作者：刘芳

编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：吕峰

中国70、80年代出生的人，一定很熟悉葫芦娃的故事。应该记得故事里有一个金刚葫芦娃，和其他兄弟不同，他不是在山上长大的，而是由妖精带回魔窟，亲手用邪恶养育的，因此一出生就带着邪恶力量。这像极了我们这代人，童年与青春期被中国共产党体制欺骗和毒害。我们本该像藤上的葫芦一样，自然成长，拥有独立的思想与纯真的心灵。然而，我们的成长却被牢牢控制在另一只无形的手里——国家与党的教育体系。从识字的第一天起，我们唱的是“没有共产党就没有新中国”，背诵的是被删改的历史，学习的是为统治者服务的“标准答案”。在这种环境里，孩子们被刻意隔绝在真实之外，慢慢被塑造成忠诚的接班奴隶，而不是独立的人。以下事实都是我亲身所经历的荒谬事实。

一、中国式政治洗脑教育：把孩子养成驯顺的奴仆

从小就在潜移默化中变成沉默，服从的顺民。我入学的第一天，被教导就是服从，双手放在桌上，一动不动，不说话就得到表扬。而调皮反抗就会受到惩罚。但当时的父母心中，老师地位很高。父母因为文革失去了受教育的机会，非常重视教育，他们总是叮嘱我一定要听老师的话，好好学习。否则将来会一无是处。儿童的活泼好动的天性就这样被扼杀。我所在的中学会强迫学生剪短发，穿没有设计感劣质的校服，遏制爱美天性和个性。我知道的只有监狱和精神病院才需要剃头发穿制服。有一个男生头发长超过了一寸一点点，竟然被主任强行剃头羞辱。反抗就会受到处分。

从小学开始我们就被教导要“热爱祖国”，对党感恩。就像那首歌唱的是党带领中国人推翻了旧体制，打跑了侵略者，流血牺牲，建立了新中国，给了我们一切。我在小学时，因政治要求学校组织我们强制看了十多场的黑白爱国教育电影《闪闪红星》《游击队》《邱少云》等等，作为政治学习的一部分。现在想来抗日影视片段的夸张暴力与仇恨表达，其实是不利于小学生的身心成长的。中学时，也有一段唱红歌的热潮。老师为了获奖，全班同学把《黄河大合唱》唱到吐。

背诵的是被删改的历史。我从小在课堂里背诵“抗日战争是在党的领导下取得胜利”的标准答案，背诵“新中国从此站起来了”的豪言壮语。那时候，我以为这些就是全部的真相。直到有一天，加入了国民党的远房亲戚回国，和我聊起那个战争年代。我在YouTube查看到了一些海外资料，才发现原来还有被掩盖的历史：国民党军队才是正面战场的主力，数千万平民在饥荒和政治运动中死去，六四惨案更是从未出现在任何教材里。那一刻，我猛然意识到，我从小到大背诵的，不过是被删改过的历史，是统治者精心编织的谎言。真正的历史从未消失，只是被隐藏，而我们却被迫在虚假的记忆中长大。

学习的是为统治者服务的“标准答案”。不知道从什么时候开始我们的下一代，被教育成了夜郎自大的样子，盲目的觉得中国是世界上最强大的国家。我周围很多孩子母亲都不止一次的谈论起现在越来越加强的洗脑教育。领袖崇拜、党史歪曲、仇外叙事全面强化。2017 年后，习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想被强制写入小学、初中、高中教材，要求学生背诵。而文革，大跃进已经从历史课本中删去。曾经我们学习的古汉语诗词发音，现在也是只有老师才是唯一答案。家长和学生都无法和老师所代表的权威提出质疑。

强调国学，弱化英语教育：近十年，我听到越来越多的词叫“国学”。其实就是弘扬中华文化为主题的，“国学班”“弟子规诵读”“国学夏令营”培训和商业活动。表面是“文化自信”，本质是切断年轻人接触外部世界的通道，让他们更多停留在官方编排的文化叙事里，填补精神空白。 这与封锁互联网、限制海外信息渠道，是一脉相承的操作。

