s power depends on the authority we grant it; without our authorization, the government possesses no power whatsoever.

The government is not the state, nor does it naturally represent the state; it is merely a public institution established to serve the people. In fact, this applies not only to the government but also to the head of state, the legislature, public security, the procuratorate, the courts, the military, and all other state institutions. Their powers, as well as their structure, establishment, election methods, and appointment and removal procedures, must all be authorized by us, the masters of the nation, through the Constitution. Without our authorization, their establishment is illegal. Even with our authorization, they may only act within the scope of authority we have granted. Once their actions exceed or violate the authority we have granted under the Constitution, this constitutes a violation of the Constitution, and we have the right to hold them accountable for their actions in accordance with the law. Furthermore, whenever we, the masters of the nation, so desire, we can remove these governments and any other state institutions at any time in accordance with the Constitution.

Only in this way are we truly the masters of these governments, state institutions, and public agencies, and only then will they dutifully serve us, the masters of the nation—rather than acting as the current Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government does. Not only do we lack the power to tell them how they should serve us, but they have turned the tables to forcibly brainwash, manipulate, and coerce us, compelling us to make sacrifices and contributions for the private interests of the CCP, its government leaders, and their families.

Why is this the case? Because today’s government of the People’s Republic of China is not the government of China, nor does it belong to the Chinese people. In essence, it is the CCP government—a body single-handedly manipulated, established, and organized by the Chinese Communist Party, which is subordinate only to the CCP. It serves as a tool for the Communist Party to maintain its rule over the Chinese people, and is used to control, plunder, and exploit China and its people.

What is even more despicable is that today’s CCP government flies the national flag every day, waving the banner of the state, and uses “national regulations” and “the greater national interest” to control, plunder, and exploit us, the people of this nation.

They draw a red line, and your house and land are demolished and handed over to them.

They issue a document, and your electric vehicle can be confiscated and sold to Africa.

They draw a circle, and a scenic area can be turned into a toll booth.

They issue an official notice, and national highways can once again charge tolls.

They enact a few policies, and all profitable, monopolistic, and highly lucrative industries—such as tobacco, telecommunications, oil, gas, and electricity—are restricted to them alone.

Second, the extent of the government’s power depends on the authority we grant it; without our authorization, the government has no power whatsoever.

The government is not the state, nor does it naturally represent the state; it is merely a public institution established to serve the people. In fact, it is not just the government; the powers of the head of state, the legislature, public security, the procuratorate, the courts, the military, and all other state institutions—as well as their structure, establishment, election methods, and appointment and removal procedures—must all be authorized by us, the masters of the nation, through the Constitution. Without our authorization, their establishment is illegal. Even with our authorization, they may only act within the scope of authority we have granted. Once their actions exceed or violate the authority we have granted under the Constitution, this constitutes a violation of the Constitution, and we have the right to hold them accountable for their actions in accordance with the law. Furthermore, whenever we, the masters of the nation, so desire, we can remove these governments and any other state institutions at any time in accordance with the Constitution.

Only in this way are we truly the masters of these governments, state institutions, and public agencies, and only then will they dutifully serve us, the masters of the nation—rather than acting as the current Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government does. Not only do we lack the power to tell them how they should serve us, but they have turned the tables to forcibly brainwash, manipulate, and coerce us, compelling us to make sacrifices and contributions for the private interests of the CCP, its government leaders, and their families.

Why is this the case? Because today’s government of the People’s Republic of China is not the government of China, nor does it belong to the Chinese people. In essence, it is the CCP government—a body single-handedly manipulated, established, and organized by the Chinese Communist Party, which is subordinate only to the CCP. It serves as a tool for the Communist Party to maintain its rule over the Chinese people, and is used to control, plunder, and exploit China and its people.

What is even more despicable is that today’s CCP government flies the national flag every day, waving the banner of the state, and uses “national regulations” and “the greater national interest” to control, plunder, and exploit us, the people of this nation.

They draw a red line, and your house and land are demolished and handed over to them.

They issue a document, and your electric vehicle can be confiscated and sold to Africa.

They draw a circle, and a scenic area can be turned into a toll booth.

They issue an official document, and national highways can once again charge tolls.

They enact a few policies, and all profitable, monopolistic, and highly lucrative industries—tobacco, telecommunications, oil, gas, electricity, and so on—are restricted to them alone.

They pass a law, and they can extract over 20 trillion yuan in taxes and fees from the common people every year.

Because they say: All of the above is strictly in accordance with national regulations.

But, ladies and gentlemen, the government is not the nation, nor the master of the nation; the people are the nation. We, the Chinese people, are the true masters of China. Without the explicit authorization of the people, without the consent of us, the masters of the nation, the Chinese Communist Party government has no authority whatsoever to represent or dispose of the nation.

So what is the CCP government actually doing right now? They are essentially engaging in the same schemes as Cao Cao, using the name of the nation to command us Chinese people! Without the authorization or consent of us, the masters of the nation, they have arbitrarily established political systems, economic policies, and methods of resource and wealth distribution that benefit their own enjoyment and maintenance of privileges. Furthermore, they have consistently used the name of the nation to regulate, exploit, and oppress us, the masters of the nation, while plundering our country’s resources and wealth.

Third, as the masters of the nation, it is solely up to us to decide how much in taxes and fees we pay each year, and it is solely up to us to determine how these funds are spent.

National finance refers to the collection, expenditure, and management of a nation’s wealth. In modern states, the primary source of revenue is taxation. In modern society, national finance constitutes public finance because ownership and control of these funds are firmly held by the people—the true masters of the nation—rather than by any government or political party. Furthermore, the use of these funds must serve the purpose of the “public good”; any use of national finances for non-public purposes is illegal.

Moreover, and most importantly, how are taxes collected in these modern nations? How much is collected? How are they stored and managed? Where are they spent? Ultimately, these matters are decided collectively by the citizens.

This is because modern nations establish a Legislative Yuan (or parliament) in accordance with the Constitution, composed of representatives elected by the citizens. Regarding how taxes are collected, how much is collected, how they are stored and managed, and where they are spent—all of these matters can only be prescribed by law. The enactment of these tax-related laws must be subject to a vote by the representatives in the legislature; a tax law can only be passed with the consent of a majority of representatives, otherwise it will not be approved. Similarly, the operating expenses for the government, police, public prosecutor’s office, courts, and military, as well as the salaries of public officials and other public expenditures and budgets, must all be approved by the legislature; otherwise, they will not be approved. Without the consent of the Legislative Yuan, these administrative agencies, judicial departments, and the military would not receive a single penny for their operational expenses or the salaries of their public officials.

Every eligible citizen has the right to run for a seat in the Legislative Yuan, and representatives can only be elected by the people. Only those who truly reflect the will of the citizens, are capable of fulfilling the mandate entrusted to them, and are favored by the people can be elected. If you feel that the representative you elected is unsuitable—that you made a mistake, were misled, or that the representative has changed their stance, become arrogant after being elected, has ulterior motives, fails to genuinely reflect public opinion, or lacks the competence to fulfill their duties—you can choose not to vote for them next time and instead select someone you believe can truly represent your views. If you feel that none of the candidates in this election are suitable—that none can truly represent you or are all lacking in competence—then you can also step forward and run for office yourself to exercise your civic rights.

Under this system of popular representation, citizens can control the national budget, revenue, and expenditures through the Legislative Yuan. Furthermore, all fiscal budgets, revenue, and expenditures are audited by institutions specified in the Constitution. If the auditing bodies discover issues with the national budget, revenue, or management, they must immediately report the problems to the Legislative Yuan and make them public to the entire society. Simultaneously, judicial authorities—including the police, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the courts—will intervene to investigate. If any illegal or criminal activities are uncovered, criminal proceedings will be initiated immediately, and any misappropriated public assets will be recovered.

Furthermore, all national fiscal budgets, revenues, expenditures, and management must be made public to the entire society. The media, journalists, lawyers, independent organizations, and individual citizens have the right at any time to inquire about, oversee, and inspect the national fiscal budget, revenues, expenditures, and management in order to fulfill their civic duties and ensure that public funds are used exclusively for “public” projects and affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent public officials from engaging in corruption, accepting bribes, or abusing public power to embezzle state assets, modern societies have established a system for the public disclosure of public officials’ assets. From the head of state down to village chiefs, including elected representatives, members of the judicial and law enforcement branches, and military officers, anyone holding public office must disclose to all citizens all family assets, as well as the earned income, investment returns, business transactions, gifts and compensation, debts, real estate, and other assets of themselves, their spouses, and their children, and must regularly update these disclosures to the public. This effectively prevents public officials from abusing the power entrusted to them by the people to channel state resources and public assets into their own families through covert or illegal means, and it also effectively prevents public officials from using their power for personal gain, embezzlement, and bribery.

Now look at the so-called “New China” of the Chinese Communist Party: it has no system for public disclosure of public officials’ assets. Why is that?

Because if the CCP were to establish a system for disclosing public officials’ assets, it would undermine the very foundation of the CCP’s rule. At that point, we—the true masters of the nation—would immediately realize: over the past four decades of reform and opening-up, into whose pockets have China’s state assets and social wealth actually flowed? Then, the majority of the nation’s masters would suddenly come to their senses and instantly see through the true nature of the CCP and its “New China.”

Where do you think the majority of the resources and wealth generated by the reform and opening-up of the “New China” have flowed?

The answer is not to private companies like Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu, nor to entrepreneurs; nor has it flowed to scientists, intellectual elites, executives, white-collar workers, teachers, athletes, or artists; and certainly not to workers, farmers, drivers, delivery riders, self-employed individuals, or small vendors—the broadest masses of the people—but rather to the leaders of the Party and the state, to the so-called “red families,” to high-ranking officials at the ministerial, provincial, and departmental levels, to leaders of state-owned enterprises, and to the leadership teams of various cities and counties, as well as to the family members, relatives, mistresses, and frontmen of these leaders at all levels.

Why is this the case?

Because, despite being a so-called New China—a nation that claims to uphold socialist public ownership—its national finances are privately owned. Yes, you heard that right. Even in the capitalist societies that the Communist Party denounces, national finances are public and belong to the public treasury. Yet in socialist New China, the national finances are privately owned—they are the private finances exclusively belonging to the top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. And this is precisely the real reason why you and I are poor.

Why do I say this?

Because the budgeting, revenue and expenditure, management, and use of New China’s state finances are not in the hands of the broad masses of the people, but in the hands of the CCP—a private party.

This is because the consequence of the fiscal operations of the People’s Republic of China is that national resources, public wealth, and the hard-earned money of private enterprises are all plundered as much as possible and funneled into the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party’s leading officials, core members, and their families.

Do you, the rulers of this nation, know where the biggest and most critical problem lies with the tax and confiscation revenues of the CCP’s New China?

The problem lies in the fact that in a modern nation, government tax revenue can only be used for public affairs—specifically to improve people’s livelihoods and fund public services such as healthcare, education, elderly care, childcare, unemployment insurance, social welfare, science and technology, and national defense. Furthermore, how these tax dollars are spent and where they are allocated can only be decided by citizens and their elected representatives through voting, and citizens have the right to oversee the use of funds for these public projects.

However, in New China, once the CCP has raked in over 20 trillion yuan in taxes and fees each year, it has nothing to do with you and me, the masters of this nation. The CCP and its government can use these funds however they please, and leading officials can waste them however they like.

This is because the government of New China and the National People’s Congress—the body responsible for approving and executing the national budget—are effectively run by the CCP itself. The so-called “people’s representatives” are appointed by the CCP, not elected by the masses or the general public. Consequently, these representatives do not represent the people; they represent only the CCP leaders who provide them with benefits and positions. They are accountable only to the source of their power and serve the CCP—a private party—rather than the people. Consequently, the common people have no right to vote on New China’s fiscal expenditures, much less to participate in the distribution of funds or their allocation. Senior CCP leaders can arbitrarily approve and execute the national budget—which is why it is said that China’s fiscal revenue belongs to the CCP and is the private property of its leadership.

The so-called slogan “Taken from the people, used for the people” is nothing more than empty rhetoric to the CCP. They merely cobble together a list of projects and, with a straight face, present a pile of spreadsheets pretending that these tax revenues and confiscated funds have been allocated to education, science and technology, social security and employment, public health, energy conservation and environmental protection, urban and rural community development, agriculture, forestry, and water resources, as well as transportation—and with that, they consider themselves to have given us, the masters of the nation, an accounting.

As for whether the common people believe it or not, they simply do not care. This is because the common people have no power or means to oversee or scrutinize where these tax revenues and confiscated funds are actually being spent. After all, all administrative, legislative, and judicial bodies in New China are run by the CCP itself; even the military serves as the CCP’s own personal guard. If you dare to question or investigate, your ultimate fate will be either detention by the public security, procuratorial, or judicial authorities, or being labeled mentally ill.

Therefore, the money and wealth extorted from the people, the common folk, and the nation will be easily and swiftly diverted by the CCP through various methods and means to pay salaries, benefits, and bonuses to leading officials and their 80 million comrades, to build luxurious government buildings, to host state and provincial banquets, to train the female attendants at the Great Hall of the People and the black-clad umbrella-bearers at Tiananmen Square, to fund public-money feasting and drinking,

Another example: as of May 1, 2026, the threshold for convicting officials and public servants of all ranks within the Chinese Communist Party of the crime of “unaccounted-for substantial assets” has been raised from 300,000 to 3 million RMB. Yet during this period, farmers’ pensions have increased by only 20 yuan. Although many masters of the nation are deeply dissatisfied with this, what can we—having lost our national sovereignty—possibly do about it?

Furthermore, as the masters of China, what national benefits and social security should we be entitled to?

