——一个“岁月静好派”女性的自救手记

作者：刘芳

编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：吕峰

0. 序：体面与谎言之间，总有裂缝会漏风

我曾以为，人生的终极形态叫“独善其身”：学历堂皇，上海白领，周末咖啡，朋友圈九宫格——政治这玩意儿，离我远点。后来才发现，体面是临时工，谎言是正式工；你以为在风平浪静的人生里打卡，其实是在专制的气压里待机。直到风从裂缝里灌进来——裁员、封控、禁言、黑箱——我才明白：所谓“岁月静好”，只是尚未轮到你。

于是，我开始给过去的自己写一份说明书：我为什么反共。

1. 家庭起点：善良的父母，粗暴的时代

我出身普通工人家庭。父母勤劳诚实，却在文革被剥夺了受教育的权利，青春喂了“斗”和“批”。改革以后，他们又遇到下岗潮；父亲自学成了助理工程师，却背着饥荒年代落下的病根，家计常常捉襟见肘。我们家没什么“阶级仇恨教育”，只有“谁错了先道歉”的家规。民主的家庭氛围让我从小就知道：权威可以尊敬，但必须可被质疑。

我也像标准答案里写的那样好学、听话：少先队、共青团，能上的都上；只不过当时不懂，红领巾和团徽并不等于道德与真理，它们只是组织关系。第一次对“正统叙事”生疑，是小学那年看 1989。堂哥去游行，回来背了处分。电视里说“有不法分子搅局”，我却只记得：年轻人的呐喊为什么要以学业和前途为代价？

2. 书本与银幕：独立的种子，被外语浇了水

中学时的政治课像快递：到课即签收，不含思考。答案永远只有一个，历史只剩一种版本。校规要求“统一短发与劣质校服”，我忽然明白：剃头与制服，常见于监狱与精神病院。

幸运的是，90 年代末到 00 年代初，世界还留了条缝给我。《简·爱》《傲慢与偏见》《飘》告诉我，做人的底线是尊严，自由和爱情都靠得住；《V 字仇杀队》《黑客帝国》《肖申克的救赎》教我：在系统性谎言面前，逃跑不是懦弱，思考才是冒险。一位室友劝我好好学英语——“真正的知识在墙外”。我没出国，但这门语言成了逃离精神版图的护照。

直到某天起，Facebook、YouTube、Google 被一键消失。空气里出现了一个无形词条：防火长城。我学会“翻墙”，像在黑夜里摸到一只手电筒。光很小，却足以看见房间里并非只有家具，还有锁链。

3. 科研现场：当“真问题”遇上“真 KPI”

我读的是生命科学，从细胞到分子，从观测到机理。逐步看清一个不太体面的事实：中国科研并不缺钱，缺的是把钱用在真问题上的制度。经费评审看人脉，论文数量当绩效，导师忙应酬，学生当螺丝钉。学术理想最后被六个字打包发走：发文章、要指标。

两个事件把我的“科研滤镜”砸得粉碎：

基因编辑伦理翻车：某副教授把人类胚胎当试管小白鼠，科学没跑通，伦理先失踪。最后三年牢狱出来还是教授，体制责任人“路过不背锅”。

不可复现实验的跃进：一个震惊世界的新工具，几个月后被发现“别人就是做不出来”。楼起得快，塌得更快；追问失效得最快。

科学需要时间、诚实与失败权，而体制提供 KPI、排名与宣传片。当真理被“年度汇报”衔着跑，结果往往不是突破，而是事故。

4. 职场见闻：外企的规矩，内资的魔法

博士后我留在上海。外企的第一课：流程不是摆设，合规不是口号。大家没有加班文化（至少不是996），发现不内卷也能把事情办好。但并购一来，“中国式管理”像病毒：表格宇宙、权力斗法、劣币驱逐良币。于是我转向“民族产业”，想做点真正造福病人的事，结果经历了两家“人矿工厂”。

公司 A 口号是“无边界”灵活工作，翻译成人话叫：没有边界的无偿加班。疫情爆发，他们把研发扔进疫区抢样本，“捐赠”只是 PR，合规是可选项，薪资则是闭口不谈。Apple Watch 是我健康的遗书，心率报警像上班考勤。最终产品死在审批门口——游戏一早写好，行业真正赚钱的，是早就在白名单里的既得利益者。赌徒式老板妄图抄近道，拿员工健康与性命去填坑；监管黑箱，游戏早被写好，外人只配当炮灰。