近五年英语课比例的调整、去英语化的试点、教材标准中外语比例保存或下调的规定，使这个趋势更加明显。英语是我们看世界的窗口和学知识的工具。我真不敢想象将来学生还有什么可以去依仗、去了解世界的进步和中国发生着的这一切邪恶罪行？另一个讽刺的是中国权贵的孩子却无例外的选择了留美、英、奥求学。

二、努力营造的厉害国的神话和全民自嗨

首先，基础教育里反复洗脑的是中国地大物博，文明古国历史悠久。关于地大物博号称煤炭储量丰富，但大量资源被国企垄断，环境污染严重，老百姓并未因此受益。稀土储量丰富，精炼带来的环境污染也同样伤害的是老百姓。有耕地和粮食，却常常要靠进口大豆、玉米来维持供应。中国历史“最悠久”只是宣传口号，放到人类文明的时间轴上，中国只是众多古文明之一。看看埃及的展览就可以发现古埃及文明史可追溯到公元前 3100 年，比中国夏朝早一千多年。苏美尔文明更早，留下了世界上最早的文字与城市。

其次通过各种媒介制造强国假象。从80年代开始，中共极其重视奥运会金牌，努力提升群众的民族自豪感。奥运冠军被当作国家荣誉的象征。在利益加持下使用兴奋剂已经成为中国运动员的常用手段。殊不知奥林匹克在国外最多就是个人成就。重视奥运会和世博会的承办，不惜重金打造会场，奖励运动员，大肆宣传。人民未必享受到什么实质性的好处。

通过拍摄大量自嗨的类似战狼的影片，塑造的中国特种兵几乎是“超人”战无不胜。战狼影片宣传的不是现实，而是一种“幻象”：中国无比强大，敌人不堪一击， 把爱国等同于盲目崇拜，把国家和政党混为一谈。现实中，中国军队缺乏实战经验，真正的国际军事行动远不如影片所展示的那样。观众被动接受这种情绪灌输，很容易陷入虚假的民族自豪感，而忽视现实中的问题：腐败、经济下滑、社会不公。

中国在非洲的现实影响力，主要靠资金+工程+资源换取政治支持。中共的“援助”不是平等合作，而是一种新的掠夺与控制。我们自豪的遥遥领先的民族之光公司，不过是靠抄袭、技术窃取、政府庇佑发展起来的假象。当制裁来临，芯片遭美国禁运，中国的“科技巨头”立刻显出脆弱。所谓“卡脖子”问题，本质就是几十年没有真正掌握原创技术。

当我具备了学习能力和了解了世界后，回看这一切。才清楚意识到这些都是教育的洗脑手段。一开始对于盲目的夜郎自大的爱国宣传，我是十分反感的。但是，我在国内无处表达。因为周围的造谣的人永远比辟谣的人多，盲目信任的人永远比相信真相和科学的人多。要知道中共造谣是职业的，甚至还雇用了大量的职业写手，文人，科学家，文艺工作者都一起来造谣。而说真话，辟谣的声音力量太小，从此我也不再愿意讲出来。根本没有人听。

三、宣扬仇恨，转移矛盾

我读书时美国被描绘成“霸权主义国家”，日本永远是“军国主义的潜在威胁”，韩国则常被贬为“棒子国”。国外都是流浪汉，非法枪支。在美华人生活在恐惧之中。而日本则是充满了辐射污染，连日本刺身也不可以吃了。同时，各类抗日神剧，把日本人塑造成愚蠢、残暴的小丑；官方媒体宣传经常用“欧美帝国主义”“西方敌对势力”来解释社会问题。新闻联播里最不和谐的声音永远都是我们和这些国家的敌对。抹黑的真实目的有三：制造敌人：没有外部“强敌”，中共的合法性就会动摇；转移矛盾：经济、社会、腐败问题都可以归咎于“外国打压”；强化控制：让人民相信外部世界充满敌意，从而更依赖中共“保护”。