1. We are entitled to a 1/1300th share of ownership and dividends in all of China’s state-owned resources and state-owned enterprises;

2. We have the right to own personal assets, including land, and our personal property is sacred and inviolable;

3. We have the right to freely choose our occupation, to enjoy fair and appropriate working conditions, and to be protected against unemployment;

4. We have the right to receive fair and appropriate compensation for our work, sufficient to ensure the conditions necessary for a dignified life for ourselves and our families (our wages must be able to cover a family’s basic needs for food, clothing, housing, transportation, as well as childcare, medical care, education, and retirement);

5. We have the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limits on working hours and the right to regular paid leave (e.g., an eight-hour workday and no fewer than 15 days of paid annual leave);

VI. When we lose our ability to earn a living due to unemployment, illness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other circumstances beyond our control, we have the right to a standard of living provided by the state that is necessary to maintain the health and well-being of ourselves and our families, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services;

7. When we are kidnapped and extorted by terrorists overseas—even to the point of having our kidneys cut out—the Chinese government has the obligation to rescue and protect us;

8. When our overseas Chinese compatriots face ethnic cleansing, the Chinese government has the obligation to deploy troops to protect them;

9. No foreigner shall receive supernational treatment in China (e.g., those foreign male students accompanied by female Chinese students);

10. And so on and so forth…

Fellow sovereigns of the nation, have you ever truly enjoyed the powers and benefits listed above—those that rightfully belong to the masters of the nation? If you lack even these most basic sovereign powers and benefits that one should possess as a master of the nation, on what grounds do you presume to consider yourselves the masters of China?

Moreover, there are many, many more powers and benefits that the masters of the nation should enjoy. Due to space constraints, I cannot list them all here, but in the end, it all boils down to one question: Who really calls the shots in China? Or rather, who should set the rules for China?

Is it Xi Jinping?

Is it the Communist Party?

Is it those leading officials?

Or should it be up to us, the people? Should it be up to us, the Chinese people, to set China’s rules?

In fact, “only when the power to formulate China’s ‘Supreme National Rules’ is firmly held in the hands of the people, and only when China’s rules are set by the people, can we, the Chinese people, truly become the masters of our nation.”

And this is precisely why, for over two thousand years from the Qin and Han dynasties to the present, the lives of ordinary Chinese people have been as worthless as grass. It is also why, throughout China’s history, whenever the empire prospered, the common people suffered, and whenever the empire fell, the common people suffered. It is why every dynasty in our history has seen no shortage of great famines and instances of cannibalism. And it is the fundamental reason why, regardless of the dynasty or era, it has always been the common people who have been poor, cheated, deceived, and made to suffer.

This is because, from the Qin and Han dynasties to the present day, the power to establish China’s “supreme national laws” has never been in the hands of the people. China’s laws have never been determined by the common people, but rather by emperors, dictators, Chinese Communist Party leaders, and authoritarian political parties—private individuals and factions who alone have the final say over everything in China.

Before February 12, 1912, China’s emperors, claiming to speak for Heaven and holding supreme authority, held the power of life and death over the people. Whatever the emperor decreed became the “Supreme Rule of the State”—the law that the common people were required to revere, bow to, and obey. The imperial court and the nobles, generals, and ministers were merely tools for upholding imperial power, while our nation and its people were nothing more than the emperor’s private property.

After October 1, 1949, the Chinese Communist Party, under the pretext of “people’s democratic dictatorship,” “serving the people,” and “always representing the interests of the broadest masses of the people,” swindled away all of China’s state authority—including the power to draft the constitution, administrative power, legislative power, judicial power, and military power. From then on, whatever they declared to be law became law; whatever they deemed legitimate became legitimate; whatever they deemed illegal became illegal. They manipulated all laws and regulations—including China’s Constitution—as well as the nation’s rules and its people, treating them as mere playthings. Moreover, they have transformed the Chinese people’s government, legislative bodies, public security, procuratorial, and judicial organs, as well as the military—all of these public service institutions—into tools of their private party. From that point on, our nation, its power, and its state organs were no longer in the hands of the people, but in the hands of this private party, the CCP, and became tools for them to control and exploit our people. For this reason, we, the Chinese people, have fallen from being the rightful masters of our nation to becoming the state slaves of the CCP’s “New China.” As a result, all 1.3 billion of us today are subjected to the CCP’s deception, regulation, manipulation, exploitation, plundering, and oppression from birth to death—and we are powerless to refuse or resist.

So now, I wonder: do you intend to continue, just as our ancestors have for over two thousand years, to be regulated generation after generation by these emperors, traitors to the nation, dictators, CCP leaders, and authoritarian parties? To continue being the ingredients on their dining tables and menus? To continue being toyed with, exploited, plundered, and trampled upon by them? Or will you bravely fight for the power that belongs to us as the masters of our nation? Let us bravely take our seats at the table, become the true masters of our nation, and participate in shaping the nation’s rules—rules that ensure we hold the power of national sovereignty, guarantee our access to national resources, public wealth, and other national benefits. No longer will we live as we do now, where all the prosperity and strength of New China belong solely to leading officials and their families, leaving you and me excluded.

By 2025, China’s birth rate will be a mere 7.92 million—far lower even than the 13.91 million recorded in 1949 during the war. Coupled with the inexplicable disappearance and decline of China’s population in recent years, this confirms that we, the Chinese people, can no longer survive and reproduce normally under the CCP’s system of social exploitation. My fellow citizens, an ever-increasing number of us will be stripped of our rights to survival and reproduction by the CCP’s social system. What awaits us in the future is nothing but a slow extinction, death, and disappearance.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Chinese Communist Party must fall so that the Chinese people may live. If we are to survive today, to live happily, to become the true masters of our nation, and to escape our current poverty and hardships, we have no choice but to wrest our country from the CCP’s grasp, reclaim our rights as the nation’s masters, smash the CCP’s system of rules designed to exploit us, and establish a new “Supreme Rule of the State” that truly empowers every Chinese citizen to be the master of their own destiny—a rule that genuinely affirms and safeguards the sovereign rights and interests of every Chinese person. Only then, in accordance with this “Supreme National Rule,” we must reorganize a public government, a national legislative body, a regular police force, a regular procuratorate, regular courts, and a regular national military—all of which are truly subordinate to the Chinese people and exist solely to serve, safeguard, and uphold the sovereign rights and interests of the Chinese people. We must ensure that our national resources and public wealth (including national fiscal revenue) are genuinely used for the public good and the welfare of the people, to safeguard the living conditions of every citizen, to ensure the health and safety of every citizen, and to promote the development of both the nation and its individual citizens. Furthermore, all state organs, all public and social institutions, departments, organizations, groups, and legal entities—indeed, every individual—must be subject to the constraints of this “Supreme Rule of the State.” We must transform the distribution system of the New China from one based on power, blood ties, and connections to one based on labor, creativity, and contribution. We must ensure that hard work leads to prosperity, that every citizen’s talents and gifts find a place to be utilized, and that those who make sacrifices and contributions to the nation and the people receive generous rewards. Only in this way can we Chinese people truly become the masters of our nation, free ourselves from the control and exploitation of the Chinese Communist Party or other authoritarian parties, establish a fair and healthy social system and distribution model, and lead lives of abundance, leisure, health, and dignity.

In a modern society, a nation’s “supreme rule” or highest law is typically referred to as the “Constitution,” and citizens—those with the right to participate in national governance—are called citizens (the essence of a citizen is that they are the masters of the nation). This model of governance, in which the Constitution—agreed upon by all the masters of the nation—serves as the supreme rule and fundamental law for governing the country, is called “constitutionalism.” The process by which all the masters of the nation participate in drafting the Constitution and establish it as the supreme rule and fundamental law of the state is referred to as “constitutional drafting and establishment.”

In other words, for the Chinese people to become true masters of the nation today, we must resolve two issues: 1) how to overthrow the Communist Party’s dictatorship and autocracy in China; and 2) how to establish a set of supreme national rules (i.e., a Constitution) that ensures the Chinese people enjoy the powers and benefits of being the nation’s masters.

But just how difficult is it to overthrow the Communist Party’s rule in China today? The challenge is no less daunting than humanity’s first moon landing. If you don’t believe it, just ask any Chinese person or foreigner and tell them we can overthrow the CCP’s rule in China; their reaction will likely be the same as if you had told people 100 years ago that humans could travel to the moon in a rocket.

So how difficult would it be today for the vast majority of Chinese people to participate in drafting and enacting a constitution, then deliberate and vote to create a set of rules—or a supreme national code—that truly safeguards the sovereignty and interests of the Chinese people? It would be as difficult as reaching the heavens in ancient times.

Why? Because under the CCP’s education aimed at dumbing down and enslaving the people—through brainwashing, indoctrination, information blockades, propaganda, and control—at least 70% of Chinese people today do not know what the Constitution is. They are even less aware of how to design a set of national rules that can affirm and safeguard their sovereign rights and interests. Many of them do not even realize that they have long been controlled and exploited by the CCP, mistakenly believing that the reason Chinese people today have enough to eat is because the CCP has graciously sustained them, and that without the CCP’s protection, China would have long been annihilated by those so-called imperialist nations.

Moreover, even among the 30% of Chinese who are politically aware, a lack of democratic practice and experience with political movements means they have not yet learned—or do not yet know—how to unite to formulate, negotiate, and vote on a set of national rules. This is precisely one of the major reasons why today’s anti-communist democrats are not adept at organizing, cannot unite, and are unable to form a collective force.

Indeed, the reason so many anti-communist individuals, groups, and organizations today are so disorganized is the lack of consensus. Because we cannot reach a unified political consensus, we do not know what kind of nation we should build, nor can we find a set of national rules that the majority of Chinese people would accept.

Although we all know we should oppose communism, understand democratic constitutionalism, recognize the construction of a modern nation, and share the universal consensus on the separation of powers, civil rights, and human rights—and know that we should unite— Yet we either hold our own distinct political views, opinions, and positions; or we are unsure what constitutes the correct political views, opinions, and positions; or we cannot tolerate the political views, opinions, and positions of others; or we simply believe that only we are correct. Some anti-communists even believe that only they are noble and pure, while other anti-communists whose actions or views differ from their own are deemed despicable or even motivated by ulterior motives.

This is why so many anti-communist individuals, groups, and organizations today remain unable to form a united front against the CCP.

Consequently, the vast majority of Chinese people today find it difficult to unite and establish a set of national rules that would ensure the Chinese people enjoy their sovereign power and interests.

Consequently, although many of us wish to resist the CCP, we do not know how to do so. We do not know how to organize ourselves to build the strength needed to overthrow the CCP and transform China. We do not know which organization to join, where to begin, or how to apply our efforts.

Thus, we Chinese people today lack direction and cannot find our way forward.

But I want to tell you all: Heaven bless China! Yes, because Heaven has always left a path for the Chinese nation. The way forward for us mainland Chinese has actually always been right there—as long as you can see through the CCP’s deceptions and lies, you will see it: Taiwan.

Yes, we don’t need to start from scratch, racking our brains to design a perfect set of national rules. Nor do we need to attempt the nearly impossible task of mobilizing over a billion people, only to engage in endless, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and costly debates, negotiations, meetings, and votes. Folks, why should we feel our way across the river? We can simply walk across the bridge—we just need to adopt Taiwan’s democratic system as is.

Your Excellencies, may Heaven bless China!

The democratic revolution that ushered in China’s political modernization—which began with the abdication of the Qing emperor on February 12, 1912—has not ended, nor has it failed. The Republic of China has always existed, and it has already blossomed into a democracy in Taiwan. Today, the people of Taiwan in the Taiwan region of the Republic of China have truly become the masters of Taiwan. They have realized a democratic republic governed by the people and for the people. They have become a living example of the Chinese nation’s transition toward political modernization, civilization, and democratization. They have dispelled the myth that the Chinese nation is unsuited for democracy, and they have charted a path forward for the Chinese people on the mainland.

Of course, it cannot be denied that democracy is not a perfect social system, and Taiwan also has its own problems. However, while democracy may not be the best or most perfect social system, it is the least bad one. The key point is that there is no such thing as a perfect social system in this world—or, to put it another way, given the current stage of human intelligence and experience, we simply cannot design a perfect social system. Yet, compared to the CCP’s system of exploiting the masses, under Taiwan’s democratic system, the people’s control over state power and the benefits they enjoy score at least a passing grade (Taiwan: 68 points, U.S.: 70 points). In contrast, under the CCP’s one-party dictatorship and the Mao-Xi autocracy, we, the Chinese people, aren’t even considered human beings—we are merely the oxen and horses of their ruling elite in times of prosperity, and the cannon fodder in times of turmoil.

Ladies and gentlemen, politics is about reality and must be practical. From a realistic perspective, let’s not start off dreaming of some perfect vehicle. We’d be better off first boarding the democratic bus that is Taiwan with both feet firmly on the ground. Let the people take their seats on the bus of democracy first. Let’s use Taiwan’s democratic system to secure the most basic identities, powers, interests, and well-being of us, the sovereigns of China. Then, in the course of practice, we can gradually learn democracy and accumulate democratic experience based on the realities of the mainland, and step by step modify and refine it according to China’s actual social problems.

Moreover, from the perspective of China’s legal lineage, the democratic rules of the Republic of China (the Taiwanese system) are the legitimate and orthodox system of China. Fellow leaders, China’s legal lineage has in fact always resided in Taiwan, in the Republic of China. The Qing Emperor’s abdication edict of February 12, 1912, explicitly stated that the Qing Emperor abdicated in favor of the Republic of China.

What is the true nature of the Chinese Communist regime? It is a gang of Red bandits and Yellow Russians who rose to power by lying to and deceiving the people, and by plundering and pillaging; a gang of armed rebels and looters who, with the support and funding of the Soviet Union, have wreaked havoc on China—a group that is counter-revolutionary, anti-Chinese, and anti-civilization.

Why has the CCP always been so obsessed with conquering Taiwan? Why must it take Taiwan at all costs? Because the CCP’s origins are illegitimate, and because they fear the people will realize that the Republic of China is the true legitimate government of China!