公司 B 外表“海归范儿”，内核“圈钱学”。目标不是产品上市，而是公司上市。同行之间靠诋毁竞速，内部靠 KPI 自残。抄作业被称作“国产替代”，击鼓传花被包装成“资本故事”。 离开不到一年，公司已被资本放弃停工停产。为什么两个老板都如出一辙的急功近利呢？因为他们身后都是中国急躁的资本和体制，他们被推着一起跑——“快上、快融、快退”，不然就被环境吞了。因为，资本也不确定什么时候政策就变化了，他们手里的钱就没了，还是变现走人比较安全。50年的企业简直说笑，能撑过5年的私企就不错了。

逃回外企，才发现净土也不净。面对体制内客户，“科学常需向行政鞠躬”。你说“请按法规操作”，对方说“领导要今天出报告”；你说“样本污染要稀释”，对方说“我们没时间”。我一点点明白——不是我不适应，是我不想同谋。

5. 疫情三年：谣言当口罩，封控当药方

新冠像一面照妖镜。先是甩锅输出“病毒美国造”；再是管控样本、封死信息；公民记者失踪，良心医生被训诫。城市焊门、患者寻医无门，生命像验证码一样失效。我被关家里七十多天，靠团购和运气存活；家人确诊、离世，火葬场的队伍成了我理解国家能力的曲线图。年末的突然“放开”，让我对“防疫成绩单”的评价只剩一句：数据会说话，只是不能说真话。我由此做了一个长期主义的选择：离开。

6. 出走之后：比较学，最有说服力

美国带来的第一感受是“政治表达可以归于日常”。“普通民众脸上从容和放松的神情”让我开始重新审视那套熟得不能再熟的叙事：

“资本主义水深火热”？——我在超市看到了低价牛奶，在地铁看到了微笑，在街头看到了游行队伍背后的警察维持秩序而不是驱散。

“西方打压中国”？——跨国企业的财报告诉我，数据不会爱国；中国区下滑得肉眼可见。

“我们自主创新已领先？”——一旦芯片被“卡脖子”，一些“民族之光”就会集体喘不上气。

比较出的结论朴素到有点冒犯：法治让聪明人有舞台，专制让聪明人有“后台”。

7. 我与先生：在历史里对表，在现实里校准

先生比我早看明白。他提醒我：专制的底层逻辑，是“欺骗 + 暴力”。欺骗，是把黑说成白、把侵略说成反侵略、把受害者说成“境外势力”；暴力，是把年轻的呐喊变成档案上的污点，把公民的发声变成刑法里的罪名。

我们一起复盘中共的“发家史”：延安贩毒维稳财政、土改与大跃进的人祸、文革的道德灭绝、六四的屠杀、活摘与维稳产业、修宪复辟……这一切不是“偶发”，而是体系的必然。在这样的历史里谈“岁月静好”，像在流水线上谈“手工艺美学”。

8. 为什么必须反共：因为我还想做个人

如果要把我的反共理由压成三句话：

（1）为了事实历史必须可被查证，新闻必须允许反对。没有真相，一切“成绩单”都是作文。

（2）为了专业科学需要自由的试错与坦诚的失败，医疗需要独立的监管与可问责的制度。当权力凌驾于规则，专业就变成手艺；手艺再好，也做不出良心。

（3）为了尊严人不是工具，更不是 KPI 的消耗品。尊严来自表达、结社与选择的自由，来自“可以说不”的权利。当一个社会只允许说“好”，坏事就会变成大事。

9. 结语：把恐惧变判断，把愤怒变行动

离开不是逃跑，发声不是作秀。那是一个成年人对自己的负责。对家人的健康、对职业的操守、对事实的敬畏、对未来的期待。如果你也感觉到风在体面与谎言的裂缝里灌进来，不妨先从最小的行动开始：

学会分辨“新闻”与“通告”；

给不同观点一次耐心；

在每一次“要不要说”的时刻，至少让自己听见自己。

醒悟不嫌晚，改变亦然。

Waking Up in Shanghai: Why I Became Anti-CCP

— A Survival Memoir from a Once “Keep-Your-Head-Down” Woman

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

0. Prologue: Between Decency and Lies, There Are Always Cracks Where the Wind Blows In

I once believed the ultimate form of life was “minding my own business”: prestigious degree, white-collar job in Shanghai, weekend lattes, nine-grid Instagram posts—politics, please stay away from me.

