Author: Wang Qiao Editor: Wang Mengmeng Executive Editor: Hu Lili Translator: Lyu Feng
Abstract: This article exposes the trauma inflicted on women under China’s family planning policy—forced abortions, sterilizations, and public humiliation. It calls for remembering the truth, respecting women, reflecting on institutional harm, and safeguarding basic human rights.
For most women in the world, this is their own choice. But under China’s decades-long family planning policy, that choice was often answered by the state on their behalf. Since the full implementation of the policy in 1980, countless women’s lives were quietly rewritten. Some changes were covert and silent—their bodies were forcibly implanted with intrauterine devices. Others were violent and cruel—they were dragged onto operating tables and forced to undergo abortions without informed consent, sometimes losing their fertility forever. These altered lives have never been systematically recorded, never received sincere apologies, and never been seriously reflected upon. I am one of them. I know there are many other women like me, who silently endure both physical and spiritual trauma. Today, I am willing to write this piece, for myself and for them.
Choice Taken AwayFrom the late 20th century into the early 21st, China’s population was treated as a “controllable resource.” Curbing population growth was seen as a primary task of national development. And the ones who bore the cost were, above all, rural women and female workers in cities. In many places, birth control was regarded as a woman’s “duty”; contraceptive failure became her “fault.” A second or third child was no longer a family’s decision, but a violation of the law. Some women were forcibly sterilized; some were pulled onto operating tables while several months pregnant; some were fined, dismissed from jobs, or publicly shamed for “excess births.” This is not a distant legend, but a living reality, a wound buried deep in countless women’s hearts.
Policy Eases, Trauma RemainsIn 2015, China announced the full relaxation of the two-child policy, and some cheered: “We are finally free.” Yet for those mothers who had been forced to abort children, undergo surgeries, or lose jobs because of a “second child,” this so-called freedom came too late. The lives cut short cannot be restored; the families torn apart cannot be rebuilt; the bodies and dignity violated have never been accounted for. Policies may change, laws may be amended, but the debt of history and the pain in people’s hearts cannot simply be turned over like a page.
Life Must Be Remembered, Dignity Must RemainThose women who once struggled in pain but were forced into silence still live with the consequences: some became permanently infertile; some suffer severe psychological trauma; some were suppressed or even lost their freedom for petitioning in defense of their rights. They are not statistics, nor variables behind “control rates.” They are real people, with families, dreams, and destinies that should have belonged to them. They might have been teachers, mothers, or free women—but under the system, they were stripped of the right to decide their own lives.
Institutions Must Change, Women Must Be RespectedIn China today, the birth rate continues to fall, and “encouraging births” has replaced “controlling births.” Yet the irony is that now, when the state wants women to have children, many refuse. It is not because they do not love children, but because they no longer wish to be treated as instruments of policy. What they need is respect and protection, not another command. A truly modern society must regard women as independent persons, not as tools for national development.
Memory Lives On, Truth EnduresThis article is written for all the women who have endured forced abortions, sterilizations, job losses, and humiliation. You are not alone. Your suffering is real, and your resistance is meaningful. History may muffle voices, but it cannot erase truth. We remember, and we hope the world will remember too.
Author: Mao Yiwei Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Lyu Feng
Abstract: Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s talk of “immortality” is not about science but a symbol of power inflation. Both dictators disregard the welfare of their people to extend personal rule. Only institutional checks and civic awakening can safeguard freedom and justice.
Recently, a hot-mic recording drew international attention. Putin spoke of organ transplants and biotechnology, claiming that “humans can become increasingly youthful,” even “immortal.” Xi Jinping responded: “In this century, humans may live to 150.” On the surface, it sounded like a scientific discussion. But on closer analysis, it was a raw display of power, exposing the obsession of the Chinese Communist Party and Russia’s autocrats with perpetuating their personal rule.
Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are quintessential dictators. Xi removed term limits for China’s top leadership, concentrating power at the apex. Putin has controlled Russia for over two decades, weakening democracy through political repression and media control. Their systems differ, but the essence is the same: power above all, people without rights. The talk of “immortality” is not a scientific ideal but the absurd fantasy of dictators wishing to prolong life in order to prolong power.