四、利用欺骗手段掩盖信息，新闻早已没有自由

记忆中第一次接触到政治运动是1989年，那时候我还是个小学生，我和父亲一起关注新闻里六四学潮报道。堂哥当时在读大学，尽管他的母亲打来长途电话，再三劝说他不要去游行，可能会留下污点。但他还去了。当时堂哥的行为让我觉得那时的大学生和后来不同，他们心怀天下，愿意为了民主和自由呐喊，敢于承担历史使命而不顾个人安危。我不明白他们做错了什么，不明白为什么这个事件很快就被演变成了恶人乘机而入的暴动。这个事件便是中国欺骗手段的铁证。当时作为远离北京的民众，听到的消息都是从新闻报道来。学生的非暴力运动被污蔑成了有一些不怀好意的人从中挑拨学生和武警导致事态不可控制。请大家留意，这是共党最常用的下作手段，颠倒是非，混淆视听。接下来就是第一个手段血腥镇压。20万武装军人面对几万学生。死伤至今无法统计。而中共报道里却只有武警被学生杀害的离谱事实。最后的手段就是惩罚和掩盖。这次追求民主自由的学生潮最终被武力干预而偃旗息鼓，很多学生被通缉，而当时我信任并敬佩的堂哥也因为参与那个事件，受到了三年不能参加研究生考试的惩处。我一个朋友的爸爸也因为这个事件中支持学生的抗议导致个人前途灰暗。六四事件第一次让我感到了阴霾，学生的非暴力正义的举动、却要以个人未来发展受阻甚至以血为代价。随后这段历史仿佛没有发生过，消失在了中国历史中，消失在中国任何媒体里。

五、高筑信息茧房，防止人民知道真相

2000年正是互联网发展的年代，作为大学生的我天天都兴奋的在网上冲浪，我很喜欢的《v字仇杀队》和《黑客帝国》，还有《肖生克的救赎》这些电影让我有了民主自由思想的启蒙。“He crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side.” 当时我很喜欢这句话。现在我更明白其中的深意“他爬过污秽肮脏，却在另一端获得了自由。” 他告诉我没有人应该忍受集权和统治，更没有人应该被奴役。但是很快我们这些自由也被剥夺，从 2002 年 Google 开始试封，到 2009 年大规模封锁 Facebook、Twitter、YouTube，再到 2014–2020 年几乎所有美国主流网站被全面屏蔽。中共利用信息墙把国人和外面的世界隔绝。由于防火长城（GFW）屏蔽外部信息，民众只能看到中共批准的新闻报道，形成一个全国性的“信息茧房”。这时候只有一个声音，就任由中共把黑的说成白的，白的说成黑的。

我再一次感到了文革般的窒息在向我靠近。我在互联网找了好久，好不容易才找到了翻墙的工具，法轮功的浏览器帮我跨越了这个精神的墙。也让我看到了更多的真相。但很多国人，却习惯了墙内生活也不去看外面世界了。人都有惰性，我担心再过几代，翻墙的人会越来越少。

中共教育下的“恶婴”，在谎言中长大、在仇恨中被塑造、在恐惧中被驯化。他们的身体长大了，但精神却被困在婴儿般的依附和盲目中。生来带着邪恶的烙印，被用作统治的工具。

谎言可以制造一时的顺从，却永远无法扼杀追求真理的心。每一个敢于独立思考的人，都是打破铁幕的火种。当越来越多的人拒绝做“恶婴”，这个民族才会真正长大。

Refusing to Become the Monstrous Infant Bred by CCP Education

Abstract: This essay exposes how the Chinese Communist Party’s education system—through brainwashing, historical distortion, false narratives of national greatness, propaganda of hatred, and information control—has produced generations of obedient slaves. Only through independent thinking and the pursuit of truth can one break free from lies and fear.