If you look back at history, the Communist Party has never protected China. During World War II, it was the soldiers of the Republic of China’s National Army who truly defended China, shedding blood for every inch of land. Back then, aside from collaborating with Soviet Russia to betray the nation, sabotage, create chaos, and cede territory, the only thing the CCP did was to purge, massacre, and imprison the Nationalist Army heroes of the War of Resistance, as well as persecute to death, exile, and subject to re-education through labor the national elites who had emerged from all walks of life during the late Qing and Republican eras in fields such as science, education, culture, industry, commerce, and the arts—not to mention starving to death over 50 million Chinese farmers. And today, this band of CCP bandits continues to engage in their old ways, using “serving the people” as a pretext to plunder all of China under the guise of public, state, and collective ownership.

Therefore, fellow compatriots, wake up: the Republic of China is the true legitimate government of China. Today, we should rightfully implement the Republic of China’s system of governance—Taiwan’s democratic system—in China, rather than any system devised by the Communist bandits or other individuals, groups, or organizations.

Of course, I am very pleased that many anti-communist friends have pooled their wisdom to propose numerous ideas and suggestions regarding what kind of national system should be implemented in China. For example: some believe China should adopt a federal system; others believe each province should become independent; and still others believe certain provinces should secede from China to form their own independent nations, and so on.

However, what everyone must consider is whether the political views, opinions, and proposals we put forward have a mass base of support. Can they gain the support of the Chinese people? Proposals such as a federal system, provincial independence, or a specific province establishing its own nation are unacceptable to the vast majority of the Chinese people. If our political proposals do not receive the support of the people, then our anti-communist movement becomes a stream without a source—how can we possibly overthrow the CCP?

Furthermore, from a cognitive perspective, we must consider the level of understanding among the Chinese people after more than 70 years of indoctrination by the CCP. If we were to propose a “constitutional republic for all,” or initiate discussions on drafting a federal constitution, or establish a democratic parliament in China, the people would simply be unable to participate. In fact, let alone modern political concepts like the separation of powers, representative government, or the public ownership of governing authority—half of the Chinese population does not even understand the meaning of the word “citizen,” and the vast majority cannot distinguish between the state and the government. Under these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to clearly explain our political goals to the people, or to help them understand what kind of society we are striving to build. Consequently, mobilizing them becomes virtually impossible.

But as long as we concretize these abstract national rules, social systems, and political concepts for the Chinese people into a Taiwan that they can see and touch, and tell them that we should learn from Taiwan and live a beautiful life like the Taiwanese people, then the people at home will be able to understand what we are talking about and what we are pursuing and fighting for.

Despite the CCP’s efforts to build a firewall to block the external network and control the domestic internet to manipulate public opinion and fool people’s minds, some Chinese people began to awaken and began to gradually realize the truth of China’s modern history. They learned that it was the Republic of China that overthrew the Qing Dynasty, ended China’s 2,000-year imperial autocracy, and truly implemented the right of the country to the people I learned that the soldiers of the Republic of China Army were the backbone of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. And especially when we see that Taiwan now has complete people’s livelihood and medical insurance, that Taiwan’s traditional culture is more Chinese than China’s, that Taiwan’s economy, stock market, and technology industries are developing and growing rapidly, that Taiwan’s officials are kowtowing in front of the people, that Taiwan’s civil servants are extremely flattering and seeking praise from the people, and that the Chinese people serve Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s country, His recognition of his Three Principles of the People, his anti-Japanese achievements against Chiang Kai-shek and the soldiers of the National Army, and his recognition of the Republic of China and Taiwan have all soared like never before! Therefore, only by advocating the implementation of this democratic system in the Taiwan region of the Republic of China in China can we gain the support and recognition of more and more Chinese people.

Moreover, the realities of East Germany, West Germany, North Korea, South Korea, us under the Chinese Communist Party and Taiwan are all there, but any Chinese with brains will see clearly sooner or later.

Then, it must be made clear what exactly is our anti-communist purpose? Is it to seize power in China and then replace the CCP as the new privileged class to rule China, control the people, and harvest the people? Or is it to become the ruler of a small provincial country in order to realize one’s own life ideals and satisfy the desire for power? Or is our anti-communism intended to show off our knowledge and propose a unique and unconventional political plan?

But if the purpose of everyone’s anti-communism is to strive for the power and interests of every Chinese as the ruler of the country, to build a society where the power and benefits of the country lie with the people, to break the privatization of Chinese politics and achieve the publicization of Chinese national politics, then we must follow democracy, and then China should implement federal and provincial independence, Or a province should be established as a separate country, etc., and it should not be decided by only a small number of people.

Of course, everyone can put forward any political views, opinions and political propositions, but whether it can be implemented in China should only be decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese people through a referendum, because these 1.3 billion Chinese people are the true masters of China, and only they have the power to punish China.

Moreover, the vote must also be held in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Regulations for the Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of China, because the Republic of China and its set of supreme national rules are the orthodoxy of our China.

What is even more pressing is the practical point: only if we, the anti-communist individuals, groups, and organizations, first put aside our objections and restore the national rules of the Republic of China, can we all unite and form a joint force instead of a scattered sand, and then we can have hope of winning. Otherwise, some of our demands for a federation, some for the independence of provinces, and some for a province to establish its own state, etc., will not require the CCP to take action. Everyone’s strength will be consumed and offset by each other, or even attacked and hostile to each other. In this way, even after a few generations, we will still not be able to achieve anything, and we will not be able to overthrow the CCP.

Everyone, what is the main reason why the CCP is currently able to act lawlessly and do whatever it wants in China? The leadership of the CCP does not have any great power? Why do they press more than a billion of our Chinese people to the ground to rub and harvest?

The answer lies in a quote from the pre-Qin philosophers: “If you are not as strong as an ox, you cannot walk like a horse, but if you use an ox or a horse, what is it?” He said: “People can be in groups, but they cannot be in groups.” Because the Communist Party of China is a strict party organization with 80 million members, a military, fiscal revenue, and administration, but we, the more than one billion Chinese, cannot form a group, but cannot form our own organizational force.

You all, the power of individual human beings is very limited, fragile and small. Let us not say that we alone can defeat the CCP. We, individual social individuals, have no right to even fight against the CCP in reality. Let us not say that the CCP will shatter you if it touches you. Even if the county party secretary sneezes, I can’t stand it. But as long as we gather these seemingly ordinary, ordinary, and weak individuals one by one, and gradually integrate our human, financial, and material resources into one place as much as possible to form organizations, groups, and alliances, we will be able to converge into a new force that can compete with the Communist Party of China and will definitely defeat the political torrent of the Communist Party of China, because the Communist Party of China only has 80 million employees, while we Chinese people have more than one billion. And this is the real reason why the CCP prohibits the Chinese people from forming parties and forming associations, because this contains the power to destroy the CCP.

By this point, the methods and paths for confirming power and regaining the power and interests of our national masters, as well as how to confront and defeat the Chinese Communist Party, have been clearly laid out. In other words, it is simple to confront and defeat the CCP. As long as we, the more than one billion Chinese people who have been deceived, fooled, controlled, exploited, and exploited by the CCP, learn to gather together, everyone can wake up and raise the democratic flag of the orthodox Republic of China, and then unite with the Constitution of the Republic of China and its constitutional documents, the highest national rule of the Chinese legal system Organize into anti-communist groups and alliances, and establish an anti-communist united front. As long as we, the more than one billion Chinese masters, can unite together and work together to fight against the CCP, then the CCP will melt in an instant.

But if we talk about the difficulty, it is how we, the more than one billion Chinese, can learn to unite and fight against the CCP!

If we, the more than one billion Chinese who have been fooled and harvested by the Chinese Communist Party, even Taiwan has come out, put it in front of us, and can copy the system, we will not be able to learn or copy it. Then, based on the intelligence and urine nature of our group of people, we really deserve to be ruled by the CCP, and we also deserve to be controlled, harvested, squeezed and persecuted by the CCP from generation to generation.

Perhaps it is a natural selection, the elimination or enslavement of those who are intellectually high, courageous, social, and collaborative, or those who are intellectually low, cowardly, unsocial, and non-collaborative.

So, do you choose to be controlled by the CCP, harvested, exploited and eliminated, or do you choose to learn to follow the rules of the Republic of China that state power lies with the people, and work together in a democratic way, get along, cooperate, and unite to expel the CCP and restore China!

Everyone: The CCP must die because China must live!

Finally, the Lords of the Nation! Today, as one of the Chinese masters, I propose a motion to all other Chinese masters: I suggest that all Chinese masters unite and unite to overthrow the Communist Party of China and reshape China with Taiwan’s democratic system to confirm and protect the power and interests of our 1.3 billion Chinese masters.

And to overthrow the CCP! For our 1.3 billion Chinese people to truly become the masters of China’s country! For us Chinese are like dragons! Great Harmony in the World! I would like to attach the following action suggestions:

1. I invite all Chinese leaders who are unwilling to be reduced to the ashes of the Chinese Communist Party to work together as much as possible to shape “Chinese orthodoxy ——the Republic of China’s Taiwanese democratic system” in China into a Chinese consensus;

2. All anti-communist persons, groups, and organizations are requested to be as tolerant, mutual assistance, cooperation, and support as possible among themselves, and to strive to reach an anti-communist united front as soon as possible;

3. All Chinese rulers are requested to come forward, contribute money if they have money, and contribute forcefully to jointly build anti-communist groups and organizations, raise anti-communist funds, establish anti-communist funds or coffers to support anti-communism, and as much as possible, form or mobilize the People’s Liberation Army to return from the SS to the national army, and integrate the forces of all Chinese rulers to unanimously overthrow the Communist Party of China.

Motivator: Zuo Zhihai, member of the Overseas Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Alliance

Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Feng Reng Translation: Ge Bing

68岁的老人用生命丈量自由

0
68岁的老人用生命丈量自由

作者:罗翔

首先感谢盛雪大姐为董广平所做的一切,并声援董广平先生!

2026年,一则消息再次刺痛无数人的心。

第十三届奥斯卡自由人权奖获得者、68岁的董广平,乘坐一艘简陋的橡皮艇,在茫茫大海中漂泊三十多个小时,横渡三百多公里,最终抵达韩国泰安海岸。

当同龄人在公园里遛弯、含饴弄孙、享受天伦之乐时,这位古稀老人却把自己的生命押在了惊涛骇浪之上,只为换取两个字——自由。

这不是冒险,更不是“偷渡发财”。这是一场被专制逼到绝境的悲壮逃亡。

董广平不是普通人。他曾因坚持追求自由与人权,长期遭受中共当局的残酷打压:被关押、被监控、被反复传唤,正常生活被彻底剥夺。即便如此,当局仍不肯放过他。一个敢于说真话的人,在极权眼中就是必须被消灭的威胁。

他活在漫长的恐惧中:电话被监听,朋友突然失踪,深夜随时可能响起敲门声,不知道哪一天就会再次被投入监狱。这种恐惧,日复一日、年复一年,像无形的枷锁勒紧喉咙。

他终于明白:没有自由的土地,再繁华,也只是更大的牢笼;没有尊严的人生,再“稳定”,也只是慢性处决。

于是,68岁的他做出了决定——逃离。

他清楚地知道:橡皮艇在大海面前脆弱如一片落叶;黑夜里的巨浪随时可能将他吞没;三十多个小时的漂泊,他的体力随时可能崩溃;死亡的概率极高。

但他依然义无反顾地出发了。

因为对他而言,继续留在那片土地上,比死亡更可怕。

真正震撼世人的,不只是这场逃亡本身,而是一个年近古稀的老人,仍然对自由保持着近乎偏执的渴望。这说明什么?

自由是人的天性。

无论极权如何洗脑,如何封锁信息,如何制造恐怖,都无法彻底扑灭人类灵魂深处对自由的向往。一个68岁的老人尚且愿意用生命去赌,那些年轻人,又怎会真正甘心被永远关在笼子里?

董广平的橡皮艇很小,却装着一个中国人最后的尊严。它不是一次普通的漂流,而是一个老人用毕生力气划向光明的绝地反击。它撕裂了黑夜,向全世界发出呐喊:

今天的中国,依然有人宁死不屈;依然有人把自由看得比生命更重;依然有人在用行动控诉那个制度——

真正让人绝望的,从来不是贫穷,而是没有自由;真正让人拼死逃离的,从来不是国土,而是压迫。

当一位68岁的老人,在冰冷刺骨的大海上漂流三十多个小时,只为逃离独裁时,这本身就是对那个政权最沉重、最无情的控诉。

董广平成功了。他用行动告诉我们:再黑暗的夜,也挡不住一颗向往黎明的心。

那么,当一位68岁的老人都不惜用生命换取自由时,我们这些还能发声、还能行动的人,又该如何面对自己内心的怯懦?

68岁的老人用生命丈量自由

编辑:张宇 校对:熊辩 翻译:戈冰

A 68-Year-Old Man Measures Freedom with His Life

By :Luo Xiang

First, I would like to thank Sister Sheng Xue for everything she has done for Dong Guangping, and I stand in solidarity with Mr. Dong Guangping!

In 2026, a piece of news once again pierced the hearts of countless people.

Dong Guangping, a 68-year-old recipient of the 13th Oscar Freedom and Human Rights Award, boarded a makeshift rubber dinghy and drifted for more than 30 hours across the vast ocean, traversing over 300 kilometers before finally reaching the coast of Taean, South Korea.

While people his age were strolling in parks, doting on their grandchildren, and enjoying the joys of family life, this septuagenarian staked his life against the raging waves, all for the sake of two words: freedom.

This was not an adventure, nor was it an attempt to “smuggle across the border for profit.” It was a tragic escape driven to the brink by an authoritarian regime.

Dong Guangping is no ordinary man. For his steadfast pursuit of freedom and human rights, he has long suffered brutal repression at the hands of the Chinese Communist authorities: he has been detained, placed under surveillance, and repeatedly summoned for questioning, his normal life completely stripped away. Even so, the authorities refuse to leave him alone. In the eyes of a totalitarian regime, anyone who dares to speak the truth is a threat that must be eliminated.

