作者/编辑：李之洋
责任编辑：罗志飞     翻译：tomorrow

在极权主义研究的经典框架中，个体与体制的关系一直被视为现代政治学与社会学的重要命题。汉娜·阿伦特在《极权主义的起源》中指出，极权主义不仅通过恐怖与暴力维持统治，更通过制度化的组织方式与意识形态塑造，深度嵌入社会结构之中（阿伦特，1951）。中共体制正是此种极权模式的典型延续。

对于体制外的民众而言，中共的专制本质早已显而易见。然而，更值得注意的是，体制内的个体同样身处风险与困境之中。他们不仅是体制运转的执行者，更常常成为体制自我清洗与自我消耗的牺牲品。因此，分析中共体制内人为何更应放弃体制，不仅有助于理解极权体制的运作逻辑，也有助于揭示未来中国社会变革的潜在动力。

一、共产体制的独裁本质与“绞肉机”效应
共产主义体制的核心特征是对社会的全方位控制。列宁在《怎么办？》中提出的“职业革命家”与“先锋队党”的理论，为极权主义政党的权力垄断提供了理论基础（列宁，1902）。在这种体制下，个体必须服从组织，组织服从中央，最终所有权力汇聚于党与领袖之手。

在实践中，这种高度集权必然导致“绞肉机效应”。体制不仅通过物理暴力清除异己，也通过政治运动、党内斗争和思想改造，周期性地吞噬自身成员。苏联大清洗（1937）、中国的反右运动（1957）、文化大革命（1966-1976），均证明了即便是最忠诚的干部，也可能在体制的自我更新中被牺牲。正如阿伦特所言：“极权主义的恐怖并非仅针对敌人，而是针对所有人”（阿伦特，1951）。因此，中共体制内个体的身份并非安全保障，而是悬在头顶的利剑。其存在本身意味着时刻可能被清算，区别只在于时间早晚。

二、列宁主义模式与虚伪合法性的延续
中共政权在意识形态上自我标榜为“社会主义民主与法治”，但实质上严格延续了列宁主义的政治逻辑。所谓“民主集中制”不过是“集中”的代名词，党组织权威凌驾于宪法与法律之上。毛泽东早在延安整风时期就强调“党要管一切”，这一原则延续至今。

从制度设计上看，中共体制的合法性建立在虚伪的双重结构上：一是形式上的民主与法治：宪法文本中写有人民代表大会制度、法律至上等条文；二是现实中的党治独裁：一切权力最终归于中共中央政治局及其常委会，法律和宪政成为权力意志的工具。

正如林茨在《后极权主义社会》中所言：“在后极权体制中，法律不过是权力的附庸，宪法沦为政治装饰”（林茨，1996）。中共体制恰恰体现了这一特征。体制内人被要求忠于宪法，却更必须忠于党，后者才是实际的安全与升迁保障。

这种虚伪的合法性结构，迫使体制内个体长期处于矛盾与撕裂之中。他们明知制度不公，却必须以维护制度为己任；他们寄望体制保障，却随时可能被体制抛弃。

三、掘墓人的历史逻辑
极权体制往往在其最鼎盛时期孕育自我毁灭的力量。苏联的戈尔巴乔夫即为典型案例。他出身体制内，却在改革与开放的进程中，成为导致苏联解体的关键人物（1985-1991）。类似的情况还出现在东欧剧变：阿尔巴尼亚的民主转型、罗马尼亚齐奥塞斯库政权的崩溃（1989），均有体制内改革派与思想者的作用。

这表明，极权体制的掘墓人往往来自体制内部。原因在于：一是体制内思想者更熟悉制度运作与权力结构，拥有揭示真相与行动的条件；二是他们在长期矛盾中积累了思想异化，对自由与民主的需求更为迫切；三是当体制合法性与治理能力衰退时，体制内的背离行为将起到临门一脚的作用。因此，中共体制内人放弃体制，不仅是个体的选择，更可能成为历史转折的关键。