Author: Liu FangEditor: Li ConglingChief Editor: Luo ZhifeiTranslator: Lyu Feng

Chinese people born in the 1970s and 1980s must be familiar with the story of Calabash Brothers. In that tale, one “Diamond Calabash Child” was different from his brothers: he wasn’t raised on the mountain vine but was taken to a demon’s cave and raised by evil hands, and thus from birth carried destructive powers.

This mirrors my generation—our childhood and youth poisoned and deceived by the Chinese Communist system. We should have grown naturally like calabashes on a vine, with independent thoughts and pure hearts. Instead, our growth was gripped by an invisible hand—the state and Party education system. From the very first day of literacy, we sang “Without the Communist Party, there would be no New China,” recited rewritten history, and studied “standard answers” designed to serve rulers.

Children were deliberately walled off from truth, molded into loyal successors rather than independent human beings. The following are absurd realities I personally experienced.

I. Political Indoctrination “the Chinese Way”: Training Children into Obedient Serfs

From an early age, I was molded into silence and submission. On my first day of school, I was praised only if I sat motionless with hands on the desk. Mischief or resistance led to punishment. Teachers held an exalted status in parents’ eyes, especially for parents like mine—deprived of education during the Cultural Revolution—who urged me constantly to obey teachers or face a future of failure. Thus children’s natural liveliness was strangled.

In my middle school, students were forced to cut their hair short and wear shabby, uniform clothing that killed individuality. I knew only prisons and asylums required shaved heads and uniforms. One boy’s hair grew slightly over one inch and he was publicly humiliated by being forcibly shaved by the director. Resistance meant disciplinary punishment.

From primary school we were taught to “love the motherland” and “be grateful to the Party.” We were compelled to watch over a dozen black-and-white “revolutionary” films (Sparkling Red Star, The Guerrillas, Qiu Shaoyun) as political study. Now I realize such exaggerated violence and hatred in anti-Japanese films harmed children’s mental growth. In middle school, we endured a craze of “red songs.” To win awards, our class was forced to sing the Yellow River Cantata until we felt nauseated.

We recited censored history. In class we memorized that “the War of Resistance was won under the Party’s leadership,” or that “New China has stood up.” I believed it then. Until one day a distant relative who had served in the Nationalist Army recounted that era, and I later found overseas sources on YouTube: the Nationalist Army had fought on the main battlefield; tens of millions died in famine and political movements; the Tiananmen Massacre never appeared in any textbook. I suddenly realized what I had memorized all my life were carefully woven lies. True history had not disappeared—it was hidden. We were forced to grow up inside false memory.

We studied only “answers that served the rulers.” Today’s youth are taught arrogance, blind belief in China’s “supremacy.” Since 2017, Xi Jinping Thought has been forcibly added to all school curricula, while the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution have been erased. Even the pronunciation of classical poetry is decreed by teachers as the only authority. Parents and students alike are forbidden to question.

Meanwhile, “national studies” are promoted and English diminished. “Cultural confidence” classes, Di Zi Gui recitation, and summer camps proliferate—not to nourish genuine culture but to block access to the outside world, reinforcing official narratives. Over the past decade, English has been reduced in curricula, textbooks stripped of foreign language content. English is our window to the world—without it, how can students learn what is happening globally, or recognize the crimes committed in China? The irony: the children of the CCP elite invariably study in the U.S., U.K., or Austria.

II. The Myth of a “Mighty Nation” and Collective Self-Delusion

Propaganda drills into us China’s “vast land and ancient civilization.” But coal, rare earths, and farmland—while real—are monopolized by state enterprises, leaving ordinary people with pollution and no benefits. “China has the oldest civilization”? In the timeline of humanity, it is only one among many. Ancient Egypt dates back to 3100 BCE, earlier than China’s Xia Dynasty; Sumerian civilization is older still.