He lived in constant fear: his phone was tapped, friends vanished without a trace, the door could be knocked on at any moment in the dead of night, and he never knew when he might be thrown back into prison. Day after day, year after year, this fear tightened around his throat like invisible shackles.

He finally realized: a land without freedom, no matter how prosperous, is merely a larger cage; a life without dignity, no matter how “stable,” is nothing but a slow execution.

And so, at the age of 68, he made a decision—to flee.

He knew full well: a rubber dinghy is as fragile as a falling leaf in the face of the ocean; giant waves in the dark of night could swallow him at any moment; after more than thirty hours adrift, his strength could give out at any moment; the odds of death were extremely high.

Yet he set out without hesitation.

For him, remaining on that land was more terrifying than death itself.

What truly shook the world was not merely the escape itself, but the fact that a man nearing seventy still harbored an almost obsessive longing for freedom. What does this tell us?

Freedom is human nature.

No matter how much totalitarianism brainwashes people, blocks information, or instills terror, it cannot completely extinguish the deep-seated yearning for freedom in the human soul. If a 68-year-old man is willing to risk his life, how could young people truly accept being locked in a cage forever?

Dong Guangping’s rubber dinghy was small, yet it carried the last shred of dignity for a Chinese man. It was not an ordinary voyage, but a desperate, last-ditch struggle by an elderly man, rowing toward the light with all his remaining strength. It tore through the darkness, sending a cry to the world:

In today’s China, there are still those who would rather die than yield; there are still those who value freedom more than life itself; there are still those who are denouncing that system through their actions—

What truly drives people to despair is never poverty, but the lack of freedom; what truly compels people to flee at the risk of their lives is never their homeland, but oppression.

When a 68-year-old man drifts for more than thirty hours on the bone-chilling open sea, solely to escape dictatorship, this in itself is the heaviest, most ruthless indictment of that regime.

Dong Guangping succeeded. Through his actions, he tells us: no matter how dark the night, it cannot stop a heart yearning for dawn.

So, when a 68-year-old man is willing to risk his life for freedom, how should we—who still have a voice and the ability to act—confront the cowardice within our own hearts?

68岁的老人用生命丈量自由

Editor: Zhang Yu Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing

中国人民还是中共的奴隶吗?

0

——写在“六·四”三十七周年前夜

作者:中国民主党美南党部副主席 陆乾坤

这些年在海外生活,经常有人会问我一句话:“中国老百姓是不是中国共产党的奴隶?”每次听到这句话,我心里都很难受。因为仔细想想,这句话虽然刺耳,却并不是毫无根据。很多时候,中国人民确实像被一个庞大而冷酷的政治机器长期控制着,活得没有尊严、没有安全感,也没有真正意义上的自由。

中国人是世界上最勤劳、最能吃苦的民族之一。无数中国人从早到晚拼命工作,一辈子省吃俭用,只想给家人一个稳定生活。可为什么直到今天,很多中国人依然活得如此沉重、如此压抑?为什么一个普通中国人,即使努力奋斗几十年,依然不敢说真话,不敢公开表达思想,不敢真正拥有独立人格?

原因其实并不复杂。因为中国人民从来不是这个国家真正的主人。真正控制这个国家的,是中国共产党。而中共从来就不是一个正常意义上的现代政党,它更像一个依靠暴力、谎言和恐惧建立起来的极权利益集团。

很多人直到今天,依然没有真正看清中共的本性。它从诞生开始,就带着浓厚的流氓政治色彩。它靠枪杆子夺权,靠阶级斗争制造仇恨,再靠不断制造恐惧来维持统治。它最擅长的一件事,就是绑架整个国家,然后再告诉人民:“没有共产党,中国就会天下大乱。”

这种逻辑,本质上和绑匪没有区别。绑匪拿枪指着人质的头,说“没有我保护你,你会死”;而中共则长期用“稳定压倒一切”的名义,把十四亿中国人困在一个巨大的政治牢笼里。

几十年来,中国人民其实一直活在这种被控制、被管理、被收割的状态中。共产党控制土地、媒体、教育、司法、互联网和金融体系,甚至试图控制人的思想。从小学开始,中国孩子就被灌输所谓“爱党教育”。共产党刻意把“国家”“民族”“人民”和“党”混为一谈,仿佛反对共产党,就是反对中国。

可问题是,共产党什么时候真正代表过中国人民?

中国人民有权自由选举政府吗?有权公开批评政府吗?有权决定国家未来方向吗?答案其实所有人都知道。

普通中国人,只能在这个体制下小心翼翼地活着。小时候拼命读书,长大后拼命工作,再背上几十年的房贷。很多年轻人表面上生活在高楼林立的大城市里,实际上却像被困在巨大机器中的螺丝钉,永远不敢停下来。一旦失业、生病或者发生经济危机,一个普通家庭多年的积累就可能瞬间崩塌。

更可悲的是,很多中国人甚至已经习惯了这种状态。很多父母从小教育孩子的第一句话,不是“做一个有尊严的人”,而是“千万不要惹政府”。这背后反映的,其实是整个社会长期被高压统治后的恐惧心理。

而中共最恶毒的地方,还在于它一边压迫人民,一边不断用“民族复兴”“国家强大”来麻痹人民。它天天高喊“人民至上”,可真正享受特权的,永远是那批所谓的“赵家人”。

普通老百姓拼命工作,一个月赚几千块钱,为房贷、学费和医疗费焦头烂额;而那些掌握权力的红色权贵阶层,却早已经把家属、资产和财富转移到了欧美国家。他们一边高喊“爱国”,一边让自己的孩子拿外国护照、住豪宅、上世界最好的学校。

真正留在中国承受高房价、高失业率和高压统治的,永远是普通中国人。

更加荒唐的是,中国人民辛辛苦苦创造的财富,并没有真正用在中国人民自己身上。这些年,中共最喜欢做的一件事,就是拿着中国老百姓的钱,到世界各地“大撒币”。它向外国政府提供巨额援助,援建外国基础设施,给外国留学生超国民待遇,动不动就是几十亿、上百亿美元。

可与此同时,中国国内却有无数人在生存线上挣扎。

很多农村老人,一个月养老金只有一两百块钱;很多普通家庭,因为一场大病瞬间倾家荡产;大量年轻人毕业即失业;还有无数普通人辛苦一辈子买下的房子,最后变成了烂尾楼。

中国人民明明生活在所谓“世界第二大经济体”里,却依然活得没有基本安全感。

一个真正伟大的国家,不是高楼有多高,也不是高铁有多快,更不是军舰有多少。真正伟大的国家,应该是人民能够有尊严地活着,能够自由表达思想,能够不再恐惧权力。

可今天的中国,越来越像一个被严密监控的巨大空间。从地铁摄像头到手机实名制,从网络审查到人脸识别,整个社会正在被技术和权力层层包裹。很多中国人被迫活成两个人:一个是真实的自己,一个是“允许存在”的自己。

“六·四”,就是这个体制最血腥的证明。

1989年,成千上万的学生和北京市民走上街头,他们反腐败、要自由、要民主,希望中国能够变得更好。他们不是暴徒,他们只是希望,中国不应该永远被一群红色权贵统治。

可最后,中共用坦克和机枪回答了他们。

三十七年过去了,中共直到今天,依然不敢公开谈论“六·四”。因为“六·四”是这个政权永远无法洗掉的血债。它证明了一件事:共产党最害怕的,从来不是外国敌人,而是中国人民自己。

今天,越来越多中国人已经开始意识到,问题根本不是某一个贪官,也不是某一个领导人,而是整个制度本身出了问题。因为这个制度从建立的第一天开始,就不是为了让人民自由,而是为了让共产党永远统治。

在这个体制里,人民很多时候只是被动员、被管理和被使用的对象。经济发展需要你时,你是“人民”;维稳需要你沉默时,你又随时可能变成“境外势力”。

所以,中国真正的问题,从来不是什么改革不改革的问题,而是这个建立在暴力、谎言和控制之上的体制,本身就已经走到了历史尽头。

写下这些文字的时候,又一个“六·四”周年即将到来。三十七年过去了,那些当年倒在天安门广场上的年轻人,如果活到今天,也已经白发苍苍。

但中共最害怕的一件事,始终没有改变。

那就是:中国人民有一天不再恐惧。

因为当人民不再恐惧的时候,一个真正属于人民、而不是属于权力集团的中国才有可能真正出现。

编辑:黄吉洲 校对:熊辩 翻译:戈冰

Are the Chinese People Still Slaves to the Chinese Communist Party?

—Written on the Eve of the 37th Anniversary of “June 4th”

Author: Lu Qiankun, Vice Chairman of the Southern U.S. Branch of the China Democratic Party

Living overseas these past years, people often ask me, “Are the Chinese people slaves to the Chinese Communist Party?” Every time I hear this question, it pains me deeply. Because when I think about it carefully, although the statement is harsh, it is not entirely without basis. In many ways, the Chinese people do indeed seem to be under the long-term control of a massive and ruthless political machine, living without dignity, without a sense of security, and without true freedom.

The Chinese are among the hardest-working and most resilient people in the world. Countless Chinese work tirelessly from dawn to dusk, scrimping and saving their entire lives, all to provide their families with a stable life. Yet why, even today, do so many Chinese still live with such a heavy burden and such deep oppression? Why is it that an ordinary Chinese person, even after decades of hard work, still dares not speak the truth, dares not openly express their thoughts, and dares not truly possess an independent personality?

The reason is actually not complicated. It is because the Chinese people have never been the true masters of this country. The entity that truly controls this country is the Chinese Communist Party. And the CCP has never been a modern political party in the conventional sense; it is more like a totalitarian interest group built on violence, lies, and fear.

To this day, many people still fail to truly see the true nature of the CCP. From its very inception, it has been steeped in the characteristics of thuggish politics. It seized power through the barrel of a gun, fomented hatred through class struggle, and maintains its rule by constantly instilling fear. One thing it excels at is holding the entire nation hostage, only to then tell the people: “Without the Communist Party, China would descend into chaos.”

This logic is, in essence, no different from that of a kidnapper. A kidnapper points a gun at a hostage’s head and says, “Without my protection, you will die”; the CCP, meanwhile, has long used the slogan “stability trumps all” to trap 1.4 billion Chinese people in a massive political cage.

For decades, the Chinese people have in fact lived in a state of being controlled, managed, and exploited. The Communist Party controls land, the media, education, the judiciary, the internet, and the financial system—and even attempts to control people’s minds. Starting in elementary school, Chinese children are indoctrinated with so-called “love-the-Party education.” The Party deliberately conflates “the nation,” “the people,” and “the Party,” as if opposing the Communist Party were tantamount to opposing China itself.

But the question is: When has the Communist Party ever truly represented the Chinese people?

Do the Chinese people have the right to freely elect their government? Do they have the right to openly criticize the government? Do they have the right to determine the future direction of the nation? Everyone knows the answer.

Ordinary Chinese people can only live cautiously within this system. They study desperately as children, work tirelessly as adults, and then shoulder decades of mortgage debt. Many young people appear to live in big cities filled with skyscrapers, but in reality, they are like screws trapped in a massive machine, never daring to stop. A single instance of unemployment, illness, or an economic crisis can cause an ordinary family’s years of savings to collapse in an instant.

What is even more tragic is that many Chinese people have grown accustomed to this state of affairs. The first thing many parents teach their children from a young age is not “be a person of dignity,” but “never cross the government.” What this reflects, in reality, is the deep-seated fear instilled in an entire society by decades of oppressive rule.

The most insidious aspect of the Chinese Communist Party lies in the fact that while it oppresses the people, it constantly lulls them into complacency with slogans like “national rejuvenation” and “national strength.” It shouts “the people come first” day in and day out, yet those who truly enjoy privileges are always the so-called “Zhao family.”

Ordinary people work themselves to the bone, earning a few thousand yuan a month, while struggling with mortgage payments, tuition fees, and medical bills; while the red elite who hold power have long since transferred their families, assets, and wealth to Western countries. They shout “patriotism” on one hand, while on the other, they ensure their children hold foreign passports, live in mansions, and attend the world’s best schools.

It is always the ordinary Chinese people who remain in China, bearing the brunt of sky-high housing prices, high unemployment rates, and oppressive rule.

What is even more outrageous is that the wealth painstakingly created by the Chinese people has not truly been used for the benefit of the Chinese people themselves. In recent years, one of the CCP’s favorite pastimes has been to take the Chinese people’s money and “splash it around” all over the world. It provides massive aid to foreign governments, helps build infrastructure in other countries, and grants foreign students preferential treatment—often spending tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars at a time.

Yet at the same time, countless people within China are struggling to survive.

Many elderly people in rural areas receive only 100 to 200 yuan a month in pension; many ordinary families are instantly reduced to poverty by a single serious illness; a large number of young people face unemployment immediately after graduation; and countless ordinary people who worked their entire lives to buy a home end up with a construction project that never gets completed.

The Chinese people clearly live in what is called the “world’s second-largest economy,” yet they still lack a basic sense of security.

A truly great nation is not defined by the height of its skyscrapers, the speed of its high-speed trains, or the number of its warships. A truly great nation is one where people can live with dignity, freely express their thoughts, and no longer live in fear of authority.

Yet today’s China increasingly resembles a vast, tightly monitored space. From subway surveillance cameras to real-name registration for mobile phones, from internet censorship to facial recognition, society as a whole is being enveloped layer by layer by technology and power. Many Chinese people are forced to live as two separate personas: their true selves, and the version of themselves that is “permitted to exist.”

“June 4th” stands as the bloodiest testament to this system.

In 1989, tens of thousands of students and Beijing residents took to the streets. They protested corruption, demanded freedom and democracy, and hoped for a better China. They were not rioters; they simply hoped that China would not be ruled forever by a clique of red oligarchs.

But in the end, the Chinese Communist Party answered them with tanks and machine guns.

Thirty-seven years have passed, yet to this day, the CCP still dares not speak openly about “June 4th.” Because “June 4th” is a blood debt this regime can never wash away. It proves one thing: what the Communist Party fears most has never been foreign enemies, but the Chinese people themselves.