Later I discovered: “decency” is a temp job; “lies” are permanent staff. What I thought was clocking in for a calm life was in fact being on standby under the pressure of dictatorship. Until the wind blew through the cracks—layoffs, lockdowns, censorship, black boxes—I finally understood: so-called “peaceful times” only mean it hasn’t reached your turn yet.

So, I began writing a manual for my past self: why I became anti-CCP.

1. Family Origins: Kind Parents, a Harsh Era

I was born into an ordinary working-class family. My parents were diligent and honest, yet the Cultural Revolution stripped them of education—youth consumed by “struggle” and “criticism.”

After reform, they faced another blow: mass layoffs. My father taught himself into becoming an assistant engineer, but carried the chronic ailments left from famine years. Our household often struggled to make ends meet.

We were not taught “class hatred,” only the rule: “whoever is wrong should apologize first.” From childhood, I knew authority could be respected, but must remain open to questioning.

I was a model student—diligent, obedient, Young Pioneers, Communist Youth League. What I didn’t know then: the red scarf and badge weren’t morality or truth, only organizational ties.

My first doubt about “orthodox narratives” came in 1989. My cousin joined the protests and came back punished. The TV called it “trouble stirred up by lawbreakers.” But what I remembered was this: why must young people’s cries cost them their studies and futures?

2. Books and Screens: Independent Seeds Watered by a Foreign Tongue

Middle-school politics class was like a delivery: you signed for it, no thinking required. One right answer only, one version of history only. The rule of “uniform short hair and shoddy school uniforms” made me realize: shaved heads and uniforms are standard in prisons and asylums.

Luckily, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the world still left me a crack.

Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Gone with the Wind taught me dignity is the baseline of being human, and freedom and love are trustworthy.V for Vendetta, The Matrix, The Shawshank Redemption showed me: in the face of systemic lies, running isn’t cowardice—thinking itself is risk-taking.

A roommate urged me to study English: “The real knowledge is outside the Wall.” I never went abroad, but the language became my passport out of the mental map.

Then one day, Facebook, YouTube, Google vanished with one click. The air filled with an invisible term: the Great Firewall. Learning to “scale the wall” was like finding a flashlight in the dark. Small, but enough to see not just furniture in the room, but chains.

3. The Lab: When “Real Problems” Meet “Real KPIs”

I studied life sciences—from cells to molecules, from observation to mechanisms. Slowly I saw a blunt fact: Chinese science is not short of money, but of a system that spends it on real problems.

Funding reviews depend on networks, paper counts serve as performance scores, professors are busy socializing, students reduced to screws in a machine. Academic ideals got packed into six words: “publish papers, meet metrics.”

Two events smashed my illusions:

The gene-editing ethics disaster: a vice professor treated human embryos like test tubes. Science wasn’t ready, ethics was absent. He served three years, then returned as professor. The system’s responsible bodies all “walked by, without blame.”

The unreproducible breakthrough: a tool hailed as world-shaking was found unreproducible within months. Towers rose fast, collapsed faster; accountability disappeared fastest.

Science requires time, honesty, and the right to fail. The system provided KPIs, rankings, and promo videos. When truth is dragged around by annual reports, the result isn’t breakthroughs but accidents.

4. Workplace Lessons: The Rules of Foreign Firms, the Magic of Domestic Ones

After my PhD I stayed in Shanghai.

In foreign companies, the first lesson: processes aren’t for show, compliance isn’t a slogan. No “996” culture—at least not mandatory. Things still got done without burnout.

But after mergers, “Chinese management” spread like a virus: form-filling universes, power games, bad money driving out good. I pivoted to “domestic industry,” hoping to do something that truly benefited patients. I ended up in two “human-mine factories.”