Under CCP rule, Chinese citizens are tightly controlled, free expression is suppressed, dissidents are persecuted, and ordinary lives are stripped of dignity. Xi’s musings on living to 150 are not about the well-being of the people but a manifestation of his inflated sense of personal power. Ordinary citizens struggle under the heavy burdens of education, healthcare, housing, and social injustice, yet see no concern from their leader. This is the cruelty of dictatorship: rulers care only about themselves, while the people remain perpetual sacrifices.
Putin’s Russia is no different. Having remained in power for decades, he manipulates politics and the law to extend his rule, while restricting media freedom and crushing opposition, stripping citizens of the basic right to participate in politics. The so-called dialogue between the two men was not scientific exploration but a symbol of their power-mad delusion—technology transformed into a tool for perpetuating rule, while the fate of ordinary people is utterly ignored.
Behind this fantasy lies deep institutional corruption and systemic imbalance. With power concentrated without limit, law reduced to a façade, and social resources monopolized by a few, Xi and Putin’s talk of “longevity” is nothing but a technological mirage masking the essence of dictatorship. They disregard justice and public welfare; their sole concern is the extension of power. Dictatorship never serves the people’s interest—it is always the extension of the interests of the few. The CCP’s authoritarianism not only harms China but threatens the world. Xi’s dream of “immortality” symbolizes his ambition for eternal power. Ordinary people cannot rely on fantasies to change their fate; they must rely on institutions, public opinion, and civic action to check dictatorship. Technology will not make dictators benevolent—it only makes them more dangerous and reckless.
The hot-mic incident with Xi and Putin reminds us: the absurdity of dictatorship lies not in science itself, but in the logic of power. What citizens truly need is freedom, rule of law, and social justice—not the dictator’s dream of eternal life. Dictators forever ignore ordinary people’s rights; their so-called immortality is nothing more than a tool to perpetuate rule and consolidate power.
We cannot remain silent. The essence of the CCP and other authoritarian regimes must be exposed. Power must always be constrained, institutions must balance individuals, and citizens must dare to speak. The dictator’s fantasies must never override the people. Civic awakening is the fundamental force that safeguards freedom and resists tyranny. The CCP dictatorship has already exacted a heavy toll on Chinese society: restricted speech, loss of fairness, and deprivation of citizens’ freedoms. Xi’s “immortality fantasy” is but a symbol of power inflation and a stark warning of dictatorship’s dangers. The world must clearly see: dictatorship will not become benevolent with technology—it will only intensify oppression, exploitation, and control. Only institutional checks and civic awakening can make freedom, justice, and power restraint a reality, rather than leaving them trampled at the whim of a few.
The Demise of Hong Kong’s Opposition: The End of “One Country, Two Systems”
Author: Yiwei Mao Editor: Hu Lili Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator:He XingQiang
By 2025, there is no longer a genuine opposition in Hong Kong. The Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the League of Social Democrats—names that once symbolized hope and resistance—have all vanished. Figures such as Martin Lee and Leung Kwok-hung are either imprisoned or silenced. Hong Kong society, once a place where debate and dissent were possible, has collapsed into a monologue.
This was no accident, but the result of the Chinese Communist Party’s calculated, step-by-step strategy. From the very beginning, “One Country, Two Systems” was a fraud. The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, however eloquently worded, was nothing more than an empty promise from Beijing. Its purpose was never to honor commitments but to pacify Hongkongers and deceive the international community to ensure a smooth takeover. Once power was secured, promises could be torn up at will.
Looking back at the past two decades, it has unfolded like a pre-written script. In 2003, Article 23 legislation was introduced to test society’s bottom line. The Umbrella Movement in 2014 convinced Beijing that tolerance was no longer an option. By the time the 2019 Anti-Extradition Movement erupted, the mask was discarded, and the National Security Law smothered Hong Kong completely. From that moment, the countdown to freedom began.
What the Communist Party fears most is not economic crisis or international criticism—it is freedom. Freedom means people dare to question, to monitor, to hold power accountable. Hong Kong once had independent courts, outspoken media, and opposition parties in its legislature. But to a dictatorship, these are intolerable threats. What it wants is not a free Hong Kong, but a compliant Hong Kong.