Today, more and more Chinese people are beginning to realize that the problem is not a single corrupt official or a single leader, but the system itself. From the very first day of its establishment, this system was not designed to grant freedom to the people, but to ensure the Communist Party’s eternal rule.

Within this system, the people are often merely objects to be mobilized, managed, and exploited. When economic development needs you, you are “the people”; when social stability demands your silence, you can instantly become a “foreign force.”

Therefore, China’s real problem has never been about reform or the lack thereof, but rather that this system—built upon violence, lies, and control—has already reached the end of its historical journey.

As I write these words, another anniversary of “June 4th” is approaching. Thirty-seven years have passed; if those young people who fell on Tiananmen Square back then were still alive today, they would be gray-haired.

But the one thing the Chinese Communist Party fears most has never changed.

That is: the day when the Chinese people no longer live in fear.

Because only when the people are no longer afraid will a China that truly belongs to the people—rather than to the ruling elite—ever have a chance to emerge.

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing

对结构性纠错能力的再一次碰撞

0
对结构性纠错能力的再一次碰撞

作者:陈树庆

中国自古就有“知耻近乎勇”的知错、认错、改错评价,“周虽旧邦其命维新”说的也是去弊图存的变革道理。但实际上很多推动社会文明进步的事情之所以“知易行难”,往往是因为遇到了难以触动的“结构性”问题,直白一点说,就是关乎既得利益格局的“体制性”问题。兴利除弊,在成熟健全的民主法治社会,于大局基本稳定中动态实现;中国古代遇上明君贤臣,也可以上下一心通过“变法”、“维新”来艰难完成;但碰到了权力傲慢、贪得无厌、社会信用崩塌的末世,代价巨大的“革命”或者说“改朝换代”就成了别无选择。人无远虑必有近忧,所以说,不怕社会不够完美,不怕人、或组织、或机构会有错误,纠错能力的建立与维护,成了社会治理能力最重要标志之一。

记得我在办理自己退休资格与核定养老金计费年限时,曾经跟拱墅区人社局负责社保的工作人员多次提及具有法律效力的国家已批准国际公约,但得到的是毫不在意、轻飘飘的一句回应“你扯远了!”。此事对我触动很大,我想,阻碍法律有效实施、妨碍建设法治政府最危险的不是执法者不懂法律,而是他们把一套环境里习惯了的、不会自我纠错、毋庸置疑的权力傲慢地当成了永恒不变的铁律。发生在我陈树庆身上的孤立行政事件,可以看出不同位价的法律法规规章政策及其实施的脱节与不连贯,这不仅是一种结构性问题,还牵涉到所有权力机关工作人员的认知惯性。可见其难度之大,要改变这种局面,仅仅通过一两个案件的碰撞,不可能有根本的改观,但唯有通过不断地碰撞、才有改变的希望。因为行政失信让我不幸一再成为弊政的受害者,同时也让我有幸成为挑战弊政“顽石”的鸡蛋,不妨让“鸡蛋碰石头”,再去碰它一次:

《请求浙江省司法厅指导清理浙人社函[2010]358号文件函》

浙江省司法厅:

请求人陈树庆,男,浙江省杭州市人,现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室,身份证号330106196509260073,联系电话15958160478。

请求事项:

请求浙江省司法厅指导清理制作日期是二〇一〇年九月三十日的《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函(此件依申请公开)》(以下简称《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》)。

请求理由:

一、请求事项属于浙江省司法厅职责范围。

根据浙江省司法厅网站(https://sft.zj.gov.cn/首页>  组织架构>职能简介)所公开的政府信息显示,浙江省司法厅的机构职能共有(十六)项。除了“(一)承担全面依法治省重大问题的政策研究,协调有关方面提出全面依法治省中长期规划建议,负责有关重大决策部署督察工作。”外,其中第(四)项还规定“指导行政规范性文件清理工作”。

二、本请求事项与请求人有切身利害关系。

如果说请求人陈树庆是本请求事项的利害关系人,更确切地说陈树庆是《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的受害人,具体情况介绍如下:

请求人陈树庆于2025年12月25日已满60周岁3个月,实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月,超过了15年的最低缴费年限。在2025年12月办理退休手续时,杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局办事人员以陈树庆于2007年因煽动颠覆国家政权罪被判刑4年和2016年因颠覆国家政权罪被判刑10年6个月为由,将社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加年限剩余缴费仅9年多,已不足最低缴费年限,拒不办理原告的退休手续。

再三交涉中,陈树庆不满拱墅区人社局工作人员停留在口头上含糊其辞的“根据相关政策”,提出政府信息公开申请,2025年12月25日该局工作人员陈祖朋在其办公室向原告出具《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》(以下简称《告知单》)、《告知书》及《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》,书面正式确认拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的决定。

其中《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第一条规定:根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》等法律法规规定,被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员(以下简称“服刑在教人员”),其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间(以下简称“服刑在教期间”),不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。

拱墅区人社局以上述《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的规定,作为支持其拒不办理陈树庆退休手续《告知单》、《告知书》的重要依据之一。

陈树庆认为前述文件所依据的法律适用不当、政策效力不足,于2026年1月27日就此事申请行政复议。2月5日陈树庆对《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》申请范性文件的附带审查,3月9日浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅作出《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于反馈浙人社函[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见的函》(以下简称《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》),认定“浙人社函[2010]358号文件是对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定,并未突破或者违反上位法,内容合法有效”

拱墅区人民政府于2026年4月30日作出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号维持被申请人即拱墅区人社局拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的前述《告知单》。同时附寄了《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》。陈树庆不服,现就此案已向杭州市拱墅区人民法院提起行政诉讼。

三、《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号附带审查处理意见》避重就轻、没有针对性地回答与解决陈树庆在行政复议中申请规范性文件附带审查中提出《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的不合法问题。具体包括:

(一)根据中华人民共和国政府1997年10月27日签署、全国人民代表大会常务委员会2001年2月28日批准的已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条:本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障,包括社会保险”的规定。 申请人陈树庆认为,“服刑在教人员”并不因为服刑或劳教而变得不是“人”,从而丧失了“本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障,包括社会保险”的基本人权。因此《浙人社函[2010]358号》因为与已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》相抵触,《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号附带审查处理意见》所总结的“综上,浙人社函[2010]358号文件是对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定,并未突破或者违反上位法,内容合法有效”也显然无视《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条:本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障,包括社会保险”的规定,应该审定为违法而无效,故建议有权处理机关对此类在新的时代已经明显过时且违法的“行政规范性文件”及时清理与废除。

(二)请求人认真查阅《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》,上述两项法律及一项地方性法规,里面并没有任何条文里有《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》所言的“被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员(以下简称‘服刑在教人员’),其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间(以下简称‘服刑在教期间’)不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。”之规定。申请人陈树庆认为,政府机关无论是抽象行政行为还是具体行政行为,对法律的理解或解释,如果可以超越法律白纸黑字的明确内涵而无中生有出任何内容并声称该内容是根据《某某》、《某某》等法律的规定,本身就是一种严重的违法行为。如果可以这样,法律作为其中一项最重要的手段,要将政府权力关进笼子就会形同虚设;而政府机关利用自己摆脱了法律文字的限制而不着边际的理解或诠释包括政策,反倒可以随时随刻去捆绑人民的权利和自由,不仅从根本上掏空与损害了法律的规则确定性,也显然与与法治社会的初衷包括立法“制约权力,保障权利”的初衷背道而驰。

本请求人陈树庆认为,若有确实需要也合情合理的行政管理措施,现行法律没有明确规定的或者规定得不够完善的,除非紧急情况(如战争、灾害等)确保正当动机的不得已处置行为,在其他任何情形都切莫以所谓“政策”的形式擅自超越并滥用法律,而是应该通过合法程序启动相关立法提案或修改法律的建议,同时继续严格遵守“法无授权不可为”的法治底线。

(三)2013年12月28日,全国人民代表大会常务委员会通过了关于废止有关劳动教养法律规定的决定,这意味着1957年8月1全国人大常务委员会批准公布《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》在实施50多年后被依法废止。劳动教养都已经废除十几年了,但包含劳动教养内容的《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》还不合时宜地被政府机关及其工作人员援引及适用,显然根据现行有效法律的要求,《浙人社函[2010]358号》也是必须与时俱进尽快予以清理、废除的。

(四)20多年来,陈树庆、其家属、其工作或社保挂靠的单位替陈树庆缴纳社会保险,从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知,甚至2025年3月10日原最后一次刑满释放后,到拱墅区人社局设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心几次补缴中间断交的最近几年(包括部分刑期内的期间)社保费用也都顺利完成。政府社保管理机构收取保险缴费的时候堂而皇之,现在要社会保险机构履行保险责任的时候,突然变卦,以这种“依申请公开”《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》来为政府的社保机构失信撒赖做依据,让缴费人本案原告陈树庆单方面承担所谓“违规”的不利后果,使得人民群众对政府行为信赖利益的保护原则荡然无存。

早在两千多年前,先贤孔子《论语·尧曰》就写道:“不教而诛谓之虐。” 现代文明社会基于“法无德不立”的精神,只要是对于公民的权利和自由依法要加以限制或惩罚性制裁的内容,无论是具体条款还是整部法律,都遵循了“不溯既往”、“法未公布不生效”的基本原则。《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》标注为(此件依申请公开),当然,依申请公开不等于公布。《浙人社函[2010]358号》虽无《中华人民共和国立法法》规定的法律地位及效力,但也涉及广泛人员权利义务,这种“依申请公开”的规定,在未被申请公开前让利害相关人茫然无知,本案申请人也是在近几个月办理退休手续时多次交涉索取无果的情况下向拱墅区人社局提出《政府信息公开申请》后才得到的。

这种若隐若现的“依申请公开”政策形式,就为胥吏弄权甚至寻租提供了手段与机会,而胥吏弄权尾大不掉,恰恰又是我国历史数千年以来善政难以落实或不能持久、而弊政却积重难返、各朝代走向衰败灭亡的重要原因之一。申请人认为,政务活动中的“依申请公开”只能限于具体行政行为中涉及商业秘密或个人隐私的信息,限于向有利害关系也依法符合申请资格的人员依申请公开。至于抽象行政行为,希望各级国家机关在今后制定规范性文件时,除了涉及国家秘密内部执行不公开也不得对抗不知情的外部相对人,其它所有的规范性文件都应该向立法学习而公开发布。所以申请人不仅请求在本案清理与废除这个“依申请公开”的《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》,还恳请彻底杜绝“依申请公开”形式的任何规范性文件再次出现。

(五)《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第二条第二款规定:“服刑在教期间仍以城镇个体劳动者身份参保的,要及时清理。其服刑在教期间已经缴纳的养老保险费,可以暂时保留在社保经办机构,用以冲抵以后参保年度应缴纳或延缴的费用,也可一次性退还本人。”该条款在《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第一条的基础之上,因其内容与“政府权力法无授权不可为,民众权利法无禁止即自由”的法治原理背道而驰,实践中并没有制止社保经办机构一如既往地收取参保人员服刑在教期间缴纳养老保险费,但在参保人员正式办理或享受按照实际缴费年限核定退休金时,为社保经办机构简单粗暴的“言而无信、约而不守”预备了背书,本案陈树庆就是这种行政失信行为的典型受害者之一。

综上,《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》明确违反了全国人民代表大会常务委员会早在2001年2月28日已经批准的具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条:本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障,包括社会保险”的规定;以“对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定”的形式擅自添加了“法无明确禁止”的禁止内容;已经明确地不再适应2013年12月28日全国人民代表大会常务委员会通过了《关于废止有关劳动教养法律规定的决定》后的现行法律环境;以“依申请公开的”的形式破坏了现代法治社会对于规则公开透明的基本要求;其具体内容在操作效果上替社保经办机构的行政失信预备了背书,严重损害了民众对于法律、对于政府行为的信赖利益保护原则。有如此之多明显弊端的内部政策,如果任其继续存在并有效,且政策制定机关缺乏自我纠错的能力,不仅有碍于建设法治政府、法治社会,在持续失信中势必会导致政治信用的过度透支,社会信用结构持续腐蚀,最终一步一步走向不可逆转的衰败。

因为本请求人陈树庆相信浙江省司法厅领导及其工作人员的责任感(职责担当,绝不畏难躺平)与履职能力,故向贵厅递交此《请求浙江省司法厅指导清理浙人社函[2010]358号文件函》。

此致

敬礼!

请求人:陈树庆

2026年5月29日

附:

一、请求人陈树庆身份证复印件(含正反两面)1份;

二、《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》复印件1份;

三、《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》1份。

对结构性纠错能力的再一次碰撞

编辑:黄吉洲 校对:程筱筱 翻译:戈冰

Another Test of the Ability to Correct Structural Issues

By Chen Shuqing

Since ancient times, China has held the view that “to know shame is nearly the same as courage”—an evaluation of acknowledging, admitting, and correcting mistakes. The saying “Though Zhou is an ancient state, its destiny lies in renewal” also speaks to the principle of reform: eliminating evils to ensure survival. In reality, however, the reason why many endeavors to advance social civilization are “easier said than done” often lies in encountering intractable “structural” issues—or, to put it bluntly, “systemic” problems tied to entrenched vested interests. In a mature and well-functioning democratic society governed by the rule of law, the promotion of benefits and the elimination of evils are achieved dynamically within a framework of overall stability. In ancient China, when wise rulers and virtuous ministers emerged, the people could unite to painstakingly accomplish this through “legal reforms” and “modernization.” but in an era of power arrogance, insatiable greed, and the collapse of social trust—a time of societal decline—a “revolution” or “regime change” with immense costs becomes the only option. Those who fail to plan ahead will face immediate troubles; therefore, we need not fear that society is imperfect, nor that individuals, organizations, or institutions might make mistakes. The establishment and maintenance of the capacity to correct errors have become one of the most important markers of social governance capability.