Company A preached “borderless flexibility,” meaning borderless unpaid overtime. During the pandemic, they threw R&D into the outbreak zones to grab samples. “Donations” were PR, compliance optional, salaries vague. My Apple Watch became my death warrant: heart-rate alarms as work check-ins. The final product died at the approval stage—the game had been scripted long ago, real profits reserved for those already on the whitelist. The boss gambled recklessly, feeding employees’ health and lives into the pit.

Company B looked “international,” but its core was “cash-grab studies.” The goal wasn’t product launch, but company IPO. Colleagues competed by slander, staff self-harmed under KPIs. Copying was called “domestic substitution,” passing the parcel became “capital story.” Less than a year after I left, it collapsed.

Why were both bosses equally short-sighted? Because behind them stood China’s impatient capital and system. They were all being driven: “rush to start, rush to raise, rush to exit.” Otherwise, the shifting policies might wipe them out overnight. In China, a 50-year enterprise is a joke; surviving 5 years as a private company is already a feat.

When I fled back to foreign firms, I realized even “clean land” wasn’t clean. Facing state-sector clients, science had to bow to administration. You say “follow regulations,” they say “the leader wants the report today.” You say “samples are contaminated,” they say “we have no time.” Slowly I saw: it wasn’t me failing to adapt—it was me refusing to collude.

5. Three Years of COVID: Rumors as Masks, Lockdowns as Medicine

COVID was a demon mirror. First, they exported blame—“virus made in USA.” Then they locked up samples, sealed off information. Citizen journalists disappeared, conscientious doctors were reprimanded.

Cities welded shut, patients left untreated, lives expired like captcha codes. I was locked inside my home for 70+ days, surviving on group-buys and luck. Relatives infected, some passed away; the funeral queues became my curve of “state capacity.”

The sudden “reopening” at year’s end left me with one review of the “pandemic report card”: the data can talk—only it cannot tell the truth.

That was when I made a long-term decision: to leave.

6. After Leaving: Comparative Studies Persuade Best

America’s first impression: “political expression belongs in daily life.” The everyday calm on ordinary faces made me re-examine the propaganda I knew by heart:

“Capitalism is misery”?—I saw cheap milk in supermarkets, smiles in subways, protests with police maintaining order rather than dispersing them.

“The West suppresses China”?—Multinational financial reports showed data doesn’t “patriotically” lie; China’s numbers were visibly sliding.

“We already lead in innovation”?—Once chips got “choked,” the so-called “national champions” collectively gasped for air.

The comparison led to a blunt, almost offensive conclusion: the rule of law gives smart people a stage; dictatorship gives smart people a backstage pass.

7. My Husband and I: Aligning with History, Adjusting to Reality

My husband saw through it earlier. He reminded me: the foundation of dictatorship is “deception + violence.”

Deception: calling black white, calling aggression “self-defense,” calling victims “foreign agents.”

Violence: turning youthful cries into stains on permanent records, turning civic voices into crimes under criminal law.

Together we reviewed the CCP’s “rise”: opium-funded Yan’an, the man-made famines of land reform and the Great Leap, the moral extermination of the Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen massacre, organ harvesting and the security state, the constitutional rollback to lifelong rule.

These are not “accidents,” but systemic inevitabilities. To talk of “peaceful times” under such a history is like praising “handcraft aesthetics” on an assembly line.

8. Why I Must Oppose the CCP: Because I Still Want to Be Human

If I had to compress my reasons into three lines:

For truthHistory must be verifiable, journalism must allow dissent. Without truth, all “report cards” are essays.

For professionalismScience needs free trial and honest failure. Medicine needs independent oversight and accountable regulation. When power overrides rules, professions degrade into crafts; crafts, however skilled, cannot build conscience.

For dignityHumans are not tools, nor KPI consumables. Dignity comes from freedom of speech, association, and choice—from the right to say “no.” When only “yes” is allowed, every wrong becomes disaster.

9. Epilogue: Turning Fear into Judgment, Anger into Action

Leaving is not escape. Speaking out is not performance. They are acts of adult responsibility—to family health, to professional integrity, to respect for facts, to hope for the future.

If you too feel the wind blowing through the cracks between decency and lies, start with the smallest steps:

Learn to distinguish “news” from “bulletins.”

Give patience to opposing views.

At every “to speak or not” moment, at least make sure you hear yourself.

Awakening is never too late. Change, likewise.

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