And so we have witnessed: courts degraded into political tools, media outlets shuttered one after another, Apple Daily wiped out overnight. The electoral system was completely remade, leaving only the farce of “patriots ruling Hong Kong.” Opposition figures were jailed or forced into exile, stripped even of the chance to say “no.” Hong Kong ceased to be Hong Kong and became just another Chinese city.
Some say “One Country, Two Systems has failed.” But in truth, it never failed—because the CCP never intended it to succeed. Dictatorship is in its very bones. Its rule is not based on trust but on lies and fear. It cannot tolerate the existence of a free system. The so-called “fifty years unchanged” was a lie from the start. Today, it betrays Hong Kong; tomorrow, it can betray Taiwan; the day after, any agreement it signs. Faithlessness is its essence.
This upheaval sounds a warning to the world: stop harboring illusions about the CCP. It treats international treaties as scrap paper and promises as jokes. It says one thing and does another, relying not on credibility but on naked violence. Whoever continues to believe in it is doomed to repeat Hong Kong’s tragedy.
Yet I still believe Hong Kong’s spirit cannot be erased. Though the streets are silent and political parties dissolved, Hongkongers abroad continue to speak out, and many still remember those years of struggle. Dictatorship can impose silence on the surface, but it cannot extinguish the human yearning for freedom. As long as memory endures, hope remains alive.
Today, “One Country, Two Systems” is gone, leaving only “One Country, One System.” This is not the failure of Hongkongers, but the self-exposure of CCP dictatorship. It has torn up its own promises and, in doing so, proved its dishonesty. The disappearance of Hong Kong’s opposition is both the funeral of One Country, Two Systems and the most powerful evidence of the CCP’s lies. The destruction of promises and trampling of freedoms is plain for all to see. Silence only fuels tyranny. If the world continues to compromise, Hong Kong’s tragedy will be repeated again and again.
Freedom Has No Borders: Chinese Volunteers’ Testimonies from the Ukrainian Frontline
Author: Hu Lili Photography: Guan Yongjie, Yuan Qiang, He Yicheng
Editor: Luo Zhifei
Translator:He XingQiang
Abstract: On August 29, 2025, the Wen Dao Book Club invited two volunteers to share their personal experiences on the Ukrainian battlefield. They were Edwin, serving in the Ukrainian Marine Corps, and Atticus Freeman, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party.
On August 29, 2025, the Wen Dao Book Club hosted a special event, inviting two volunteers from Hong Kong and mainland China to share their firsthand experiences on the Ukrainian battlefield. They were Edwin, a Hong Kong native serving in the Ukrainian Marine Corps (joining online), and Atticus Freeman, a member of the Ukrainian International Legion and the Chinese Democracy Party (sharing on-site).
At the event, Freeman solemnly displayed a flag he had brought back from the frontlines. He spoke about the current state of Ukraine, the resilience of its people, and the brutality of the war. He emphasized the crucial role of drones in modern warfare, which was precisely his task at the front. Having just returned from the smoke-filled battlefield a few days prior, he still carried the aura of the frontline, sharing the tension of life-and-death struggles. He admitted that he would soon return to Ukraine to continue supporting drone operations, fulfilling his commitment to freedom and justice through action.
Freeman also spoke about his tattoos. The symbols and words etched into his skin were not mere decorations, but the imprints of his lifelong beliefs. They embodied his yearning for freedom and democracy, as well as his defiance against tyranny and despotism. Each tattoo, he said, reminded him that freedom is hard-won and must be defended through action. Just as his choice to fight in Ukraine, his tattoos are silent cries and uncompromising declarations.
Through live video, Edwin shared his combat experiences on the Ukrainian frontlines. He recalled the cruelty of battle: bullets flying, comrades wounded and killed, scenes that were seared into memory. Yet, he also conveyed confidence in victory and a deep longing for freedom. He explained that his decision to fight was for the freedom of Hong Kong, for the hope that the next generation of Hong Kongers could regain liberty, and for all people worldwide resisting tyranny. He openly condemned authoritarian regimes and denounced the Chinese Communist Party’s support for Russia’s invasion. Former Radio Free Asia journalist Sun Cheng attended the event as stenographer and translator, helping participants better understand Edwin’s words.