I recall that when I was processing my retirement eligibility and having my pensionable service years verified, I repeatedly mentioned to the social security staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau the legally binding international conventions ratified by the state. Yet, all I received was a dismissive, flippant response: “You’re getting off track!” This incident had a profound impact on me. I realized that the greatest danger to the effective implementation of the law and the construction of a government governed by the rule of law is not that law enforcement officials lack legal knowledge, but rather that they arrogantly treat the unquestionable, self-perpetuating power they have grown accustomed to in their environment as an immutable ironclad rule. The isolated administrative incident that befell me, Chen Shuqing, reveals the disconnect and inconsistency between laws, regulations, rules, and policies of varying hierarchical weight and their implementation. This is not merely a structural problem; it also involves the cognitive inertia of all staff members in government agencies. The difficulty of the task is evident: to change this situation, a fundamental improvement cannot be achieved through the clash of just one or two cases. Yet, only through continuous confrontation can there be hope for change. Because administrative bad faith has unfortunately made me a repeated victim of corrupt governance, it has also given me the opportunity to become the “egg” challenging the “hardened stone” of such corruption. Let us allow the “egg to strike the stone” once more:

“Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”

Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice:

Petitioner Chen Shuqing, male, a native of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Dongwuyuan, Daguan Garden, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City; ID No. 330106196509260073; Contact Number: 15958160478.

Petition:

Request that the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice provide guidance on the review and rectification of the “Document of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358—Reply Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Old-Age Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Is Disclosed Upon Request)” (hereinafter referred to as “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”), dated September 30, 2010.

Reasons for the Request:

I. The matters requested fall within the scope of responsibilities of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice.

According to government information published on the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice website (https://sft.zj.gov.cn/首页 > Organizational Structure > Overview of Functions), the Department has a total of sixteen institutional functions. In addition to “(1) Conducting policy research on major issues related to comprehensively governing the province according to law, coordinating with relevant parties to propose medium- and long-term planning recommendations for comprehensively governing the province according to law, and overseeing the implementation of major policy decisions,” item (4) further stipulates “guiding the review and revision of administrative normative documents.”

II. This request is of direct personal interest to the petitioner.

If the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, is considered a party with a vested interest in this matter, it is more accurate to say that Chen Shuqing is a victim of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358. The specific circumstances are as follows:

On December 25, 2025, the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, reached the age of 60 years and 3 months, having actually contributed to the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. When processing retirement procedures in December 2025, staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou cited Chen Shuqing’s 2007 conviction for incitement to subvert state power (sentenced to 4 years) and his 2016 conviction for subverting state power (sentenced to 10 years and 6 months) as grounds deducted the combined duration of these two prison terms from his social insurance contribution period. The remaining contribution period was just over 9 years, which fell short of the minimum requirement, and they refused to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.

After repeated negotiations, Chen Shuqing, dissatisfied with the vague verbal responses from staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau—who merely cited “relevant policies”—submitted a request for government information disclosure. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of the bureau, issued to the plaintiff in his office the “Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center” (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”), the “Notice of Decision,” and “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358,” formally confirming in writing the decision to refuse to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures.

Article 1 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: In accordance with the “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees,” and other relevant laws and regulations, individuals sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or heavier penalties, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as “persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education”), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers during the period of their detention, imprisonment, or re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the “period of serving sentences or undergoing re-education”).

The Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau cited the provisions of the aforementioned Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as one of the key grounds for its refusal to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures, as stated in the “Notice” and “Statement of Reasons.”

Chen Shuqing believed that the legal application underlying the aforementioned document was improper and that the policy lacked sufficient legal force, and therefore filed an application for administrative reconsideration regarding this matter on January 27, 2026. On February 5, Chen Shuqing applied for a concurrent review of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as a normative document. On March 9, the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security issued the “Letter from the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Regarding Feedback on Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions on the Incidental Review of Zhejiang HRSS Document [2010] No. 358”), concluding that “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations; it does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid”

The “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou” (Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67), issued by the People’s Government of Gongshu District on April 30, 2026, upheld the aforementioned “Notice” issued by the respondent—the Gongshu District Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security—refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” were also enclosed. Chen Shuqing disagrees with this decision and has now filed an administrative lawsuit regarding this case with the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Court.

III. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” evades the core issues and fails to provide targeted responses or resolutions regarding the illegality of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, as raised by Chen Shuqing in his application for incidental review of normative documents during the administrative reconsideration process. Specifically, this includes:

(1) Pursuant to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which entered into force after being signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on October 27, 1997, and ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on February 28, 2001—which states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, argues that “persons serving prison or re-education through labor sentences” do not cease to be “human beings” merely because they are serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labor, and thus do not forfeit the fundamental human right that “States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” Therefore, since Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358 conflicts with the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the conclusion in the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security [2010] No. 358 Supplementary Review and Disposition Opinion that “In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations, does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid” clearly disregards the provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Article 9: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” It should therefore be deemed unlawful and invalid. Consequently, it is recommended that the competent authorities promptly review and repeal such “administrative normative documents,” which are clearly outdated and unlawful in the current era.

(2) The petitioner has carefully reviewed the *Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China*, the *Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China*, and the *Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees*. None of the provisions in these two national laws and one local regulation contain the stipulation found in Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, which states: “Persons sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or a more severe punishment, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as ‘persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education’), during their detention and while serving sentences in detention centers or undergoing re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘period of imprisonment or re-education’), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that whether through abstract or specific administrative acts, if government agencies interpret or explain the law in a manner that goes beyond the explicit meaning of the written text to fabricate content out of thin air and claim that such content is based on the provisions of laws such as “X” or “Y,” this constitutes a serious violation of the law in itself. If this were permitted, the law—as one of the most important means of keeping government power in check—would become a mere formality; and if government agencies exploit their freedom from the constraints of legal text to engage in unfounded interpretations—including of policies—that can at any time restrict the rights and freedoms of the people, this not only fundamentally undermines and erodes the certainty of legal rules but also clearly runs counter to the original intent of a society governed by the rule of law, including the legislative purpose of “constraining power and safeguarding rights.”

The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that if there are administrative measures that are genuinely necessary and reasonable, which are not explicitly provided for or are inadequately defined in current laws, should not, under any circumstances other than emergencies (such as war or natural disasters) where legitimate motives necessitate unavoidable measures, be used to arbitrarily exceed or abuse the law in the form of so-called “policies.” Instead, relevant legislative proposals or recommendations for amending laws should be initiated through lawful procedures, while continuing to strictly adhere to the fundamental principle of the rule of law: “No action may be taken without legal authorization.”

(3) On December 28, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a decision to repeal legal provisions concerning re-education through labor. This signified that the “Decision of the State Council on Issues Concerning Re-education through Labor,” approved and promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 1, 1957, was legally repealed after more than 50 years of implementation. Although re-education through labor was abolished more than a decade ago, the “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358,” which contains provisions on re-education through labor, is still being inappropriately cited and applied by government agencies and their staff. Clearly, in accordance with the requirements of current and effective laws, “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358” must also keep pace with the times and be reviewed and repealed as soon as possible.

(4) For over 20 years, Chen Shuqing, his family members, and the units where his employment or social security was registered have been paying social insurance premiums on his behalf. They have never received explicit notification that premiums could not be paid during his incarceration. Even after his release on March 10, 2025—which was originally his final release—they successfully made up for the social insurance premiums for the recent years (including portions of his prison term) during which payments were interrupted by visiting the Government Service Center of the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, located at 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, on several occasions.

More than two thousand years ago, the sage Confucius wrote in *The Analects: Yao’s Words*: “To punish without first instructing is tyranny.” Modern civilized societies are founded on the principle that “law cannot stand without virtue.” Any content—whether specific provisions or entire laws—that legally restricts citizens’ rights and freedoms or imposes punitive sanctions must adhere to the fundamental principles of “non-retroactivity” and “a law does not take effect until it is promulgated.” Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is marked as “disclosed upon request”; of course, disclosure upon request is not equivalent to promulgation. Although Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security lacks the legal status and effect prescribed by the Legislative Law of the People’s Republic of China, it nevertheless concerns the rights and obligations of a wide range of individuals. Such a provision for “disclosure upon request” leaves stakeholders in the dark until a request for disclosure is made. In this case, the applicant only obtained the document after submitting a “Government Information Disclosure Application” to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, following repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain it while processing retirement procedures in recent months.

This elusive form of “disclosure upon request” policy provides means and opportunities for bureaucrats to abuse their power or even engage in rent-seeking. The unchecked abuse of power by bureaucrats has, in fact, been one of the key reasons why good governance has been difficult to implement or sustain, while corrupt practices have become deeply entrenched, leading to the decline and collapse of dynasties throughout China’s millennia-long history. The applicant believes that “disclosure upon request” in government affairs should be limited to information involving trade secrets or personal privacy within specific administrative acts, and restricted to disclosure upon request to individuals who have a vested interest and are legally eligible to apply. As for abstract administrative acts, the applicant hopes that when state organs at all levels formulate normative documents in the future, with the exception of those involving state secrets—which are not disclosed for internal implementation and cannot be used against external parties who are unaware of them—all other normative documents should be publicly released, following the example of legislation. Therefore, the applicant not only requests that Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—which adopts the “disclosure upon request” approach—be reviewed and repealed in this case, but also earnestly urges that the re-emergence of any normative documents utilizing the “disclosure upon request” format be completely eliminated.

(5) Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: “For individuals who continue to participate in social insurance as urban self-employed workers while serving a prison sentence or undergoing re-education, such cases must be promptly rectified. Pension insurance premiums already paid during the period of imprisonment or re-education may be temporarily retained by the social security administration agency to offset premiums due or deferred in future insurance years, or may be refunded to the individual in a lump sum.” ”Building upon Article 1 of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, this provision runs counter to the legal principle that “the government may not exercise power unless authorized by law, while citizens are free to exercise rights unless prohibited by law.” it has failed in practice to prevent social security agencies from continuing to collect pension insurance premiums from insured individuals during their incarceration. However, when insured individuals formally apply for or receive retirement benefits calculated based on their actual years of contribution, this provision effectively endorses the social security agencies’ crude and arbitrary “breach of trust and failure to honor agreements.” Chen Shuqing in this case is one of the typical victims of such administrative breach of trust.

In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 clearly violates Article 9 of the legally binding *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*, which was ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as early as February 28, 2001: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” By presenting itself as “specific operational provisions regarding the content of laws and regulations,” it arbitrarily added prohibitions under the pretext of “what is not explicitly prohibited by law.” It is clearly no longer compatible with the current legal environment following the adoption by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 28, 2013, of the “Decision on the Abolition of Legal Provisions Concerning Re-education Through Labor.” By adopting the form of “disclosure upon request,” it undermines the fundamental requirements of a modern rule-of-law society for openness and transparency in regulations; in practice, its specific provisions effectively endorse administrative bad faith on the part of social security administrative agencies, severely undermining the principle of protecting the public’s legitimate expectations regarding the law and government actions. An internal policy with so many obvious flaws, if allowed to continue to exist and remain in effect—especially when the policy-making body lacks the capacity for self-correction—will not only hinder the construction of a government and society governed by the rule of law, but will inevitably lead, through persistent breaches of trust, to the excessive depletion of political credibility and the continued erosion of the social credit structure, ultimately leading step by step toward irreversible decline.

Because the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes in the sense of responsibility (commitment to duty, never shirking difficulties) and the competence of the leadership and staff of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice, I hereby submit this “Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” to your department.

Sincerely,

Chen Shuqing

Petitioner: Chen Shuqing

May 29, 2026

Enclosures:

1. One copy of petitioner Chen Shuqing’s ID card (front and back);

2. One copy of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358;

3. One copy of the “Review and Handling Opinions Accompanying Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.”

对结构性纠错能力的再一次碰撞

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

《在野党》中国人权观察简报第29期(2026年5月25日)

0

作者:张维清

本期介绍被迫害人士:毛庆祥,1950年2月生于中国浙江省杭州市,独立作家、民主活动人士、中国民主党筹委会创办人之一、《在野党》杂志策划人,复刊后的《在野党》杂志荣誉主编。

最新近况:

现年76岁高龄的毛庆祥于2026年5月20日前后被杭州警方强行带走,目前处于“强迫失踪”状态。5月19日,杭州中国民主党人、八九民运领袖徐光获释出狱。毛庆祥因在微信朋友圈发布并转发了徐光出狱感言及呼吁“勿忘六四”的视频,随即被强行带走。经证实,具体办案控制单位为杭州市金沙湖派出所。由于毛庆祥无直系亲属在身边,警方对其前妻的询问仅口头回应“人很安全”,拒绝透露关押地点、罪名及拘留期限。

一、个人简历

1、1970年代末:参与杭州“民主墙”运动,创办民间异见刊物《四五》月刊和《华东民刊》。

2、1981年:因从事民主启蒙与维权出版活动,被控“反革命宣传煽动罪”判刑3年。

3、1998年:与王有才、朱虞夫等人共同发起组建“中国民主党”浙江筹备委员会,公开申请政党注册,创办党刊《在野党》。

4、1999年:因公开筹组政党遭官方大抓捕,被以“颠覆国家政权罪”重判有期徒刑8年。

5、2010年出狱至今:长期留守国内,常年遭受国保严密监控,在敏感政治时期频繁被软禁或带离杭州。

二、政治立场

1、废除一党专政:主张建立开放、合法的多党竞争与民主轮替政治体制。

2、保障公民权利:呼吁中国政府兑现宪法承诺,尊重言论、结社、集会及出版自由。

3、和平非暴力转型:坚持通过公开化、合法化、非暴力的渠道推进中国的宪政改良。

三、被捕与判刑经历

1、第一次获刑(1981年):因参与民主墙运动,被判处有期徒刑3年,剥夺政治权利1年。

2、第二次获刑(1999年):因筹组中国民主党,被杭州市中级人民法院以“颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑8年,剥夺政治权利3年。

3、强迫失踪(2026年5月):因在微信朋友圈转发异见人士徐光的出狱感言及呼吁“勿忘六四”的视频,遭杭州市金沙湖派出所带走,目前面临新一轮的政治迫害与司法指控。

四、社会评价、国际评价

1、国内民间评价:被公认为中国当代民主运动的先驱与中流砥柱,其数十年如一日的刚毅守候,激励了多代追求自由的维权人士。

2、国际组织评价:国际特赦组织(Amnesty International)及人权观察(Human Rights Watch)长期将其列为“良心犯”重点关注。国际社会谴责中国当局对其长期实施的法外迫害与权利剥夺。

五、《在野党》人权观察部对此发表紧急声明:

1、立即释放毛庆祥:强烈谴责杭州当局因言治罪,要求杭州市金沙湖派出所立即无条件释放76岁高龄的毛庆祥。

2、公开关押信息:敦促办案单位依照法律程序,立即向外界公开毛庆祥的羁押地点、身体健康状况以及涉嫌罪名。

3、停止政治迫害:呼吁中国政府停止对中国民主党人及所有政治异见人士的法外监控、强迫失踪与司法打压,切实保障公民的基本人权。

编辑:黄吉洲 校对:毛一炜 翻译:戈冰

“The Opposition Party” China Human Rights Watch Bulletin No. 29 (May 25, 2026)

Author: Zhang Weiqing

This issue profiles the persecuted individual: Mao Qingxiang, born in February 1950 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. He is an independent writer, democracy activist, one of the founders of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democratic Party, the planner of *The Opposition Party* magazine, and the honorary editor-in-chief of *The Opposition Party* since its relaunch.