四、中共体制内的权力与身份结构
要理解体制内人的处境，必须分析其内部的分层结构。一是权贵阶层：这是人数极少但掌控庞大财富与资源的群体。学界普遍认为，中国的权力已被约一百多个家族牢牢控制，他们在经济、政治与军队中具有绝对话语权（沈大伟，2015）。这一群体与体制深度绑定，他们的利益与体制存亡紧密相连。二是庞大的从属群体：包括各级官僚、干部、事业单位人员、军警系统人员。他们是体制的日常运转者，但同时也是最容易被抛弃的“耗材”。党内运动、纪律检查、政治整肃，使他们随时可能失去地位甚至自由。

这一结构决定了体制的脆弱性。少数权贵的高度依附，与多数从属群体的潜在离心，构成了内在张力。一旦体制衰退，从属群体出于生存考虑选择中立或背离，政权的崩塌就会迅速发生。

五、社会逻辑：从压迫到离散
从社会逻辑看，体制内人的生活状态充满了不稳定性。一是依附性与恐惧：中共体制强调上下级关系的绝对服从，下级必须依赖上级的保护，但上级本身也随时可能被清算。这种不确定性导致普遍的不安全感；二是思想的双重性：体制外的社会，尤其是全球化带来的信息与价值观，使体制内人接触到民主、法治、自由等理念。这些理念与现实中的专制体验形成强烈反差。三是被迫的自我异化：为了保全自身，他们必须口是心非，公开场合高举忠诚旗帜，私下却可能充满不满与怀疑。这种撕裂最终会推动他们在历史节点上选择离散。

正如托克维尔在研究法国大革命时所言：“当人们意识到可以过得更好，而制度却阻碍他们时，革命便不可避免”（托克维尔，1856）。

六、政治逻辑：从维护到放弃
极权体制的稳定有两个前提：一是核心利益集团的高度团结；二是下层官僚群体的广泛服从。当第二个条件不复存在时，政权将迅速丧失运行能力。苏联的解体说明，当体制内多数人不再愿意为体制背书，极权大厦顷刻之间便可坍塌。对于中共而言，若体制内大多数个体在关键时刻选择放弃体制，哪怕仅仅是消极抵抗、不再维护，它的统治机制也将陷入瘫痪。政治逻辑的铁律在于：统治的合法性不是通过暴力维持的，而是通过被统治者的服从与合作维持的（韦伯，1922）。一旦这种合作瓦解，独裁的根基就将动摇。

综上所述，中共体制的本质决定了它是一部吞噬个体的“绞肉机”；它延续了列宁主义的虚伪合法性；它必然在内部孕育出掘墓人。体制内部的分层结构进一步揭示了多数从属群体与少数权贵之间的张力。从社会逻辑上看，体制内个体长期处于不安全与撕裂状态；从政治逻辑上看，他们的放弃行为可能在关键时刻成为历史转折的决定性力量。

因此，中共体制内人更应放弃体制。这不仅是个体的理性选择，更是历史规律的必然体现。正如历史多次证明的那样，极权体制的崩塌，往往源于体制内部的瓦解，而非外部的打击。体制内人的背离，既是他们自我拯救的出路，也可能成为中国走向自由与民主的重要契机。体制内个体的放弃行为不仅是自我保护的必然选择，更可能成为推动体制瓦解的重要历史力量。

The social and political logic of those within the CCP system abandoning the system

Author/Editor: Li Zhiyang
Editor: Luo Zhifei      Translation: tomorrow

Abstract: This article explores the possibility of individuals within the Chinese Communist Party system abandoning the system, analyzes the contradictions between political power, economic interests and social values, points out the cost of system dependence, and reveals the potential power of China’s transformation.

Within the classic framework of totalitarian research, the relationship between individuals and institutions has long been considered a crucial topic in modern political science and sociology. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt argued that totalitarianism maintains its rule not only through terror and violence but also through institutionalized organizational structures and ideological shaping, becoming deeply embedded within the social structure (Arendt, 1951). The Chinese Communist Party system is a typical continuation of this totalitarian model.