The Party creates illusions of strength through sports and spectacle. Since the 1980s, Olympic gold medals have been prioritized as symbols of national honor. Doping became common. Stadiums built at enormous cost benefited propaganda, not citizens. Films like Wolf Warrior depict Chinese soldiers as invincible supermen—blurring patriotism with blind Party worship. Reality: China’s military lacks real combat experience. Citizens absorb the fantasy and ignore corruption, inequality, and economic decline.

China’s so-called international clout in Africa rests on money and resource deals—neo-colonial control rather than equal cooperation. Its “national champions” grew on theft and state protection; when U.S. sanctions cut chip supplies, these “tech giants” collapsed overnight. This “chokehold” revealed decades without genuine innovation.

As I matured, I saw clearly: this was brainwashing. Lies repeated endlessly drowned out truth, and those who tried to debunk rumors were outnumbered and silenced. Propagandists are professional; writers, scientists, and artists are enlisted. Truth-tellers’ voices were too faint to be heard.

III. Preaching Hatred to Distract from Problems

In school, America was painted as a “hegemonic bully,” Japan as a “perennial militarist threat,” South Korea mocked as “the stick country.” Foreign societies were caricatured as full of homeless people and gun violence. Japanese food was smeared as radioactive. Anti-Japanese TV dramas made Japanese soldiers into buffoonish monsters. State media constantly invoked “Western imperialism” and “hostile foreign forces” to explain away domestic issues.

The purposes were threefold:

Create enemies: without strong external foes, CCP legitimacy falters.

Deflect blame: economic woes and corruption blamed on “foreign suppression.”

Tighten control: convincing people the world is hostile, so they cling to CCP “protection.”

IV. Deception and the Disappearance of a Free Press

My first memory of politics was 1989. I was a child watching the Tiananmen protests on the news with my father. My cousin, then a university student, went to protest despite his mother’s pleas not to risk his future. To me, those students were heroic—caring for democracy, shouting for freedom.

Yet soon, state media twisted the story: the nonviolent movement was smeared as a “riot incited by bad elements.” Then came bloodshed: 200,000 troops against unarmed students. Death tolls remain unknown. Propaganda claimed soldiers were killed by students—an outrageous lie. Afterwards came punishment: students blacklisted, careers ruined. My cousin was barred from graduate exams for three years. A friend’s father lost his future for supporting the students.

Tiananmen was my first realization of the regime’s darkness: a just, peaceful act could cost one’s blood and future. Soon the history was erased—vanished from textbooks and media as though it had never happened.

V. Building the Information Cocoon

In the early 2000s, as a university student, I thrilled at the open internet. Films like V for Vendetta, The Matrix, The Shawshank Redemption enlightened me. “He crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side.” That line resonated—no one should live under dictatorship or enslavement.

But soon, freedoms vanished. Google partially blocked in 2002; Facebook, Twitter, YouTube banned by 2009; by 2014–2020 nearly all U.S. platforms were sealed. The Great Firewall locked China in. Citizens heard only Party-approved voices, a nationwide “information cocoon.”

It felt like the Cultural Revolution returning. I searched for ways out until I found circumvention tools—Falun Gong browsers helped me cross that mental wall, glimpse truths. Yet most Chinese resigned to life inside. Laziness prevailed. I fear in a few generations, even fewer will scale the wall.

Conclusion: From “Monstrous Infants” to Humans Who Grow

The CCP’s education system has raised “monstrous infants”—children growing in lies, molded by hatred, tamed by fear. Their bodies grow, but their minds remain infantile—dependent, blind, branded with the Party’s mark, reduced to tools of rule.

Lies can produce temporary obedience, but never extinguish the yearning for truth. Every person who dares to think independently is a spark piercing the iron curtain. Only when more people refuse to be “monstrous infants” will this nation truly come of age.

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.