Latest Update:

Mao Qingxiang, now 76 years old, was forcibly taken away by Hangzhou police around May 20, 2026, and is currently in a state of “enforced disappearance.” On May 19, Xu Guang, a member of the China Democratic Party in Hangzhou and a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, was released from prison. Mao Qingxiang was forcibly taken away shortly after posting and reposting a video on his WeChat Moments featuring Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release and a call to “Never Forget June 4th.” It has been confirmed that the specific law enforcement unit handling the case is the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. As Mao Qingxiang has no immediate family members nearby, police responded to inquiries from his ex-wife only with the verbal assurance that “he is safe,” refusing to disclose his place of detention, the charges against him, or the duration of his detention.

I. Personal Biography

1. Late 1970s: Participated in the “Democracy Wall” movement in Hangzhou; founded the independent dissident publications *The 45th* Monthly and *East China People’s Journal*.

2. 1981: Charged with “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement” and sentenced to three years in prison for engaging in democratic enlightenment and rights advocacy through publishing activities.

3. 1998: Co-founded the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the “China Democratic Party” with Wang Youcai, Zhu Yufu, and others; publicly applied for party registration; and founded the party journal *The Opposition Party*.

4. 1999: Following a large-scale official crackdown on public efforts to organize a political party, he was sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of “subversion of state power.”

5. From his release in 2010 to the present: He has remained in China, subject to constant, strict surveillance by state security authorities. During politically sensitive periods, he is frequently placed under house arrest or removed from Hangzhou.

II. Political Stance

1. Abolition of One-Party Rule: Advocates for the establishment of an open, legal political system featuring multiparty competition and democratic alternation of power.

2. Safeguarding Civil Rights: Calls on the Chinese government to fulfill its constitutional commitments and respect freedom of speech, association, assembly, and publication.

3. Peaceful, Nonviolent Transition: Insists on advancing constitutional reform in China through open, legal, and nonviolent channels.

III. Arrest and Sentencing History

1. First Sentence (1981): Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and one year’s deprivation of political rights for participating in the Democracy Wall movement.

2. Second Sentence (1999): Sentenced by the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court to eight years’ imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of political rights on charges of “subversion of state power” for organizing the China Democratic Party.

3. Enforced Disappearance (May 2026): After reposting dissident Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release from prison and a video calling for “Do Not Forget June 4th” on his WeChat Moments, he was taken away by the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. He currently faces a new round of political persecution and legal charges.

IV. Domestic and International Assessments

1. Domestic Civil Society Assessment: Widely recognized as a pioneer and pillar of China’s contemporary democracy movement, his decades of steadfast commitment have inspired generations of rights defenders seeking freedom.

2. International Organization Assessments: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long listed him as a “prisoner of conscience” of particular concern. The international community condemns the Chinese authorities’ prolonged extrajudicial persecution and deprivation of his rights.

V. The Human Rights Watch Department of The Opposition Party Party issued the following urgent statement:

1. Immediately Release Mao Qingxiang: We strongly condemn the Hangzhou authorities for punishing him for his speech and demand that the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou immediately and unconditionally release 76-year-old Mao Qingxiang.

2. Disclose Detention Information: We urge the investigating authorities to follow legal procedures and immediately disclose to the public Mao Qingxiang’s place of detention, his health condition, and the charges against him.

3. Cease political persecution: We call on the Chinese government to stop extrajudicial surveillance, enforced disappearances, and judicial suppression of Chinese democrats and all political dissidents, and to effectively safeguard citizens’ basic human rights.

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing

“文明对话国际日”公告二

0

作者:陈西

一个失败国家,是从这三个职业腐烂开始的:教育、医疗与公权力。这三个职业是国家的根基,民族未来的保障,一旦它开始从内部溃烂,不待有外敌入侵,这个国家注定走向失败。尤其是第三个,我们第二个“文明对话国际日”不得不关注的职业。

第一教育。本是给孩子点亮人生的灯,教会他独立思考,以对话打开孩子心灵的亮光,去照亮必然会遭遇到的那一段行走在黑暗世界中的路,确保行走者不成为黑暗的一部分。可要是教育者丢了初心,把学生当成敛财工具,把良知换成碎银,他们必然驯化学生为工具,驯化学生高度一致地听话,而失去了对话的勇气。听话的教育不但毁掉了一代人的未来,更是毁掉了这个民族的明天。

第二医院。本该是生命的避风港,是缓解痛苦点燃希望的地方,可要是这里把救死扶伤的誓言踩在脚下,变成“认钱不认人”冷漠之地,那时,老百姓怕的不只是病痛,更怕从那扇冰冷大门里伸出谋财夺命之魔手,搞得人财两空。

第三公权力。我们不怕教育溃烂,不怕医院腐败,我们最怕公权力的溃烂和腐败。一旦公权力变质,整个国家真的就无可救药了。正如乔治•华盛顿说的:我们越来越明白,对人类文明威胁最大、破坏最惨烈的,是不受制约的权力;其次才是自然灾害和人类的无知。

中国历来也有一句话:国家之败,由于官邪。因为,“官本位”害怕透明机制,一旦当官,终生吸血。并且,这种机制是上层决定下层,整个国家处在“上梁不正,下梁歪”的劣势中;不像“民本位”国家有阳光法,基层决定上层。所以,不怕教育和医院的溃烂,就怕官僚特权阶级的产生;如此,他们必制定出汲取式的国策,这个国家就完了。

这时,官僚特权阶级制定的法律不再保障自由,而是沦为压榨的工具,所谓的法治成了特权者最虚伪的表演,所谓“为人民服务”变成了“为人民币服务”,维护社会的公义变成了保护特权,公权偷梁换柱为私权,源头活水变成了臭气熏天的死水,这个国家的政治生态不就被一小撮特权者葬送了吗?

我们担忧是有依据的。公务员财务公开的良法讨论了30多年未能通过,反之,两高(〔2026〕6号法释)5月1日施行的法释通行了,这正是让我们担忧的证据。体制内有识之士早就提出了“公务员财务公开”的法案;这本是一副对症的良药,是提纲挈领的阳光法,是可以医疗好社会乱象疾病的法案;谁想,良药未制成,毒药却先落地了。我们说它“毒,恶”,是说它是贪腐的陷阱,划定300万元为犯重罪的门槛似乎在暗示,300万元为轻罪,反而使陷阱扩大化了。

官本位独大是公权力失去制衡,兽性贪得无厌的表现,是榨取式官僚特权阶级正在败坏国家的罪证。世界万物都必须在悖论中,在正反制衡结构中,让彼此的张力或冲突成就彼此,促进他们的进化。官本位必须与民本位形成张力,如同阴阳、正反、左右、新旧、美丑、善恶必须形成张力一样。符合“一阴一阳谓之道”。

官本位独大说明,我们国家正滑向汲取性失败的制度里。在此时刻,曾有共和国公民代米安、宋淑文、熊利、陈西等等公民先后站出来,他(她)们曾向“全国人大常委会法制工作委员会”发出“提案申请书”,呼吁重新审议“并废止法释〔2026〕6号司法解释”。

与此同时,在第二个文明对话国际日来临之际,我们“公民对话联盟”呼吁开展“公务员财务公开法案”的全民对话,以阳光法解决官本位之邪的问题。如果有关国家机关不能理解阳光法百般的好处,可以向香港廉政公署取经。国家成败兴亡与每个国民休戚相关,覆巢之下无完卵。望有更多的共和国公民参与到文明对话日活动中来!

“公民对话联盟平台”发起人:

贵州贵阳公民_陈西-手机号:18198281954(社交软件同号)

浙江杭州公民-陈树庆微信号:wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

湖南怀化公民-唐浩铭手机:13212390018,13974518171(社交软件同号)

江西赣州公民-刘少明手机:18802016201(社交软件同号)

贵州贵阳公民-徐国庆手机:13984086628(社交软件同号)

湖北潜江公民-姚立法手机:13339728964(社交软件同号)

山东德州公民-陈立勇手机:18005449982(社交软件同号)

四川成都公民-陈云飞电话:16718106764微信号:cyf1989-06-04

湖北随州市公民-刘飞跃手机:19171484732(社交软件同号)

贵州贵阳市公民-申有连手机:13037897453(社交软件同号)

欢迎广大共和国公民参加第二届“公民对话联盟”发起人活动。

从公告发出之日起,凡自愿公开留下电话号码或联系方式的为共和国“公民对话联盟”发起人,“志愿服务者”;以承担起当地“文明对话国际日”服务的工作。签名按参加先后顺序自动排名。

2026年5月28日

编辑:Geoffrey Jin    校对:周敏 翻译:沈美花

Announcement No. 2:International Day of Civilizational Dialogue

Author: Chen Xi

Abstract: This article takes education, healthcare, and public power as its three entry points to explore their important impact on national development. The author argues that education should cultivate independent thinking and the ability to engage in dialogue, healthcare should focus on protecting life and alleviating suffering, and public power must be subject to effective supervision and checks and balances. The article points out that when education becomes driven by utilitarian interests, healthcare loses its humanitarian spirit, and public power lacks constraints, social trust will gradually disintegrate and institutional functioning will also be eroded. In particular, the author emphasizes the importance of oversight of power, arguing that transparency, fairness, and accountability mechanisms are key to safeguarding the rule of law, protecting citizens’ rights, and promoting a nation’s long-term development. The full text is a commentary and reflection on public governance and social systems.

A failed state begins with the decay of these three professions: education, healthcare, and public administration. These three professions form the foundation of a nation and safeguard the future of its people. Once they begin to rot from within, the nation is doomed to failure even before any external enemy invades. This is especially true of the third—the profession we must focus on during our second “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations.”

First, education. It is meant to be the lamp that illuminates a child’s life, teaching them to think independently and using dialogue to kindle the light within their hearts—a light that will illuminate the inevitable stretch of darkness they will encounter on their journey, ensuring that the traveler does not become part of that darkness. But if educators lose their original purpose, treating students as tools for financial gain and trading their conscience for a few coins, they will inevitably turn students into tools, conditioning them to obey in perfect unison while losing the courage to engage in dialogue. An education that fosters mere obedience not only destroys the future of a generation but also destroys the tomorrow of this nation.

Second: Hospitals. They should be sanctuaries of life, places that alleviate suffering and kindle hope. But if they trample the oath to save lives underfoot and become cold, callous places that “prioritize money over people,” then the common people will fear not only illness and pain, but also the evil hands reaching out from those icy doors to rob them of both life and wealth, leaving them with nothing.

Third: Public Authority. We do not fear the decay of education or the corruption of hospitals; what we fear most is the decay and corruption of public authority. Once public authority becomes corrupted, the entire nation is truly beyond salvation. As George Washington said: “We are increasingly aware that the greatest threat to human civilization, and the most devastating force, is unchecked power; natural disasters and human ignorance come only second.”

There is a saying in China that has long held true: “A nation’s downfall stems from corrupt officials.” This is because a “government-centered” system fears transparency; once someone becomes an official, they feed off the public for life. Furthermore, in such a system, the upper echelons dictate the lower ones, leaving the entire nation in a situation where “if the upper beam is crooked, the lower beam will follow suit”; this is unlike a “people-centered” nation, which operates under transparent laws where the grassroots determine the policies of the higher levels. Therefore, we need not fear the decay of education or healthcare systems; what we must fear is the emergence of a privileged bureaucratic class. If this happens, they will inevitably enact exploitative national policies, and the nation will be doomed.

At this point, the laws enacted by the privileged bureaucratic class no longer safeguard freedom but degenerate into tools of exploitation. The so-called rule of law becomes the most hypocritical performance of the privileged, and the so-called “serving the people” turns into “serving the renminbi.” Upholding social justice becomes protecting privilege, public power is replaced by private power, and the fresh spring of life turns into stinking stagnant water—hasn’t the political ecosystem of this country been ruined by a tiny handful of privileged elites?

Our concerns are well-founded. A sound bill on financial transparency for civil servants has been under discussion for over 30 years without being passed. Conversely, the judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 6 [2026]), which took effect on May 1, has been implemented—and this is precisely what fuels our concerns. Enlightened individuals within the system have long proposed a bill for “financial transparency among civil servants.” This was meant to be a remedy tailored to the problem—a transparent law that addresses the root causes, capable of curing the ills of social chaos. Yet, before this remedy could be formulated, the poison has already taken effect. When we call it “poisonous and evil,” we mean it is a trap for corruption. Setting 3 million yuan as the threshold for a “serious crime” seems to imply that anything below that is a “minor offense,” thereby actually widening the trap.