For those outside the system, the CCP’s authoritarian nature has long been obvious. However, even more noteworthy is the fact that individuals within the system also face risks and difficulties. They are not only the executors of the system’s operations, but are often victims of its self-purgation and self-consumption. Therefore, analyzing why those within the CCP system should abandon the system not only helps us understand the operating logic of the totalitarian system but also reveals the potential driving forces for future social change in China.

1. The Dictatorship and “Meat Grinder” Effect of the Communist System
The core characteristic of the communist system is comprehensive control over society. Lenin’s theories of “professional revolutionaries” and “vanguard parties” in What is to be Done? (Lenin, 1902) provide the theoretical basis for the totalitarian party’s monopoly on power. Under this system, individuals must obey the organization, and the organization obeys the center. Ultimately, all power is concentrated in the hands of the party and its leader.

In practice, this hypercentralization inevitably leads to a “meat grinder effect.” The system not only eliminates dissidents through physical violence but also periodically devours its own members through political campaigns, intra-party struggles, and ideological reform. The Soviet Great Purge (1937), China’s Anti-Rightist Movement (1957), and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) all demonstrated that even the most loyal cadres can be sacrificed in the system’s self-renewal. As Arendt observed, “Totalitarian terror is directed not against enemies alone but against everyone” (Arendt, 1951).

Therefore, the identity of individuals within the CCP system is not a guarantee of security, but a sword hanging over their heads. Their very existence means that they may be liquidated at any time, the only difference is when.

2. The Continuation of the Leninist Model and False Legitimacy
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime ideologically touts itself as a polity of “socialist democracy and the rule of law,” but in reality, it strictly adheres to Leninist political logic. The so-called “democratic centralism” is merely a name for “centralization,” with the authority of the Party organization superseding the Constitution and the law. As early as the Yan’an Rectification Movement, Mao Zedong emphasized that “the Party must control everything,” a principle that persists to this day.

From an institutional perspective, the legitimacy of the CCP system rests on a hypocritical dual structure: first, formal democracy and the rule of law: the Constitution contains provisions such as the system of people’s congresses and the supremacy of law; second, the de facto party-ruled dictatorship: all power ultimately vests in the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee and its Standing Committee, with law and constitutionalism becoming tools of the will of power.

As Linz observes in Posttotalitarian Society, “In posttotalitarian systems, law is merely a vassal of power, and the constitution is reduced to political ornament” (Linz, 1996). The CCP system embodies this characteristic precisely. Within the system, those required to be loyal to the Constitution are even more required to be loyal to the Party, as the latter is the true guarantee of security and advancement.

This hypocritical structure of legitimacy forces individuals within the system into a state of chronic conflict and division. They know the system is unfair, yet they feel compelled to uphold it; they place their hopes in the system’s protection, yet they risk being abandoned by it at any moment.

3. The Historical Logic of Gravediggers
Totalitarian systems often foster self-destructive forces during their peak. Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union is a prime example. Born within the system, he became a key figure in the Soviet Union’s disintegration during the reform and opening-up process (1985-1991). Similar dynamics emerged during the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe: Albania’s democratic transition and the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in Romania (1989), both of which were influenced by reformists and thinkers within the system.

This shows that the gravediggers of totalitarian systems often come from within them. The reasons are: first, thinkers within the system are more familiar with the system’s operations and power structures, possessing the conditions to uncover the truth and take action; second, they have accumulated ideological alienation through long-term conflicts, leading to a more urgent demand for freedom and democracy; and third, when the system’s legitimacy and governance capacity decline, defections from within the system can be the final nail in the coffin.

Thus, when those within the CCP system abandon the system, it is not just an individual choice; it can also become a turning point in historical change.

4. The Power and Identity Structure within the CCP System
To understand the situation of those within the system, we must analyze its internal stratification. First, there is the elite: a small group that controls vast wealth and resources. Scholars generally believe that power in China is firmly controlled by approximately one hundred families, who hold absolute influence in the economy, politics, and the military (David Shambaugh, 2015). This group is deeply tied to the system, its interests inextricably linked to its survival. Second, there is the vast subordinate group: bureaucrats at all levels, cadres, personnel in public institutions, and members of the military and police. They are the daily operators of the system, but they are also the most easily disposable “consumables.”Intra-party movements, disciplinary inspections, and political purges mean they could lose their status and even their freedom at any time.

This structure determines the system’s fragility. The highly dependent minority and the potential for alienation from the majority of subordinate groups create inherent tension. Once the system declines, subordinate groups, motivated by survival concerns, choose neutrality or defection, and the regime collapses rapidly.

5. Social Logic: From Oppression to Dispersion
From a social perspective, the lives of those within the system are fraught with instability. First, there’s dependency and fear: The CCP system emphasizes absolute obedience between superiors and subordinates, requiring subordinates to rely on their superiors for protection, yet superiors themselves can be purged at any moment. This uncertainty leads to widespread insecurity. Second, there’s a duality of thought: The society outside the system, especially the information and values .brought about by globalization, exposes those within the system to concepts like democracy, the rule of law, and freedom. These ideals contrast sharply with the real-world experience of authoritarianism.The third is forced self-alienation: To preserve themselves, they must say one thing and mean another, publicly upholding the banner of loyalty while privately harboring discontent and suspicion. This rift will ultimately drive them to separate at a historical juncture.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in his study of the French Revolution: “Revolution is inevitable when men realize that they can live better and that the institutions hinder them” (Tocqueville, 1856).

6. Political Logic: From Maintenance to Abandonment
The stability of a totalitarian system requires two prerequisites: first, the strong unity of the core interest groups; second, the widespread obedience of the lower-level bureaucracy.

When the second condition ceases to exist, the regime will quickly lose its ability to function. The collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrates that when the majority within the system no longer supports it, the totalitarian edifice can collapse in an instant.

For the CCP, if the majority of individuals within the system choose to abandon the system at a critical moment, even if it’s simply passive resistance and a cessation of defense, its ruling mechanism will be paralyzed. The iron law of political logic is that the legitimacy of rule is maintained not through violence but through the obedience and cooperation of the ruled (Weber, 1922). Once this cooperation collapses, the foundations of the dictatorship will be shaken.

In summary, the very nature of the CCP system determines that it is a “meat grinder” that devours individuals; it perpetuates Leninism’s false legitimacy; and it inevitably breeds its own gravediggers. The system’s internal stratification further reveals the tension between the majority of subordinate groups and the minority of powerful individuals. From a social perspective, individuals within the system are chronically insecure and torn; from a political perspective, their act of abandonment may, at a critical moment, become the decisive force in historical transitions.

Therefore, those within the CCP system should abandon the system. This is not only a rational individual choice, but also an inevitable manifestation of historical law. As history has repeatedly proven, the collapse of totalitarian systems often stems from internal disintegration, not external attacks. The defection of those within the system is both a path to self-salvation and a crucial opportunity for China to move towards freedom and democracy. The abandonment of individuals within the system is not only an inevitable choice for self-preservation, but also a significant historical force driving the system’s collapse.

播主：韩瑞媛

播主：韩瑞媛

作者：张兴贵

编辑：韩立华   责任编辑：李聪玲   翻译：吴可正

赫鲁晓夫评价斯大林：他指导过科学，指导过军事，指导过经济，指导过工人做工，指导过农民种地，指导过作家写作，还指导过女青年杀猪，指导过精神病院，他上知天文，下知地理……他是神吗？他只不过是格鲁吉亚的一个乡巴佬，如果没有权力，他就是一堆臭狗屎。

权力崇拜，这种将凡人奉为“全知全能”神的荒诞现象，并非凭空而生，而是极权制度土壤里滋生出的毒瘤。它以恐惧、谎言和人性弱点为养料，营造出一张覆盖整个社会的迷雾。赫鲁晓夫对斯大林的嘲讽——“没权力，他就是一堆臭狗屎”，不仅揭露了个人的虚伪，更指向了极权制度的核心病灶。

一、权力的绝对集中：神坛的基石

极权制度的首要根源，在于权力的绝对集中。在这样的体制下，权力不是分散的、受制约的，而是被压缩成一个单一的点——领袖或核心集团。所有决策、资源、甚至思想，都必须围绕这个“中心”运转。这种集中不仅消灭了分权制衡，也消灭了异见的空间。领袖被塑造成“全能”的象征，因为他掌控了一切：从军队到工厂，从课堂到厨房。于是，权力本身成了真理的代名词，质疑权力等同于亵渎神明。

二、恐惧与服从的文化

极权制度的另一个根源，是恐惧文化的根深蒂固。在这样的社会中，权力不仅是一种治理工具，更是一种心理武器。秘密警察、监控、告密制度，让每个人都生活在被窥视的阴影下。质疑领袖，后果可能是失踪、流放或精神病院的“治疗”。这种恐惧迫使人们放弃独立思考，学会用领袖的语言说话，用领袖的眼睛看世界。

更可怕的是，恐惧催生了盲目的服从文化。人们不仅不敢反抗，甚至开始主动迎合，争相表忠心。领袖的画像挂满街道，颂歌响彻广播，不是因为他真的“全能”，而是因为群众害怕不这样做会被贴上“叛徒”的标签。于是，权力崇拜变成了一种集体表演，每个人都在演戏，却没人敢喊停。这种文化让极权制度得以自我强化：领袖越被神化，群众越不敢质疑；而群众越服从，领袖越觉得自己是“神”。

三、宣传的谎言

极权制度的第三个根源，是宣传机器的无孔不入。极权国家深谙“谎言重复千遍成真理”的道理，通过控制媒体、教育和文化，将领袖塑造成无所不能的“神”。从教科书到报纸，从电影到歌曲，领袖的形象无处不在。他的每句话被奉为金科玉律，他的每项决策被吹捧为天才之举。即便粮食减产、工厂停摆，宣传机器也能把失败包装成“伟大胜利”。

这种宣传不仅美化领袖，也扭曲了现实。群众被剥夺了获取真相的渠道，只能依靠官方的“真理”。久而久之，他们开始相信领袖真的“上知天文，下晓地理”，甚至连杀猪都要听他的“指导”。斯大林时代，李森科的伪科学能横行无忌，正是因为宣传机器把他的荒谬理论吹捧为“革命性突破”。这种谎言的滋生，让权力崇拜的迷雾愈发浓厚，直到整个社会都迷失其中。

四、人性的从众与逃避

权力崇拜的根源不仅在制度，也在人性。极权制度善于利用人们的从众心理和逃避责任的倾向。在不确定和恐惧中，很多人宁愿将命运交给一个“全能领袖”，也不愿自己承担选择的后果。领袖的“指导”看似为生活提供了确定性，哪怕这种确定性是虚假的。群众高喊口号、挥舞旗帜，不仅是为了生存，也是为了逃避思考的负担。

此外，极权制度还利用了人类对“伟大”的渴望。领袖被塑造成民族的化身、历史的舵手，让人们觉得自己参与了一场“宏大叙事”。这种集体狂热掩盖了个体的无力感，让人们在膜拜领袖时，误以为自己也在分享他的“神性”。然而，这种狂热只是幻觉，一旦权力崩塌，群众才会发现，自己不过是舞台上的道具。

五、历史的惯性

权力崇拜的根源还在于历史的惯性。极权制度往往并非从零开始，而是继承了旧的专制传统。无论是沙皇的独裁，还是专制帝王的“皇帝”神话，都为现代极权提供了模板。斯大林的苏联，不过是将沙皇的权杖换成了红旗，依然是“一人说了算”的逻辑。在这样的历史土壤中，权力崇拜几乎是必然的产物，因为人们早已习惯了膜拜“强人”。

权力崇拜的根源，归根结底，是对自由和理性的背弃。极权制度用集中、恐惧、谎言和人性弱点，编织了一张巨大的网，将整个社会困在其中。要打破这种崇拜，唯有回归理性与自由：分散权力，让制度制约人，而不是人凌驾于制度；鼓励质疑，让真相取代谎言；尊重个体，让每个人都能自由思考，而非盲从“领袖”。

The Roots of Power Worship

Abstract: Using the Soviet Union under Stalin as an example, this article reveals five roots of power worship under totalitarian systems: absolute concentration of power, a culture of fear, the propaganda machine, human nature, and historical inertia.

Author: Zhang Xinggui

Editor: Han Lihua   Responsible Editor: Li Congling   Translator: Wu Kezheng

Khrushchev once commented on Stalin: he directed science, directed the military, directed the economy, directed workers in their labor, directed farmers in their planting, directed writers in their writing, even directed young women in slaughtering pigs, and directed psychiatric hospitals. He knew astronomy above and geography below… Was he a god? He was nothing but a Georgian hillbilly—without power, he was just a pile of stinking dung.

Power worship—the absurd phenomenon of elevating a mortal into an “all-knowing, all-powerful” god—does not arise out of thin air, but is a cancer nurtured in the soil of totalitarianism. It feeds on fear, lies, and human weakness, creating a fog that covers all of society. Khrushchev’s ridicule of Stalin—“without power, he was just a pile of stinking dung”—not only exposed the individual’s hypocrisy but also pointed to the core pathology of the totalitarian system.

I. Absolute Concentration of Power: The Foundation of the Altar

The primary root of totalitarianism lies in the absolute concentration of power. In such a system, power is neither decentralized nor subject to checks and balances. All decisions, resources, and even thoughts must revolve around this “center.” This concentration eliminates not only checks and balances but also space for dissent. The leader is molded into a symbol of “omnipotence” because he controls everything: from the army to the factory, from the classroom to the kitchen. Thus, power itself becomes synonymous with truth, and questioning power is equated with blasphemy.

II. A Culture of Fear and Obedience

Another root of totalitarianism is the deep entrenchment of a culture of fear. In such a society, power is not only a tool of governance but also a psychological weapon. Secret police, surveillance, and informant systems ensure that everyone lives under the shadow of being watched. To question the leader could mean disappearance, exile, or “treatment” in a psychiatric ward. This fear forces people to abandon independent thought, learning instead to speak with the leader’s words and see through the leader’s eyes.

Even worse, fear breeds a culture of blind obedience. People not only dare not resist but also begin to actively conform, competing to show loyalty. The leader’s portraits fill the streets, songs of praise echo across the airwaves—not because he is truly “omnipotent,” but because people fear being labeled “traitors” if they fail to participate. Thus, power worship becomes a collective performance: everyone is acting, but no one dares to stop it. This culture enables the self-reinforcement of totalitarianism: the more deified the leader becomes, the less the masses dare to question him; the more obedient the masses, the more the leader believes himself to be a “god.”

III. The Lies of Propaganda

The third root of totalitarianism is the all-pervasive propaganda machine. Totalitarian states are well aware of the dictum “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.” By controlling the media, education, and culture, they mold the leader into an omnipotent “god.” From textbooks to newspapers, from films to songs, the leader’s image is omnipresent. His every word is treated as law, and his every decision is praised as a stroke of genius. Even when harvests fail and factories shut down, the propaganda machine packages failure as a “great victory.”

This propaganda not only glorifies the leader but also distorts reality. The masses are deprived of access to truth and must rely solely on the official “truth.” Over time, they come to believe the leader truly “knows astronomy above and geography below,” even to the point that slaughtering pigs requires his “guidance.” During Stalin’s era, Lysenko’s pseudoscience was able to run rampant precisely because the propaganda machine lauded his absurd theories as “revolutionary breakthroughs.” Such lies thickened the fog of power worship until the entire society was lost within it.

IV. Human Conformity and Escapism

The roots of power worship lie not only in institutions but also in human nature. Totalitarian systems exploit people’s herd mentality and tendency to evade responsibility. In times of uncertainty and fear, many prefer to entrust their fate to an “omnipotent leader” rather than bear the consequences of their own choices. The leader’s “guidance” appears to provide certainty in life, even if that certainty is false. The masses chant slogans and wave flags not only for survival but also to escape the burden of thinking.

Furthermore, totalitarian regimes exploit humanity’s yearning for “greatness.” The leader is shaped as the embodiment of the nation, the helmsman of history, making people feel they are participating in a “grand narrative.” This collective frenzy conceals the individual’s sense of powerlessness, leading people to mistakenly believe that in worshiping the leader, they too are partaking in his “divinity.” Yet this frenzy is only an illusion—once power collapses, the masses realize they were nothing more than props on the stage.

V. Historical Inertia

Another root of power worship lies in historical inertia. Totalitarian regimes often do not start from scratch but inherit old autocratic traditions. Whether it was the czar’s dictatorship or the myth of the emperor’s divinity, both provided templates for modern totalitarianism. Stalin’s Soviet Union merely replaced the czar’s scepter with the red flag, but the logic remained “one man decides it all.” In such historical soil, power worship is almost inevitable, for people have long been accustomed to venerating “strongmen.”

Ultimately, the roots of power worship lie in the abandonment of freedom and reason. Totalitarian systems weave a vast net with concentration, fear, lies, and human weakness, ensnaring the whole of society. To break this worship, we must return to reason and freedom: disperse power so that institutions constrain individuals rather than individuals standing above institutions; encourage questioning so that truth replaces lies; respect the individual so that each person may think freely rather than blindly follow the “leader.”

作者：王乔

编辑：张致君   责任编辑：李聪玲   翻译：程铭

我来自中国山东的一个沿海城市。2000年，经人介绍我认识了我现在的丈夫，我们彼此深爱，相伴走过两年后，于2003年结婚，2004年迎来了我们的第一个孩子——一个可爱的儿子。我们夫妻俩都非常喜欢孩子，看着儿子一天天长大，内心满是喜悦和满足。我们曾多么希望能拥有更多的孩子，给他一个兄弟姐妹，也让我们的家庭更加完整和幸福。

然而，中国的计划生育政策却强硬地割裂了我们的愿望。在那样的时代背景下，我们没有选择的余地。2008年，我被迫接受了节育措施，放置了节育器。这并非出于自愿，而是制度的强制与控制。

命运似乎给了我们一次意外的惊喜。2014年12月16日，我发现自己似乎怀孕了，验孕结果为阳性。第二天，我赶去医院做B超，检查结果显示已经怀孕六周。医生告诉我，节育器已经意外脱落到了宫颈口。我难以形容当时内心的激动和喜悦——这是一个来之不易的生命，是一个奇迹。

我和丈夫商量后，决定无论如何都要把这个孩子生下来。我们甚至打算逃离城市，躲到偏远地区去避开检查。然而，我们还来不及行动，就被街道办事处和村里的妇女主任找上门。他们表示接到举报，说我怀了“二胎”，必须立即堕胎。他们称这是“国家政策”，必须执行，拒绝任何协商。

我苦苦哀求，表示愿意缴纳罚款或接受其他处罚，只求留下孩子。但他们没有丝毫人情可讲，反复强调“这是国家政策，你必须配合。”随后几人强行将我从家中带走，拽上车，将我拉到了医院，我请求打电话给丈夫，也被拒绝。在没有我的同意、没有任何法律程序的情况下，我被按在手术台上注射了麻药，就这样我的孩子被他们无情的剥夺了生命。

更荒谬的是，几天后，我回到工作的单位，但是单位的领导说我因为“违反计划生育政策”，即使已经堕胎，依然要被辞退，理由是“没有主动上报怀孕信息，态度恶劣”。2015年1月8日，我无奈办理了失业登记，只为能够领取一点失业补助金来维持生活。

这就是我作为一个普通中国女性，被计划生育政策无情践踏的亲身经历。

当我后来来到美国，看到这里的家庭可以自由选择是否要孩子、生几个孩子，不会被政府强制剥夺做母亲的权利，我内心充满感慨。在这里，生育是一项基本人权，而不是被国家随意剥夺的工具。

回顾我的经历，我越来越清楚地意识到，所谓的“计划生育政策”并不是为了人民的福祉，而是一个典型的国家权力干预个人身体与家庭自由的极端表现。这项政策对数以百万计的中国家庭造成了不可逆的伤害，许多女性被强制堕胎、结扎甚至终生失去了生育能力。而所有的痛苦，至今从未有人为我们承担责任、作出道歉。

我对这项政策充满不满与愤怒。一个国家如果连最基本的生育自由都无法保障，又如何谈人权？如何谈法治？

这段经历永远地改变了我，它不仅夺走了我未出生的孩子，也击碎了我对祖国的信任。

今天，我愿意将这段经历写出来，不是为了博取同情，而是希望世界听见那些曾经被迫沉默的声音。

Children taken away by family planning: the personal experience and complaint of a Chinese mother

Abstract: A Shandong woman talked about her personal experience of forced abortion and unemployment due to family planning, revealing the serious harm of the policy to the family and human rights.

Author: Wang Qiao

Editor: Zhang Zhijun   Responsible Editor: Li Congling   Translator: Cheng Ming

I come from a coastal city in Shandong Province. In 2000, I was introduced to my current husband. We loved each other deeply. After two years of companionship, we got married in 2003 and had our first child in 2004 – a lovely son. My husband and I both like children very much. Watching our son grow up day by day, our hearts are full of joy and satisfaction. How we wished to have more children, give him a brother or sister, and make our family more complete and happier.

However, China’s family planning policy has hardened our aspirations. In such an era, we have no choice. In 2008, I was forced to accept the birth control measures and placed a birth control device. This is not voluntary, but institutional coercion and control.

Fate seems to have given us an unexpected surprise. On December 16, 2014, I found that I seemed to be pregnant, and the pregnancy test result was positive. The next day, I rushed to the hospital for a B-ultrasound, and the examination results showed that I was six weeks pregnant. The doctor told me that the birth control device had accidentally fallen off to the cervix. It’s hard for me to describe the excitement and joy in my heart at that time – it was a hard-won life and a miracle.

After discussing with my husband, I decided to give birth to this child no matter what. We even plan to escape from the city and hide in remote areas to avoid inspection. However, before we could act, we were visited by the street office and the women’s director of the village. They said that they received a report that I was pregnant with a “second child” and had to have an abortion immediately. They called it a “national policy” that must be implemented and refused any consultation.

I begged bitterly, expressing my willingness to pay a fine or accept other punishments, and only asked to keep the child. But they didn’t have the slightest kindness to say, repeatedly emphasizing that “this is a national policy, and you must cooperate.” Then several people forcibly took me away from home, dragged me into the car, and dragged me to the hospital. I asked to call my husband, but I was also refused. Without my consent and without any legal procedures, I was pressed on the operating table and injected with anesthetic, and my child was ruthlessly deprived of his life by them.

What’s more absurd is that a few days later, I returned to my work unit, but the leader of the unit said that I would still be dismissed for “violating the family planning policy” and even if I had an abortion, on the grounds that I did not take the initiative to report pregnancy information and had a bad attitude”. On January 8, 2015, I had no choice but to register as unemployed, just to receive a little unemployment benefit to make a living.

This is my personal experience as an ordinary Chinese woman who was ruthlessly trampled on by the family planning policy.

When I came to the United States later, I was full of emotion when I saw that families here were free to choose whether to have children and how many children, they would not be forcibly deprived of the right to be mothers by the government. Here, fertility is a basic human right, not a tool that is arbitrarily deprived by the state.

Looking back on my experience, I am more and more aware that the so-called “family planning policy” is not for the well-being of the people, but an extreme manifestation of a typical state power interference in the freedom of the individual body and family. This policy has caused irreversible harm to millions of Chinese families, and many women have been forced to have abortions, ligations and even lost their fertility for life. And for all the pain, no one has ever taken responsibility and apologized for us.

I am full of dissatisfaction and anger about this policy. If a country can’t guarantee even the most basic reproductive freedom, how can it talk about human rights? How to talk about the rule of law?

This experience changed me forever. It not only took away my unborn child but also broke my trust in the motherland.

Today, I am willing to write about this experience, not to gain sympathy, but to hope that the world can hear those voices that were once forced to remain silent.