The life stories of the two speakers reflected a common path—from resistance to the battlefield:
Edwin: A Hong Kong native, he participated in the Umbrella Movement and the Anti-Extradition Movement. In 2019, he left Hong Kong for the UK. In 2023, he joined the Ukrainian Marine Corps and rose to the rank of officer. In 2024, he joined the Chinese Democracy Party while in Ukraine.
Atticus Freeman: Born in 1985 in a Xibe ethnic village in Liaoning Province. In 2003, he was admitted to Peking University, where he wrote novels criticizing the education system. He dropped out in 2007 and traveled across Xinjiang, Tibet, and Yunnan while continuing to write. From 2008 to 2019, he worked as a book editor, publishing works including Southward Journey, Northward Return. From 2020 to 2024, he worked at Apple Inc., relocating from Shanghai to California. In 2023, he applied to join the U.S. Navy, and after gaining U.S. citizenship in 2024, he enlisted in the Ukrainian International Legion, fighting on the frontlines. By September that year, he officially entered Ukrainian military units. He is now dedicated to helping Chinese enlist and providing training.
These are the extraordinary journeys of two ordinary Chinese individuals. From the protests in the streets of Hong Kong to the smoke of the Ukrainian battlefield, they have honored their commitment to freedom and justice through action. Whether it is Edwin holding fast to his beliefs under gunfire, or Freeman supporting the frontlines with drones, they are both telling the world: Freedom has no borders—it is worth the courage and action of all who yearn for it.
On the Future of Chinese Democracy: A Detailed Explanation of the “Five-People Constitution” – Part 8
Article 6 of the Constitution: Safeguarding the Integrity of National Territory
Author: He Qingfeng
Editor: Cheng Ming Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei
Translator:He XingQiang
Abstract: The Five-People Constitution defines national territory as “inherent domain,” not a commodity that can be arbitrarily divided or surrendered. The nation’s territory is an inheritance of history and reality, carrying the cultivation, culture, and survival memory of countless generations. Moreover, the Constitution distinguishes territory into “private” and “public” ownership, which aligns closely with its broader emphasis on citizens’ rights and pluralistic governance.
Introduction
As the fundamental law of the state, the Constitution embodies the underlying system of thought and governance logic. Article 6 prescribes the nature, scope, and ownership of the nation’s territory. This clause provides the fundamental guarantee for the state’s survival and sovereignty. Without a clear territorial concept, the state cannot effectively safeguard the citizens’ living space; without a rational territorial system, sovereignty would eventually be lost, and territory might become a bargaining chip for politicians. Thus, this article is an essential legal foundation for national territory.
I. The Sanctity and Inviolability of Territory
The article opens: “The territory of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is inherent domain, the homeland upon which all citizens depend for survival. Unless passed by a special resolution of the National Legislature, no reduction of territory shall be permitted.”
This statement has two key implications:
Territory is “inherent domain,” not a tradable commodity that can be arbitrarily divided or surrendered. The nation’s boundaries are rooted in history and reality, carrying the toil, culture, and survival memory of generations. By defining territory as “inherent,” it means that land is not the private property of any administration but the shared homeland of all citizens.
Any reduction of territory requires a “special resolution.” Unlike ordinary bills, a special resolution has higher thresholds and stricter procedures, including approval by the National Legislature and a referendum. This reflects the Constitution as a social contract among all citizens, making the integrity of territory a shared responsibility and right, thereby preventing concessions or cessions caused by government officials’ diplomatic compromises or private interests.
II. The Procedure and Significance of Territorial Expansion
The article further states: “Any addition of national territory must be approved by a major resolution of the National Legislature.”
Here lies a parallel logic: reduction requires a “special resolution,” while expansion requires a “major resolution.”
Territory is not static but may expand through historical development, national will, international cooperation, or even cosmic exploration. Therefore, the Constitution allows for expansion to meet future needs.
Why is expansion subject to a “major resolution” rather than a “special resolution”? Because expansion usually benefits the nation, enhancing resources and security without undermining fundamental national interests. Nevertheless, legislative approval is required to prevent reckless expansion that could cause governance challenges or international conflict. The system emphasizes stability while preserving flexibility for future development.