The dominance of the official-centered mindset represents a loss of checks and balances on public power and a manifestation of insatiable greed; it is evidence that an exploitative bureaucratic privileged class is corrupting the nation. All things in the world must exist within paradoxes and structures of opposing forces, allowing their mutual tension or conflict to enrich one another and drive their evolution. The official-centered mindset must create tension with the people-centered mindset, just as yin and yang, opposites, left and right, old and new, beauty and ugliness, and good and evil must create tension. This aligns with the principle that “the interplay of yin and yang is the Way.”

The dominance of the bureaucratic mindset indicates that our country is sliding toward a system of extractive failure. At this critical juncture, citizens of the Republic—including Dai mian, Song Shuwen, Xiong Li, Chen Xi, and others—have stepped forward one after another. They submitted a “Proposal Application” to the “Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” calling for a re-examination and repeal of “Judicial Interpretation No. 6 [2026].”

At the same time, as the second International Day of Civilizational Dialogue approaches, we, the “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance,” call for a nationwide dialogue on the “Civil Servant Financial Disclosure Bill” to address the ills of the bureaucratic culture through the Sunshine Law. If relevant state agencies fail to grasp the myriad benefits of the Sunshine Law, they may seek guidance from the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The rise and fall of the nation is inextricably linked to every citizen; when the nest is destroyed, no egg remains intact. We hope that more citizens of the Republic will participate in the activities of the International Day of Civilization Dialogue!

Initiators of the “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance Platform”:

Citizen Chen Xi from Guiyang, Guizhou – Mobile:18198281954 (same number on social media)

Citizen Chen Shuqing from Hangzhou, Zhejiang – WeChat ID: wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

Citizen Tang Haoming from Huaihua, Hunan – Mobile:13212390018, 13974518171 (same number on social media apps)

Citizen from Ganzhou, Jiangxi – Liu Shaoming Mobile:18802016201 (same number on social media apps)

Citizen from Guiyang, Guizhou – Xu Guoqing Mobile:13984086628 (same number on social media apps)

Citizen of Qianjiang, Hubei – Yao Lifu Mobile:13339728964 (same number on social media)

Citizen of Dezhou, Shandong – Chen Liyong Mobile:18005449982 (same number on social media)

Citizen of Chengdu, Sichuan – Chen Yunfei Phone:16718106764 WeChat ID: cyf1989-06-04

Citizen from Suizhou, Hubei – Liu Feiyue Mobile:19171484732 (Same number on social media)

Citizen from Guiyang, Guizhou – Shen Youlian Mobile:13037897453 (Same number on social media)

We welcome citizens of the Republic to participate in the Second “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” Initiators’ Activity.

Effective from the date of this announcement, anyone who voluntarily and publicly provides their phone number or contact information will be designated as a founder and “volunteer” of the Republic’s “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance,” tasked with organizing local “International Day of Civilized Dialogue” events. Signatures will be automatically ranked in the order they are received.

May 28, 2026

Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Shen Meihua

名为共和国,何以失去人民?

0
名为共和国,何以失去人民?

作者:于越

在现代政治语境中,“共和国”本应意味着权力来自人民,政府由人民授权,并对人民负责。然而,当一个国家以“共和国”为名,却缺乏真正的选举制度、言论自由与信息透明时,这一称谓便失去了应有的内涵,沦为形式上的装饰。

一个真正的共和国,建立在公民的基本权利之上。人民拥有选票,能够自由表达意见,能够获取真实的信息,并对公共事务进行监督。这些不仅是制度设计的技术问题,更是一个国家是否尊重人、是否承认人之尊严的根本标志。如果人民没有选择权,没有知情权,也没有表达权,那么所谓“代表人民”的说法就缺乏正当性基础。

历史反复证明,依靠控制信息与塑造单一叙事来维持的治理模式,或许可以在短期内稳定局面,但难以获得持久的认同。因为真相不会永远被遮蔽,人们对自由、公正与尊严的追求也不会消失。信息越封闭,谎言越容易滋生;而谎言一旦累积,信任就会逐渐瓦解。当信任不复存在,任何宏大的叙事都将变得空洞。

更重要的是,一个健康的社会并不惧怕不同声音。相反,多元意见的存在恰恰是社会活力的体现。允许批评、鼓励讨论、保障表达,不会削弱国家,反而会增强制度的韧性。

因为只有在公开与透明中,错误才能被纠正,政策才能不断完善,权力才不会失去边界。

我们所呼吁的,并不是对秩序的破坏,而是对规则的重建;不是对社会的否定,而是对公正的追求。权利从来不是某种可以被施舍的恩惠,而是每一个人作为公民所应当享有的基本保障。当这些权利被忽视或剥夺时,提出质疑与要求改变,本身就是一种责任。

“蒙混一时,不能蒙混一世。”这不仅是一句警示,更是一种历史规律。任何脱离人民、缺乏监督、依赖单向叙事的权力结构,都将面临合法性的挑战。而真正稳固的国家,必然建立在人民的信任之上,而信任只能来源于真实、开放与参与。

因此,推动一个更加公开、公正、以人民为本的制度,不仅是权利的回归,更是社会长远发展的必由之路。属于人民的权利,不应被掩盖,也不应被延迟,而应当在制度中得到切实体现,在现实中得到真正保障。

名为共和国,何以失去人民?

编辑:Gloria Wang 校对:周敏 翻译:戈冰

Why Has the Republic Lost the People?

Author: Yu Yue

Abstract: This article explores the core implications of the concept of the “republic” in modern politics, arguing that a republican system should be founded on the principles of popular sovereignty, free elections, freedom of speech, and transparency. The author contends that if citizens lack the right to choose, the right to information, and the right to express themselves, the legitimacy of a government’s claim to represent the people will be called into question. The article further emphasizes that transparency, diverse opinions, and public oversight are essential for maintaining social trust and institutional vitality; only by safeguarding citizens’ rights and accommodating differing viewpoints can we promote policy improvements, prevent power imbalances, and drive long-term social development.

In the modern political context, the term “republic” should signify that power derives from the people, that the government is authorized by the people, and that it is accountable to the people. However, when a nation bears the name “republic” yet lacks a genuine electoral system, freedom of speech, and transparency of information, this designation loses its inherent meaning and becomes nothing more than a superficial adornment.

A true republic is founded upon the fundamental rights of its citizens. The people possess the right to vote, the freedom to express their views, access to accurate information, and the ability to oversee public affairs. These are not merely technical matters of institutional design; they are fundamental markers of whether a nation respects its people and acknowledges human dignity. If the people lack the right to choose, the right to know, and the right to speak, then the claim of “representing the people” lacks a legitimate foundation.

History has repeatedly shown that governance models maintained through information control and the imposition of a single narrative may stabilize the situation in the short term, but they struggle to gain lasting acceptance. This is because the truth cannot be concealed forever, nor will people’s pursuit of freedom, justice, and dignity ever fade. The more information is suppressed, the more easily lies proliferate; and once lies accumulate, trust gradually erodes. When trust ceases to exist, any grand narrative becomes hollow.

More importantly, a healthy society does not fear dissenting voices. On the contrary, the existence of diverse opinions is precisely a manifestation of social vitality. Allowing criticism, encouraging discussion, and safeguarding freedom of expression will not weaken the nation; rather, it will strengthen the resilience of our institutions.

For it is only through openness and transparency that mistakes can be corrected, policies can be continuously improved, and power can be kept within bounds.

What we are calling for is not the disruption of order, but the reconstruction of rules; not the rejection of society, but the pursuit of justice. Rights have never been a favor to be bestowed, but rather the fundamental safeguards that every citizen is entitled to. When these rights are ignored or denied, raising questions and demanding change is itself a responsibility.

“You can deceive people for a time, but not forever.” This is not merely a warning; it is a historical law. Any power structure that is detached from the people, lacks oversight, and relies on a one-sided narrative will face challenges to its legitimacy. A truly stable nation must be built upon the trust of the people, and trust can only stem from truth, openness, and participation.

Therefore, advancing a system that is more open, fair, and people-centered is not only a restoration of rights but also the inevitable path for society’s long-term development. The rights that belong to the people should not be obscured or delayed; rather, they must be tangibly embodied in the system and genuinely safeguarded in reality.

名为共和国,何以失去人民?

Editor: Gloria Wang Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing

极权逻辑下私自救援的“罪”

0

作者:张兴贵(中国民主党人)

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。

第一,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,而是在阉割人民成为真正的人。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。

编辑:Gloria 校对:周敏 翻译:戈冰

The “Crime” of Unauthorized Rescue Efforts Under Totalitarian Logic

Author: Zhang Xinggui (Member of the China Democratic Party)

On May 22, 2026, three teams from the Henan Blue Sky Rescue Team—from Yichuan, Yiyang, and Songxian—traveled to Changde, Hunan, to conduct rescue operations, film and release videos, and give interviews without having completed the required reporting and approval procedures. Subsequently, they were ordered to withdraw immediately and received written warnings. This is not an absurd isolated incident, but a stark demonstration of totalitarian logic in the 21st century. It labels humanity’s most primal sense of compassion and spontaneous mutual aid as “overstepping boundaries”; it characterizes the noble acts of volunteers—who bring their own equipment and raise their own funds—as “violations.”

The essence of a totalitarian state is by no means simply a “strong government” or “strict governance.” It is a modern system of tyranny that seeks to comprehensively subjugate and reshape both society and the individual.

First, totalitarian states monopolize all sources of legitimacy, creating a myth of omnipotence. The primary characteristic of totalitarianism is the state’s complete monopoly over social life and its zero tolerance for any autonomous action. It is not content with ruling political power but seeks exclusive legitimacy over all actions. Under this logic, any autonomous action not authorized by the state is viewed as a potential threat. This is because it shatters the narrative that “only the state can organize, mobilize, and define ‘good deeds.’” What it fears is not the failure of rescue efforts, but the success of rescue efforts originating from the people. Any success not authorized by the state silently debunks the myth of the “omnipotent government.” It must monopolize the right to define all public meaning: only the state is the “savior,” while the public can only be grateful supporting actors. Totalitarianism fears that citizens will discover they can act effectively without waiting for orders—which amounts to a silent declaration that the state is not indispensable—and fears that independent organizations will become seeds that might challenge authority in the future. Therefore, it must drag all autonomous actions into the iron cage of bureaucratic approval, using the name of “procedural justice” to strangle substantive justice.

It does not permit any facts to challenge the official narrative. In the midst of a disaster, the state may react slowly due to information delays and bureaucratic red tape, but the public must never “jump the gun.” Because “jumping the gun” itself exposes the myth of omnipotence. Totalitarianism requires the constant cultivation of the illusion that “without the state, there is nothing.” Thus, it would rather sacrifice some lives than relinquish its monopoly on the narrative. Filming videos or giving interviews constitutes a double offense—it exposes the public to images of “civil society acting before the state,” a form of “visual heresy” that the totalitarian propaganda machine can never tolerate. The “Ministry of Truth” described by Orwell in *1984* is resurrected here: reality must submit to the needs of power, and good must be defined by power; otherwise, it is evil.

Second, totalitarian states are committed to atomizing society and eliminating civil society. The most profound operation of totalitarianism is the systematic destruction of intermediary organizations and citizens’ capacity for self-organization. *The Origins of Totalitarianism* incisively points out: through terror and propaganda, totalitarian regimes sever individuals from traditional bonds—such as family, community, and church—transforming them into isolated “atoms” that can only confront the omnipotent state directly. Within this structure, independent rescue teams, volunteer organizations, and civil society groups all pose potential threats. For they demonstrate that society is capable of self-governance and self-repair. The Blue Sky Rescue Team incident is a daily manifestation of this logic: the problem lies not with the rescue efforts themselves, but with the very notion of “civil society.” It must be warned, withdrawn, and tamed until all rescue operations become an extension of the state apparatus. Within a totalitarian system, independent organizations are targets that must be tamed or banned. This stands in stark contrast to the logic of democratic nations, where civil society serves as a check and balance to state power, rather than a vassal. In countries like the United States, Germany, and Japan, the Red Cross and civilian search-and-rescue teams act swiftly in the aftermath of disasters, and governments often publicly thank them and provide logistical support. This is because democratic systems recognize a fundamental premise: the public good is not the exclusive domain of the state; citizens possess freedom of association, freedom of action, and freedom of speech. These rights are not “graces” bestowed by the state, but are inherent and protected by the constitution. As long as they do not violate the law, individuals and organizations have the right to decide for themselves how to help their fellow citizens. The government may evaluate and regulate such actions after the fact, but it would never regard “failure to report” as an original sin, nor would it equate spontaneous rescue efforts with “acting without authorization” and punish them accordingly.

Third, totalitarian states are inherently anti-human; they reduce people from ends in themselves to mere tools. Classical totalitarianism achieved control through open terror, while contemporary totalitarianism is more subtle: through ubiquitous approvals, surveillance, warnings, and self-censorship, it fosters widespread fear and self-censorship. Volunteers no longer ask, “What is the most effective way to save lives?” but instead ask first, “Is this compliant?” Kindness becomes dangerous, courage becomes suspect, and the most noble altruistic impulses of human nature are gradually eroded. More profoundly, this logic is causing moral atrophy and the alienation of humanity across the entire society. When saving lives requires seeking “permission” first, and when volunteers choose to stand by out of fear of being held accountable, a sense of civic responsibility is gradually neutered. Over time, society will be left with only two types of people: indifferent bystanders and machines awaiting orders. This is not administrative wisdom, but a slow murder of the nation’s vitality.

This incident exposes the behavioral logic of a totalitarian state: it is not protecting disaster victims, but protecting its own fragile authority; it is not serving the people, but castrating them of their humanity. When “rescuing people on one’s own initiative” becomes an act that requires an apology, this system has become the enemy of humanity. It is dragging us into a moral wasteland and a ruin of capability. Unauthorized rescue is not a crime; totalitarian politics is the greatest crime of our time.

Editor: Gloria Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing