写给春天
Written for Spring
你浅笑微蹙
抖落一身枯枝残雪
奔涌不息的青藏高原
徐徐而来溯寒而上
千年的冰川 颤慄
给你最滚烫激烈的拥抱
你嫩芽炸出
就那么一抹
无星无月的冬夜厚黑
朝阳爆燃 残雪染血
你的灵魂溯溪而上
不死鸟鸣翠 万物雀跃
你这精灵啊 我的女神
怎样欢呼你
怎样颂唱你
压抑了千年的嗓子
冲破四野的铁壁
如婴儿啼响
昭告世界
为此
守候了千年
积蓄了千年
孕育了千年
背负千年的黑暗
背负千年的死沉
只为
破冰而出
在春天
作者：漠北孤侠
編輯：Gloria Wang
责任编辑：罗志飞
翻译：程铭
Written for Spring
You smile faintly, brows gently arched,
Shaking off the dead branches, the lingering snow.
From the ever-surging Tibetan Plateau,
You arrive slowly, tracing upstream against the cold.
The millennial glacier trembles,
Giving you its fiercest, burning embrace.
Tender buds burst forth—
Just a single touch of green,
Breaking through the heavy, starless winter night.
The rising sun ignites,
Melting snow stained crimson.
Your spirit climbs the streams,
Phoenix-song echoes, life rejoices.
You, the spirit, my goddess—
How shall I hail you?
How shall I sing of you?
A voice, suppressed for a thousand years,
Breaks through the iron walls of the earth.
Like an infant’s first cry,
Proclaiming to the world—
For this,
I have waited a thousand years,
Gathered strength a thousand years,
Conceived a thousand years,
Carried the darkness of a thousand years,
Borne the dead weight of a thousand years—
Only to
Break the ice,
And rise in spring.
Author: Mobei Guxia
Editor: Gloria Wang
Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei
Thranslator: Ming Cheng
改革开放四十年：一条从未改变的旧路
作者：陀先润
编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞
中秋将至, 我想先澄清一个长期存在的误区：习近平并没有“开倒车”。外界流传的所谓“改革开放倒退论”，其实是对中共历史认知的误解。事实是：中国共产党从未真正改变过行进的轨道。从毛泽东到邓小平，从江泽民到胡锦涛，再到习近平，路线始终如一，只不过演绎方式不同。
很多人以为邓小平开启了改革开放，中国才走上了新的道路。实际上，这不过是一场精心设计的“画皮”。共产党并未放弃极权体制，只是在经济层面做出有限让步，以换取生存空间。所谓“政治改革会随着经济改革推进”的说法，是党内三十多年对内对外的宣传话术。西方上当了，中国知识分子也上当了。
真正有心推动政治体制改革的领导人，屈指可数。胡耀邦、万里短暂提出过探索，但很快被压制。此后，无论是江泽民的“三个代表”，还是胡温时代的“四万亿”，本质上都是为了强化党的统治，而非制度转型。
习近平因修宪取消任期限制，被指“开倒车”。但我们回顾历史，毛泽东终身执政，邓小平虽无正式头衔，却垂帘听政十五年。江泽民更是从1994年至2012年实际掌握最高权力。相比之下，习近平只是撕下了虚伪的遮羞布，把前任们的伪装公开化而已。
许多人怀念江泽民的“开放”、胡锦涛的“温和”，甚至称朱镕基是“改革派”。但事实并不如此。朱镕基主导的高校扩招、医疗市场化、土地财政和三峡工程，造就了今天的教育贬值、看病难、房地产畸形发展等沉疴。胡锦涛、温家宝时代提出的“国进民退”，以及2008年4万亿刺激，直接让国企坐大，挤压民营经济。江泽民表面引入企业家入党，实则是把民营经济纳入统战体系，加强党对经济的全面掌控。他们的所谓“改革”，不是走向民主，而是维护权力的另一种手段。
习近平与前任的不同，不在于方向，而在于速度。他没有像江胡那样演戏，而是直截了当加速了体制的本质。过去那辆在旧轨道上行驶的大巴，本来还要二三十年才驶向悬崖；习近平拉开窗帘，踩下油门，让所有人更快看清车外的虚假风景与体制的真实面目。因此，说习近平“开倒车”并不准确。他并没有掉头，而是让中国共产党更快走向既定的结局。
四十多年来，中国并没有走过一条新路。所谓的“改革开放”，只是在旧轨道上伪装前行。政治清洗、思想高压、经济控制，从未停歇，只是形式不同。习近平的“独裁”，不过是前任们的延续与加速。他让人们看清了一个现实：中共从未开向过民主与自由的方向。
Forty Years of Reform and Opening Up: An Old Road That Never Changed
Author: Tuo Xianrun
Editor: Zhou Zhigang | Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei
Abstract: Xi Jinping has not been “reversing course.” The Chinese Communist Party’s political system has never changed. By using the deception that “political reform will follow economic reform,” China fooled the world into believing it was on a path toward democracy. The CCP even seeks to export communism globally by leveraging the economic influence it gained from this deception.
As the Mid-Autumn Festival approaches, I want to clarify a long-standing misconception: Xi Jinping has not “turned back the clock.” The popular notion of a “reversal of reform and opening up” is a misunderstanding of CCP history. The truth is this: the Chinese Communist Party has never truly deviated from its original trajectory. From Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping, from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao, and now to Xi Jinping, the path has always been the same—the difference lies only in performance style.
Many people believe Deng Xiaoping initiated reform and opening up, leading China onto a new road. In reality, this was nothing more than a carefully crafted façade. The CCP never abandoned its totalitarian system; it merely made limited concessions in the economic sphere in exchange for survival. The claim that “political reform will follow economic reform” was propaganda repeated for over three decades, both at home and abroad. The West fell for it, and so did many Chinese intellectuals.
The number of leaders who genuinely sought political reform can be counted on one hand. Hu Yaobang and Wan Li briefly explored it but were quickly suppressed. After that, whether it was Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” or Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao’s “Four Trillion Yuan Stimulus,” the essence was always to strengthen Party rule, not to initiate systemic transformation.
Xi Jinping’s constitutional amendment abolishing term limits has been called “backtracking.” But if we look at history: Mao Zedong ruled for life; Deng Xiaoping, though without formal titles, controlled power for fifteen years behind the scenes; Jiang Zemin effectively held supreme authority from 1994 to 2012. By comparison, Xi merely tore away the pretense, making public what his predecessors had disguised.
Many nostalgically recall Jiang Zemin’s “openness” or Hu Jintao’s “moderation,” and some even call Zhu Rongji a “reformer.” But in fact, Zhu’s policies of massive university enrollment expansion, medical marketization, land finance, and the Three Gorges Dam created today’s chronic problems: devalued education, unaffordable healthcare, and a distorted real estate sector. Hu and Wen’s policy of “the state advances as the private sector retreats,” coupled with the 2008 four-trillion stimulus, directly empowered state-owned enterprises while squeezing the private economy. Jiang Zemin’s move to allow entrepreneurs to join the Party was merely co-opting the private sector into the United Front system, tightening the CCP’s grip on the economy. Their so-called “reforms” never pointed toward democracy but were just alternative methods to maintain power.
The difference with Xi is not in direction, but in speed. Unlike Jiang or Hu, he did not bother with theatrics—he accelerated the system’s essence openly and directly. The bus traveling on the old track would have taken another twenty or thirty years to reach the cliff; Xi pulled open the curtain, slammed the accelerator, and made everyone see more clearly the false scenery outside and the system’s true nature. Therefore, saying Xi is “reversing course” is inaccurate. He has not turned around—he has simply hastened the CCP’s predetermined destination.
Over the past forty years, China has not taken a new road. What was called “reform and opening up” was merely a disguise while continuing down the old track. Political purges, ideological repression, and economic control never ceased; only their forms differed.
疫病未祛 体制之殇
作者：熊辩
编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：吕峰
三年前，一场突如其来的新冠肺炎疫情骤袭武汉，那些灰色影像仍历历在目：封城、口罩、“大白”穿梭忙碌的身影，随处可见的花圈、火葬场的滚滚浓烟、不绝于耳的哀乐和恸哭？的确，彼时的武汉像被死神张开的黑翼笼罩着，熟悉的街巷空荡如荒原，医院成了最拥挤、最令人绝望的地方：走廊里堆满病床与氧气瓶，呻吟声与呼吸机的嘶哑混合交织。有人晕倒在挂号窗前，有人在病房门口痛哭，求一张床位，却换来“已满”的冰冷回应。更令人心碎的是，120急救电话一直未能接通，“市长热线”始终占线，许多病人等不到确诊，等不到救治，在家中孤独倒下，人命成了数字，真相成了禁忌。恐惧之外，还有愤怒与压抑：一位疫情的“吹哨人”试图说出真相，却被训诫警告；一群穿着防护服的“白大褂”满大街抓捕突破疫情封控外出的市民；一本反映武汉真实疫情的“方方日记”被中共封杀；组组唱好不唱衰的新闻报道试图粉饰太平，蒙蔽一双双探求真相的眼睛。封城、封路、封楼、“封”嘴，人们被隔绝的不只是空间，还有人与人之间的信任与温情。
最令我刻骨铭心的，是疫情期间因医院刻板遵守防疫要求，加之医生并未给予孕妇这一特殊群体特别照顾及便利，妻子未得到及时治疗而不幸流产。这份失去，不仅是家庭的悲剧，更是制度冷酷的缩影。我原天真地以为这样的苦难能唤醒中共的反思，然而，最近在广东发生的基孔肯雅热疫情，却让我再次看到历史正在重演，顿生透骨的悲凉……
在湛江赤坎，当地街头涌现出大批穿着防护服的人群，那画面像极了当年武汉的恐慌与混乱。可怕的不仅是病毒，而是那熟悉的权力逻辑：第一反应不是信息公开，不是科学治理，而是用惊吓和管控制造秩序和“维稳”。
在珠海，有社区以“防控疫情”为由，强行把两位阿姨的生活家具装上卡车运走。面对撕心裂肺的阻拦，冷漠的执行者无动于衷。这与当年武汉疫情期间，许多家庭被强行拉走亲人的场景何其相似——一次又一次，人们的家园与尊严被粗暴践踏。
在佛山，政府更是演绎了一出荒唐闹剧。社区不去清理臭水沟和绿化带，却偏偏盯上居民家的花盆、鱼缸，甚至养狗的家庭。以“一刀切”的方式清理楼顶绿植和露台花草，逼迫居民搬走宠物。这种熟悉的“配方”，让人想起新冠疫情时，官方以防疫为由直接闯入民宅，把宠物强行带走处死的黑色记忆。如今，佛山的做法几乎是在拷贝当年的荒唐：该管的不管，不该管的乱管。
更令人震惊的是，广东部分地区甚至掀起了所谓的“强制抽血”活动，借疫情防控之名，肆意侵犯公民的身体权利。这样的“防控”，已完全偏离了公共卫生的科学原则，变成了赤裸裸的权力操练。
从武汉到广东，从新冠到基孔肯雅热，旧的伤口还未愈合，新的伤口又在开启。病毒在变，但体制的冷酷与荒谬却从未改变，对生命的漠视，远比病毒更加致命！
武汉疫情期间，我失去过孩子，也目睹过同胞在疫情中死于非命，让我更清楚地看到：在中共体制下，每一个家庭、每一条生命都随时可能被牺牲。今天的广东，再次证明，中国社会面临的最大“瘟疫”，并不是某一种病毒，而是专制和谎言。
公共卫生危机，本应是科学与人道的领域，但在极权体制下，却成了“维稳”机器的附庸，成为权力加码的借口。武汉的封控导致无数生命的消逝；而今天广东的病患，则可能在同样冷漠中经历痛苦的折磨！
悲剧在重演，历史在轮回！我愿将这些亲历和思考告诉每一位关心中国的人，一个国家若不允许真相公开，那么无论是新冠还是基孔肯雅热，又或是下次一场什么疫病，都会变成一次次对民众的摧残！人民的眼泪和鲜血一次次被抹去，但痛苦不会消失，它会积累、会传递，最终会告诉世界：这并非单纯的疾病悲剧，而是一个体制的殇！
2025年8月18日
The Unhealed Plague, the Wound of the System—A Historical Reenactment from Wuhan to Guangdong
Author: Xiong Bian Editor: Zhou Zhigang Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translation: Lyu Feng
Abstract:The lockdowns and deaths in Wuhan, the censorship and reprimands, already cost countless lives, yet Guangdong is still repeating the same farce: turning “prevention and control” into “stability maintenance,” trampling on human rights and dignity. The so-called “one-size-fits-all” approach, forced enforcement, and even compulsory blood draws that violate bodily rights are not only absurd but also cruel. What truly threatens Chinese society is not the virus itself but systemic indifference and the arrogance of power. Under such a regime, lives are sacrificed at will, tragedies endlessly recur, and public health crises are reduced to tools of authoritarian machinery. Without truth and freedom, the Chinese people will forever live in the pain and humiliation brought on by wave after wave of “epidemics.”
Three years ago, a sudden outbreak of COVID-19 struck Wuhan. Those gray images remain vivid: the lockdown, the masks, the figures of “big whites” rushing about in hazmat suits, wreaths at every corner, the rolling smoke of crematoria, the endless dirges and wails. At that time, Wuhan seemed shrouded beneath the black wings of death. Familiar streets lay deserted like a wasteland. Hospitals became the most crowded and despairing of places: corridors piled with beds and oxygen tanks, groans mingling with the rasp of ventilators. People collapsed at registration windows, others wept at ward doors begging for a bed, only to be met with the cold reply: “full.” Even more heartbreaking, the 120 emergency line went unanswered, the “mayor’s hotline” was always busy. Many patients never got a diagnosis, never received treatment, and died alone at home. Human lives turned into numbers; truth became taboo.
Beyond fear was anger and suffocation: one “whistleblower” who tried to tell the truth was silenced by a police reprimand; groups of “white coats” in protective gear roamed the streets, arresting citizens who dared to breach lockdowns; Fang Fang’s diary, documenting the real Wuhan epidemic, was censored; state media churned out propaganda that sang only praises while deceiving eyes searching for the truth. Roads, buildings, and mouths were all sealed. What people lost was not only mobility but also trust and human warmth.
What I can never forget is that during the epidemic my wife miscarried. Hospitals rigidly enforced epidemic protocols, and doctors failed to grant special care or convenience to pregnant women. This personal loss was not only a family tragedy but also a stark reflection of systemic cruelty. Naively, I thought such suffering might awaken reflection within the regime. Yet, the recent chikungunya outbreak in Guangdong showed me history was repeating, filling me with bitter sorrow.
In Zhanjiang’s Chikan district, crowds in protective suits filled the streets, a scene eerily reminiscent of Wuhan’s chaos and fear. What was frightening was not only the virus, but the familiar logic of power: the first response was not transparency, not scientific governance, but shock tactics and control to manufacture “stability.”
In Zhuhai, under the excuse of “epidemic prevention,” community workers forcibly loaded two elderly women’s household furniture onto trucks. Their heart-rending cries of protest met only cold indifference. It was a mirror of Wuhan, where families had relatives forcibly taken away. Again and again, homes and dignity were trampled.
In Foshan, the authorities staged yet another farce. Instead of cleaning foul drains and weedy lots, they targeted flowerpots, fish tanks, and even households with dogs. They imposed a “one-size-fits-all” cleanup of rooftop greenery and balcony plants, forcing residents to remove pets. This recalled the black memory of COVID-19, when officials stormed homes and dragged away pets to be killed. Foshan’s actions are nearly a copy of that absurdity: neglecting what should be managed, abusing what should not.
Even more shocking, some parts of Guangdong launched so-called “compulsory blood draws,” carried out in the name of epidemic control, but wantonly violating citizens’ bodily rights. Such “prevention” is a complete departure from scientific principles of public health, becoming naked exercises of power.
From Wuhan to Guangdong, from COVID-19 to chikungunya, old wounds have not healed before new ones are inflicted. The virus changes, but the cruelty and absurdity of the system never do. The contempt for life is far deadlier than any virus!
During the Wuhan outbreak, I lost my child, and I watched fellow citizens perish. It made me realize more clearly: under the CCP system, any family, any life, may be sacrificed at any moment. Today’s Guangdong once again proves that the greatest “plague” China faces is not any particular virus, but dictatorship and lies.
Public health crises should belong to the realm of science and humanity. Yet under authoritarianism, they become appendages of the “stability maintenance” machine, excuses for power grabs. Wuhan’s lockdown claimed countless lives; Guangdong’s patients today may suffer in the same cold indifference.
Tragedy repeats; history circles back! I wish to share these experiences and reflections with everyone who cares about China: when a nation forbids truth, then whether it is COVID-19, chikungunya, or the next outbreak, each will become yet another assault upon the people. Tears and blood are wiped away time and again, but suffering does not vanish—it accumulates, it is transmitted, and it will ultimately tell the world: this is not merely the tragedy of disease, but the wound of a system!
August 18, 2025
社会主义为什么不好之一
作者：华言
编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文
任志强说：发表《共产党宣言》时，马克思30岁，恩格斯27岁。两个小伙子，没见过飞机，也没听说过相对论，更没有手机和互联网，纯属凭空虚构的乌托邦，而在中国，却捧为圣条，写入宪法，学校从小学到大学都是必修课！两个年轻人闭门造车出来的乌托邦成了中国的国教，这不是愚昧无知吗？
在马克思那里，科学社会主义=共产主义，不区分社会主义和共产主义，两者指的是同一涵义；但在实践中，共产主义的完美性不可能实现，不能用现实的混乱来标榜共产主义在人间损害共产主义的伟大。理论家们为了捍卫共产主义的神圣，将社会主义从共产主义中独立出来，形成了资本主义社会、社会主义社会、共产主义社会三个阶段。马克思主义者认为，社会主义是资本主义走向共产主义的一个必经阶段。社会主义是实现共产主义的革命和建设阶段，具有相对独立性。从理论上看，社会主义兼具资本主义社会和共产主义社会的混合性。
一、什么是社会主义
社会主义是一种政治、社会、经济哲学和思潮，社会主义在批判近代资本主义之缺陷基础上产生。社会主义可以简单的分为两个类型：一是革命版的，科学社会主义，即马列-斯大林主义，宣扬阶级优越论，政治上采用暴力革命夺权，发动无产阶级（工人阶级）、农民阶级武装暴动取得了国家政权。经济形态，都采用公有制经济和计划经济体制。二是温和版的，民主社会主义（或称社会民主主义）。民主社会主义是指民主宪政之下的社会主义经济，对资本主义的社会化改良，提倡和平改良社会，反对暴力，提倡混合经济，不反对私有制。民主社会主义认为，没有自由就没有社会主义，社会主义只有通过民主才能实行，政治上提倡不同思想的党派共存。
科学社会主义的基础是历史唯物论。历史唯物论认为生产关系和生产力是决定历史发展的关键。每一历史阶段，都会因生产力发展而产生相应的生产关系。但随着生产力持续发展，既有的生产关系将难以适应，并阻碍生产力进步，于是两者出现冲突，导致社会革命，最后促成新的更高阶的生产关系。欧洲、美国高度发达的资本主义本来最应该产生社会主义革命，但是却未发生社会主义革命，马克思主义诞生以来一百多年的欧美资本主义发展史证明了社会主义的破产。
二、为什么要反对社会主义
杜光说：“历数近百年来出现的社会主义国家，没有一个不是把专制主义当作社会主义的”。
社会主义的失败是由于这一理论体系本身所带来的难以克服的弱点。社会主义之所以失败，不是因为社会主义好而只是做错了，而是因为社会主义本身就是错误的，它只是一场很糟的空想。中共的改革开放是共产党人对资本主义作出巨大让步，才得以把政权撑持下来。要强迫人们把他们私有的东西交出来，并且要他们放弃个人利益来服从国家的需要，这就要求公务机关须享有无限的权力。无限的权力必然导致无限的腐败与堕落。计划经济要求命令-执行的体系来运转，必然是不平等的，导致人人平等的梦想消失了。国家把包括经济在内的国民生活各部门都拿了过来，它需要有一套庞大的官僚机构来管理这些事。把那些生产资料收归国有，就是要把那些生产资料的管理权交到那些官僚手里去。而那些官僚，既没有能力也没有什么物质刺激足以使他们能有效地去经营那些生产资料，必不可免的结果就是生产不断下降。
概括而言：一是经济上，共产党没收私有财产，导致短缺经济，实行社会主义的地方都是缺衣少食的。二是政治上，共产党搞一党专政、无产阶级专政，本质上是现代版的专制皇帝，党天下。压制言论自由、思想自由、经济自由、宗教自由、通信自由、个人私隐保密的自由、免于匮乏的自由、免于恐惧的自由等，屏蔽并惩罚反对共产党的言论，不惜一切手段的伪造历史，避免让国民知道共产党的错误行径，营造伟大光荣正确的神话。
国家的一切资源都由“共产党官僚”掌控，共产主义革命是以取消阶级为号召开始，最后造成一个握有空前绝对权威的新阶级。在社会主义革命胜利之后 , 无产阶级将会在新的国家里上升为统治阶层。
新阶级是一个掌握权力的集团。新阶级来源于官员队伍 , 因为只有他们才有可能利用权力谋取特权 , 才有享受不该享受的权利的条件。新阶级内存在严格的上下等级之分。因为“新阶级 ”主要由党政干部组成，不同等级的官员享有不同的特权 , 越是高级的官员享受的特权越多。他们对上级唯命是从、明哲保身、高高在上、不问群众疾苦。他们是一批地地道道的官僚。新阶级在意识上推行垄断，不允许有别于自己的思想出现。人民内部的所有思想都被政府压制 , 自由和民主的风气已经全部丧失。
马克思主义作为社会主义国家的“信仰 ”，本身就是一种具有专制性质的思想。他们为了保证自己正统思想的地位 , 排斥各种与自己的理论不相容的科学理论。 共产党不可避免地把专制主义带到了社会主义国家政权建设中。
社会主义理念不仅是政治错误，更是道德错误。反社会主义不是政治问题，是良心问题，是光明生活与黑暗生活的选择问题。
三、不人道的社会主义
社会主义理论说，社会主义将在全世界兴起，资本主义将在全世界灭亡。1991年的苏联东欧剧变，是人类历史发展的一个重大转折，标志着高举“科学社会主义”旗帜的国际共产主义运动的彻底失败。以“科学社会主义”为指导纲领的国际共产主义运动的失败，是一种全局的、不可逆转的、永劫不复的失败。
生产资料公有制＋计划经济＋无产阶级专政这三大体制为基本架构的社会主义制度的失败是历史的必然。共产党阶级斗争、无产阶级专政的基本思想，狂热地沉溺于暴力革命夺取政权，沉溺于无产阶级专政，沉溺于以暴虐的阶级斗争，推行同人类传统文明彻底决裂的路线、方针、政策，实施对社会生产资料和自然资源高度集中的独占垄断，实施对人类社会生活全面、彻底、集中的一体化控制的计划经济，把人类推向了灾难的深渊。首先，是残暴剥夺地主富农特别是全体农民的土地和全体资本主义工商业者、全体个体手工业者的生产资料。其次，将整个国家的自然资源，包括山脉、河流、矿山、森林等国有化，并对其进行掠夺性地开发，以致造成严重的环境污染和环境破坏。再次，对国人，特别是对农民实行残酷盘剥。对工人、知识分子、公务人员实行数十年一贯制的超低工资制，还对他们实行食品和生活必需品最低限度的定量凭证供应制度，迫使他们勒紧裤带，缩衣节食，为国家节省每一粒粮食、每一分钱，用来生产。
在专制独裁体制下，整个社会按照一个人的意志、按照共产党设计的目标完全一致地、“一体化”地行动。共产党的头脑发起热来，紧跟着的全国亿万生灵也就都要跟着发疯了。其后果，真是罄竹难书。
四、法西斯主义与社会主义—双胞胎
法西斯主义与社会主义在政治上都强调“一个主义、一个政党、一个领袖”，经济上都强调经济控制，占领经济至高权；文化上都强调科学的、先进的文化，至于是什么不重要，他们决定了的就是科学的文化、先进的文化。
他们共同宣扬的是同一思想，都主张对社会实施大规模的有计划的控制，都把自己说成是真理的代言人，都让社会、人民服从于统治者的意识形态。建立意识形态，都对媒体实行全面集中的检查，都建立军事化的先锋党，都把国家建立在恐怖、暴力镇压的基础上，都用秘密警察、司法公审来完善国家机器。第一个共同特点是割裂人类社会，并且在不同的人群之间挑拨离间，制造仇恨。认为自己最高尚，都把自己作为宇宙真理的化身，对暴力和流血手段的无比尊崇，赤裸裸地宣扬暴力和恐怖行为。第二个共同特点是热衷于控制社会、镇压异己、剥夺人民的自由，都严厉控制舆论工具，镇压言论自由。因为他们是靠谎言和暴力夺取政权巩固政权的，他们害怕人民利用言论自由来揭穿他们的谎言，反抗他们的暴力；他们是黑暗中的动物，手中没有真理，而言论自由正是剥除他们伪装，还其本来面目的灿烂阳光。第三个共同特点是他们都反对自由经济而主张用国家机器来垄断经济命脉。第四个共同特点是他们为扩张势力范围而乐于输出革命甚至侵略别国。他们对内镇压、对外扩张，他们是现代专制主义的产物，是同胞兄弟。所不同的特征是细微的：社会主义模式以阶级划分为基础；纳粹主义以种族划分为基础，纳粹主义是种族极权主义。
法西斯主义已经被扫进历史的垃圾堆；社会主义还在中国横冲直撞。同样的基因，不同的名字、不同的历史命运。
Why Socialism Is Harmful (Part I)
Summary:
Socialism, centered on planned economy and dictatorship, leads to poverty and tyranny, and creates a corrupt bureaucratic “new class.” Its ideas are fundamentally flawed, both a political disaster and a moral catastrophe. Sharing roots with fascism, socialism is destined to be discarded by history.
Author: Hua Yan
Editor: Li Congling Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen
⸻
Ren Zhiqiang once remarked: When the Communist Manifesto was published, Marx was 30 and Engels was 27. Two young men, who had never seen an airplane, never heard of relativity, and certainly never encountered cell phones or the internet, produced a purely imaginary utopia. Yet in China it was exalted as sacred doctrine, written into the Constitution, and taught as compulsory curriculum from elementary school to university! That two youngsters’ armchair utopia became China’s state religion—what greater ignorance could there be?
For Marx, “scientific socialism” was identical with communism; he made no distinction. But in practice, the perfection of communism is impossible, and its failure in reality cannot be used to claim that communism’s greatness was tarnished by flawed implementation. To protect the sanctity of communism, theorists carved socialism out as a distinct stage—creating a three-step model: capitalist society, socialist society, communist society. Marxists argued that socialism was the necessary transition toward communism. Socialism was thus treated as the revolutionary and constructive phase, theoretically possessing characteristics of both capitalism and communism.
⸻
I. What Is Socialism?
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy, born as a critique of capitalism’s flaws. Broadly, socialism divides into two types:
1. Revolutionary version — “scientific socialism.” The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist form, grounded in class supremacy, advocating violent revolution to seize state power by mobilizing workers and peasants. Economically, it enforces public ownership and planned economy.
2. Moderate version — “democratic socialism” (or social democracy). Practiced under constitutional democracy, this version advocates peaceful reform of capitalism, favors a mixed economy, accepts private ownership, and insists “no socialism without freedom.” It supports pluralism in politics, with coexistence of multiple parties and ideas.
The foundation of scientific socialism is historical materialism, which claims productive forces and relations of production drive history. Yet despite Marx’s prediction, socialist revolutions did not erupt in advanced capitalist countries. The more than 100 years of capitalist development in Europe and America after Marx’s time demonstrate socialism’s bankruptcy.
⸻
II. Why Oppose Socialism?
Du Guang once said: Looking back at nearly a century of socialist states, not one failed to embrace despotism in the name of socialism.
Socialism failed because its very theoretical framework is flawed. It is not that socialism was “good but misapplied”; socialism itself is wrong—an ill-conceived fantasy. The CCP’s “reform and opening” was a massive concession to capitalism, the only way its rule could survive.
To force people to surrender private property and abandon self-interest in obedience to the state requires government agencies with unlimited power. Unlimited power inevitably breeds unlimited corruption. Planned economy requires command-and-execution structures, inherently unequal, making the dream of equality vanish. When the state assumes control over all sectors of life, it requires a massive bureaucracy. Handing over the management of nationalized production to bureaucrats who lack both competence and incentives inevitably leads to declining production.
Summarizing:
• Economically: Confiscation of private property caused chronic shortages. Wherever socialism was imposed, people went cold and hungry.
Politically: The Communist Party established one-party dictatorship—a modern version of imperial despotism—suppressing freedom of speech, thought, religion, privacy, and liberty itself. Dissent was punished, history falsified, errors covered up, while propaganda spun the myth of greatness and infallibility.
All national resources came under the monopoly of Communist bureaucrats. A revolution launched in the name of abolishing classes ended up creating an unprecedented, all-powerful “new class.”
This new class consisted of officials, enjoying privileges denied to the people, stratified by rank, and entrenched in power. They obeyed superiors slavishly, insulated themselves from the public, and turned into a thoroughly bureaucratic caste. They monopolized ideology, suppressing all dissent. Freedom and democracy disappeared.
Marxism, as the “faith” of socialist states, is itself authoritarian. To maintain ideological orthodoxy, it excluded all rival theories. In practice, socialism inevitably dragged authoritarianism into the foundations of state power.
Thus socialism is not only a political error but also a moral error. To oppose it is not merely a political matter, but a matter of conscience—a choice between light and darkness.
⸻
III. The Inhumanity of Socialism
Socialist theory claimed socialism would rise worldwide and capitalism would perish globally. Yet the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1991 marked a turning point: the final and irreversible failure of international communism under the banner of “scientific socialism.”
The socialist system—public ownership of the means of production, planned economy, and dictatorship of the proletariat—was doomed to fail. Obsessed with violent revolution, class struggle, and total state control, socialism severed ties with human civilization, monopolized natural and social resources, and drove society into disaster.
• It confiscated land from farmers and property from capitalists, stripping them bare.
• It nationalized natural resources—mountains, rivers, mines, forests—and exploited them rapaciously, causing environmental ruin.
• It imposed extreme expropriation on the people: decades of artificially low wages, rationing of food and essentials, forcing the public to tighten belts so the state could hoard grain and money for production.
Under a dictatorship, the whole of society acted in unison to the will of one man. When the Party’s brain fever rose, hundreds of millions were compelled to go mad together. The consequences are unspeakable.
⸻
IV. Socialism and Fascism — Twin Brothers
Socialism and fascism share common DNA.
• Politically: Both emphasize “one ideology, one party, one leader.”
• Economically: Both demand state control of the economy, seizing command of resources.
• Culturally: Both claim to embody “scientific, advanced culture,” defining truth at will.
They enforce large-scale social control, claim to be the sole truth, demand submission to ideology, censor the media, build militarized vanguard parties, base their rule on terror, violence, secret police, and show trials.
Common features:
1. Divide and incite hatred. They split society, set groups against each other, and glorify violence.
2. Suppress dissent and freedom. They tightly control speech, crush opposition, and rely on lies and terror to maintain power.
3. Oppose free economy. They monopolize lifelines of the economy with the state machine.
4. Expansionist aggression. They export revolution or invade abroad, while crushing their own people at home.
The only difference is one of classification: socialism organizes by class, fascism by race. Fascism is racial totalitarianism; socialism is class totalitarianism.
Fascism has been swept into the dustbin of history. Socialism still rampages in China. Same genes, different names, different fates.
王沪宁承认“四千万饿殍”与大饥荒真相
作者：冯仍
编辑：胡丽莉 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文
今天我读到一篇2012年7月13日的旧文，时任中共中央政策研究室主任王沪宁在《学习时报》上发表的长文《文革反思与政治体制改革》。这篇文章在十八大前夕刊出，经过五次修改才定稿，背景极其特殊。当年胡锦涛将要交权习近平，党内对“文革”记忆与现实政治暗流涌动。文章中最引人注目的，不是所谓的“制度反思”，而是王沪宁亲口承认：“大跃进饿死四千多万人”。
这句话的分量极重。过去，关于大饥荒的死亡人数众说纷纭。官方长期回避，只用“1960年全国人口比上年减少1000万”来模糊带过。而社会上、学界与海外研究，数字在2000万到4500万之间不等。直到王沪宁以“中共中央政策研究室主任”的身份明确写出“饿死四千多万人”，这就意味着：哪怕在体制内部，这一惨烈数字也被承认为不可否认的历史事实。
中共官方一直称1959—1961年为“三年自然灾害”或“困难时期”。但大量档案与学术研究表明，天灾并非主要原因。华东师范大学教授杨奎松就指出，1958-1960年各省的气象记录并没有显示严重的天灾，真正的原因是政策性错误。
大跃进时期，高指标、浮夸风、人民公社和公共食堂，构成了大饥荒的三大根源。1958年虚报产量 “放开肚皮吃饭” ，粮食被集中进公社食堂，农民家中颗粒无存。与此同时，国家继续高征购，导致农民人均口粮不足一斤，重灾区甚至只剩几两。河南信阳事件就是极端案例：虚报产量，强征口粮，结果至少一百万人饿死。讽刺的是，当地粮库依旧满仓，而农民宁饿死也不敢抢，正如学者胡平所说，这是此前血腥运动制造的恐惧在作祟。
至于“苏联逼债”的说法，更是事后推卸责任。档案显示，苏联不仅没有逼债，还在1961年提供了上百万吨粮食援助。真正的决定，是毛泽东自行下令提前还债。
独立学者杨继绳的《墓碑》、冯客的《毛的大饥荒》，都提供了详实数据。杨继绳通过多年研究，认定饿死3600万人，少出生4000万人，共计7600万人生命消失。冯客则根据档案估算死亡人数高达4500万。中国统计局前局长李成瑞估算2200万，茅于轼、刘宾雁等均认定超过3000万。这些不同数字虽然有差距，但都指向一个结论：大饥荒是一场导致数千万非正常死亡的巨大人祸。
而王沪宁的“四千万”说，正好落在学界共识的区间内。这说明，即便在中共最高层，内部知情者早已心知肚明。
今天重读这段历史，心情异常沉重。一个政权如果连几千万生命的逝去都要掩盖、淡化、推诿，那么它的历史观和执政合法性就必然是脆弱的。王沪宁在2012年的文字，原本似乎想为体制“拨乱反正”，但他之后十年却成为新一轮极端主义的帮凶，这更凸显出中共内部的虚伪与自我矛盾。
大饥荒不是天灾，而是制度灾难。它揭示出高度集权、缺乏监督与信息封锁的政治体制，必然导致大规模的人道惨剧。社会制度不改，文革类灾难会反复重演。
几千万条生命消逝在饥荒的黑暗中，他们不是数字，而是每一个有血有肉的中国人。他们的饥饿与死亡，是历史永远抹不去的血账。无论当权者如何掩盖，真相终会昭然若揭。
Wang Huning Admits “40 Million Starved to Death” and the Truth of the Great Famine
Summary:
In 2012, Wang Huning admitted in Study Times that “over 40 million people starved to death during the Great Leap Forward.” Scholars generally agree that the Great Famine was not a natural disaster but the result of inflated production targets, false reporting, and the people’s communes with communal canteens, leading to tens of millions of unnatural deaths. The famine was a man-made catastrophe rooted in the system, and this blood account of history will ultimately be settled.
Author: Feng Reng
Editor: Hu Lili Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen
Today I read an old article dated July 13, 2012, in which Wang Huning—then Director of the CCP’s Central Policy Research Office—published a long essay in Study Times titled Reflections on the Cultural Revolution and Political System Reform. The piece appeared on the eve of the 18th Party Congress, finalized only after five revisions, against an extraordinarily sensitive backdrop: Hu Jintao preparing to hand power to Xi Jinping, with memories of the Cultural Revolution and undercurrents of current politics colliding.
What stood out most in the article was not its so-called “institutional reflection,” but Wang Huning’s explicit admission: “Over 40 million people starved to death during the Great Leap Forward.”
This sentence carries enormous weight. For decades, the death toll of the Great Famine had been subject to dispute. Official accounts long evaded it, vaguely stating only that “China’s population decreased by 10 million in 1960 compared to the previous year.” Independent research, both inside and outside China, placed the number between 20 million and 45 million. That Wang, in his capacity as Director of the CCP’s Policy Research Office, put into print “over 40 million starved to death” signaled that even within the system, this staggering figure was acknowledged as undeniable historical fact.
The CCP officially referred to 1959–1961 as the “Three Years of Natural Disasters” or “Three Years of Hardship.” Yet archival evidence and academic studies demonstrate that natural calamities were not the main cause. Yang Kuisong, professor at East China Normal University, noted that meteorological records from 1958–1960 showed no major disasters. The true causes were policy errors.
During the Great Leap Forward, inflated quotas, falsified yields, the people’s communes, and communal dining halls formed the core roots of the famine. In 1958, exaggerated reports of bumper harvests led to the slogan “Eat your fill,” with grain concentrated into communal canteens, leaving nothing in farmers’ homes. At the same time, the state maintained high procurement levels, resulting in rations of less than half a kilo per person per day—sometimes mere ounces in the hardest-hit areas. The Xinyang Incident in Henan is a notorious example: inflated yields and forced grain requisitions led to the starvation of at least one million people. Grimly, local granaries remained full, but terror from previous bloody campaigns left villagers too afraid to seize grain, even to save their lives.
As for the claim that the Soviet Union demanded debt repayment—it was little more than retrospective scapegoating. Archives reveal that not only did the USSR not press for repayment, but in 1961 it provided over one million tons of grain aid. The decision to repay early was Mao Zedong’s alone.
Independent scholar Yang Jisheng’s Tombstone and Frank Dikötter’s Mao’s Great Famine both supply extensive data. Yang’s years of research concluded that 36 million died of starvation, and 40 million fewer were born, totaling 76 million lives lost. Dikötter’s archival work estimated 45 million deaths. Li Chengrui, former head of China’s National Bureau of Statistics, estimated 22 million. Mao Yushi, Liu Binyan, and others placed it above 30 million. Though the figures differ, they all point to one conclusion: the Great Famine was a man-made calamity that caused tens of millions of unnatural deaths.
Wang Huning’s figure of 40 million falls squarely within the scholarly consensus. This indicates that even at the highest levels of the CCP, insiders had long known the truth.
Rereading this history today, I feel an overwhelming heaviness. A regime that must conceal, downplay, or deflect responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions cannot help but reveal the fragility of its historical narrative and political legitimacy. Wang’s words in 2012 might have seemed like an attempt at “rectifying the record,” but his subsequent decade as an architect of new extremism only underscores the hypocrisy and contradictions within the CCP.
The Great Famine was no natural disaster—it was a systemic disaster. It demonstrates how a highly centralized, unsupervised, and information-sealed political system inevitably produces mass humanitarian catastrophes. Without systemic change, Cultural Revolution-style tragedies will recur.
Tens of millions of lives perished in the darkness of famine. They are not numbers, but flesh-and-blood human beings. Their hunger and deaths are a blood account history cannot erase. However much the rulers try to conceal it, the truth will ultimately stand revealed.