III. Analysis of Paragraph 1: The Comprehensive Scope of Territory
Paragraph 1 enumerates national territory: “Including but not limited to land, rivers, lakes, grasslands, deserts, mountains, plateaus, sea areas, airspace, overseas territories, and extraterrestrial territories under the sovereign jurisdiction of the country.”
This provision reflects three aspects:
Comprehensiveness: From traditional domains such as land and rivers to modern domains like airspace and seas, virtually all geographic spaces are included, preventing ambiguities and offering reference for future legislation.
Foresight: The mention of “overseas territories and extraterrestrial territories” anticipates future issues of space exploration and sovereignty beyond Earth, projecting vision toward interstellar civilization.
Core of Sovereignty: The key lies in “any region under the sovereign jurisdiction of the country.” Territory is not defined by geography alone but by the exercise of sovereignty. Land without sovereignty, though physically possessed, is not true territory; land with sovereignty, even beyond Earth, is legitimate national domain.
IV. Analysis of Paragraph 2: Types of Territorial Ownership
Paragraph 2 provides: “The territory of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is divided into private and public ownership. Private ownership may be held only by natural persons or private legal persons, while public ownership may be held only by public legal persons.”
This is a distinctive innovation of the Five-People Constitution. Traditional constitutions bind “territory” directly to “the state,” seldom diversifying territorial ownership. By dividing territory into “private” and “public,” the Constitution aligns with its overall emphasis on citizens’ rights and pluralistic governance.
Private Territory: Refers to land or property lawfully acquired by natural persons or private legal entities. This not only acknowledges private property rights but elevates them to the status of “territorial rights.” Such rights embody the principle that “the state belongs to its citizens, and citizens establish the state.” Thus, national territory is naturally also citizens’ territory.
Public Territory: Given the vastness of the nation, lands not privately owned or belonging to public institutions are designated as public territory. This clarifies ownership boundaries, regulates management, and balances public interests with individual rights.
V. Analysis of Paragraph 3: Legislative Authorization and Flexibility
Paragraph 3 states: “The acquisition of territorial ownership by natural persons, private legal persons, or public legal persons shall be determined by separate legislation enacted by the National Legislature under this Constitution.”
This serves two functions:
Principled Role of the Constitution: It outlines the basic framework without delving into details, preventing rigidity or excessive complexity.
Institutional Flexibility: As society evolves, with changes in economy and technology, the nature and forms of territory may shift (e.g., the development of outer space or oceans). As a vast federal state with diverse regions, flexible legislation is necessary to adapt dynamically.
VI. The Link Between History and Reality
Article 6 of the Five-People Constitution is not only a legal prescription but also a lesson from history. In modern times, China suffered humiliation from territorial concessions and indemnities. The scars of lost territory remain deep in the national memory. Thus, the article’s emphasis on “no reduction” and strict procedures ensures institutional protection against repeating past tragedies.
At the same time, the world is entering a new era of technological revolution and geopolitical competition. Maritime rights, polar passages, and space resources are becoming new focal points of struggle. By explicitly recognizing “extraterrestrial territories,” the Constitution positions the state strategically and legally in the reconfiguration of the future global order.
VII. Conclusion
Article 6 of the Constitution defines more than geographical boundaries; it embodies the dignity of national existence and the trajectory of future expansion. National territory is both the legacy of ancestors and the foundation for future generations; it is both material land and the spiritual boundary of the nation. Only by safeguarding this territory can the people truly realize the ideals of freedom, democracy, equality, and harmony.
— He Qingfeng, Founder of the “Five-People Principle” and Author of the “Five-People Constitution,” a man of integrity and upright character.
Abstract: Totalitarian rule is shackled by scarcity, and hunger is subject to obedience; but when the people are fed, they pursue freedom, fairness and rights, which poses the greatest risk to the regime.
Author: Huayan (Mainland China)
Editor: Li Congling Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator：Ming Cheng
“Eating enough is the biggest political risk”, this is not a joke, but the hidden logical truth under the totalitarian system. It reveals a cruel reality: when the people are full, the foundation of totalitarian rule begins to shake.
The totalitarian system relies on the overall control of social resources and the strict control of individual thoughts. People in a state of hunger or poverty are more likely to be driven by the pressure of survival and obey authority in exchange for basic survival guarantees. This “lack of politics” enables totalitarian regimes to consolidate power and strengthen dependence by allocating scarce resources. The politic rulers are well aware of this: hunger is the best shackle, and poverty is the best tool for domination. Imagine, in a society where even bread is scarce, what will people live for? For that life-saving grain, for that meager hope. And this hope is the chip in the hands of the ruler. They use rationing, privilege and fear in exchange for people’s obedience. What the totalitarian power needs is a society that is always scarce, because the lack makes the people bow down and the resistance can’t sprout.
However, once the basic needs of survival are met, according to Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, people will turn to higher needs, such as safety, sense of belonging, respect, and even self-realization. These needs are often accompanied by the desire for freedom, fairness and personal rights. The people who were full began to look up, think and question. They are no longer satisfied with the food and clothing of being fed but yearn for free air and fair sky. And these demands conflict with the core of the totalitarian system – suppressing dissis and unifying ideas, which is the biggest political risk of the totopolitism. Because an awakened people can’t be locked by any iron fist.
In the face of this risk, totalitarian rulers never sit by and wait for death. They designed a set of countermeasures: create man-made scarcity, maintain the people’s survival pressure by controlling the allocation of resources, and limit their space to pursue higher-level needs; at the same time, strengthen thought control, propaganda machines run day and night, strengthen the monopoly of thought, and censorship is ubiquitous, trying to make people believe that totalitarianism is the only Redemption; in addition, they will also divert contradictions, concoct external enemies, use external threats to incite nationalism, divert people’s attention from internal problems, and make people turn their anger into fictional threats rather than real oppressors.
“Eating well is the biggest political risk” reveals a paradox of the totalitarian system: economic development is an important source of legitimacy for the regime, but it may also shake its control. The logic of the totalitarian system is to suppress the rising level of people’s demand by controlling resources and ideas. Once food and clothing are settled, the awakening of the people and the potential for resistance will increase, forcing the totalitarian regime to seek a balance between opening up and high pressure. However, this balance is often fragile. In the long run, the system that suppresses human needs is difficult to be sustainable and stable.
The real power lies not in controlling resources and fear, but in the ability to respond to the reasonable needs of the people. Only when food and clothing become the norm, thoughts can breathe, and people begin to think independently, can the country become benign. The seemingly powerful totalitarian rule, if it is still maintained by the people’s lack of food, will eventually be unsustainable and doomed to decline.
The upper limit of reform and the lower limit of opening up
Author: Tuo Xianrun
Editor: Zhou Zhigang Responsible Editor Hu Lili
Abstract: The path of China’s “reform and opening up” for more than 40 years is “opening up first, reform later”. The economy has always served power; the crisis is not driving institutional breakthroughs, but external bargaining and internal tightening. The core logic is growth is important, but the security of the regime is a priority.
Most of our generation of thirty-eight-nine-year-olds grew up in the “growth myth” and KPI language and are used to explaining all the turns with the curve of economics. But to understand the past 40 years, you must first correct the order: first open up, then reform; open outward, reform inward. Opening up is a diplomatic chip, which is used to change technology, market and time; reform is the repair of rule, which is used to bring back order and redistribute resources. Economy is just a wrench, not a steering wheel. Power is the hand that won’t let go.
Many people believe that “the economic crisis has forced reform”. This is nice to hear, and it can also comfort the self-esteem of the market faction: as long as the growth declines, the policy will turn around. But looking back, it’s just the opposite. The starting point of “opening up” to the outside world in the 1960s and 1970s was not compassion or market consensus, but security anxiety. Only by turning the face of China and the Soviet Union and pressing the border to the top, there is a window for reconciliation with the United States and attracting investment. Opening up is not to make up the pockets of the common people, but to make up for the shortcomings of the national machinery, make up for the equipment of the stuck neck, and win time on your side. “Reform” does not need to be rooted. What is really touched is always the non-lifeblood zone: if you can release it to the market, put a little, release it and recycle it at any time; what can’t be released – military industry, energy, financial hub, information valve – don’t give up an inch. The “dual-track system” in the 1980s tied the plan to the market. The result was not automatic arrival but bumps all the way. In 1988, the price breakthrough almost overturned the economy. You can say that it is the “cost of reform”, but it is more like an internal stress test: whichever step it is put, it will trigger systemic instability, and if it is triggered, it will turn back. The economy here is not a goal, but a table. The needle of the watch shook too much, so I screwed it back. The same is true for the “extroverted rationality” in the 1990s. Every year, we talk about most-favored-nation treatment with the United States, which is about time and space – using kindness, posture, and limited release in exchange for an annual pass. It was not until he joined the WTO that the chips were pushed up at once. Many people interpret the accession to the WK as “reverse domestic reform”, but the real implementation logic is getting the 15-year window of high-speed development first, as for the promise, drag it if you can, and patch it if you can patch it. Opening up has always been one-way: I want your technology, I want your order, I want your capital, but my barriers, my port, my red line, still belong to me.
The script after 2008 is more straightforward. Four trillion yuan is not to support private foreign trade with broken cash flow, but to feed the “visible” iron rooster and large enterprises. Private enterprises are like incubators, which do not stop laying eggs; state-owned enterprises are like incubators, concentrating energy in a controllable place. The reason is very simple: when there is a conflict between the economy and stability, the power should be stabilized first. The power supply of a streetlamp company cannot be fully marketize, because the “power off” button symbolizes political risk. Not to mention finance and data, even “who can speak out and how to speak out” needs to be managed. The boundary is not written in the law, but in the “risk narrative” – anything that can be interpreted as organizational risk does not belong to the market. That’s why whenever private capital tries to self-organize, tries to build a system, and tries to turn the “entrepreneur community” into a public issue, the red light will come on. It’s not that you don’t do it well enough, but that you do it too much like the institutional requirements. Universities, foundations, industry autonomy, and cross-regional professional qualifications – anything that can produce an independent order will be classified as “suspicious power substitution”. This is not a problem of economics, but a problem of political science: the source of order must be unique. Put this main line back to the historical coordinates, and you will no longer expect “the crisis drives the inflection point of goodwill”. The crisis will only promote two actions: one is to bargain more radically externally to fight for respite; the other is to make more resolute structural recovery internally to ensure that key valves are not in the hands of others. The market and the rule of law will only be expanded when it does not threaten the valve. Once it touches the line, it will be retracted. The core mechanism of the so-called “Chinese-style modernization” is the “border of growth”: when the boundary is there, growth exists; when the boundary is touched, growth gives way. This does not mean that growth is not important. On the contrary, growth is the basis of the narrative of legitimacy and the KPI of “performance politics”. Investment, land prices, exports, industrial iteration, these indicators have become the account list of “dominant accounting”. If you can hand in your grades on the table, you can get security in politics. But when “performance” and “safety” conflict, there is no suspense in multiple-choice questions. So, we see the cycle of “release first and then collect”: release is to bring up the economy; collect is to ensure that the reins are in hand.
For our generation, the real understanding that needs to be updated is don’t use economic logic to make political choices. You can use the cash flow model to estimate the enterprise and the demand curve to look at the industry, but do not use it to predict “when to turn”. The shift is never determined by the ratio of GDP, but by the thermometer of “risk perception”. Today’s external pressure will bring some short-term posture adjustments and some technical “open rhetoric”, but this does not mean that the boundaries have been rewritten. The writer of the boundary only recognizes one: The security of the regime.
So, are we walking a familiar old road? If the “old road” refers to the path of “security as the platform, economy as the tool, openness to seek the time, and reform and government”, then the answer is eight or nine. The difference is that the outside world is more complex, and the domestic structure is larger; the same thing is that the steering wheel is held in the same hand. Only by understanding this point can we know which expectations should be lowered and which actions should be accelerated: doing business should look at boundaries, and doing public issues should look at risk narrative; instead of giving hope to “turning”, it’s better toLeave the preparation to “normal”. This is not cynicism, but the sobriety of adults. Our generation should at least regard sobriety as a basic literacy.
