Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Temple: A Prolonged Struggle Between Power and Faith

作者：陀先润

编辑：gloria Wang 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：鲁慧文

关键词：释永信，少林寺，中国佛教，信仰

在中国佛教界，少林寺是一个独特的存在。它既是佛教禅宗祖庭，又是商业与文化的输出地，同时又为体制服务。在过去二十多年里，少林寺的权力中心无疑是释永信。

从1980年代末起，释永信便试图进入少林寺核心领导层。在他尚未年满三十时，便多次争夺“住持”一职。当时虽未得逞，但他并未退缩。90年代初，他通过种种方式排挤原方丈速喜和尚，最终将其软禁，进而谋求上位。这一举动引发佛教界不满，佛教协会主席赵朴初生前始终拒绝批复他的住持资格，直到赵朴初去世多年，释永信才于1999年被顺利“扶正”。

他的上位，并非善行结果，而是玩弄权术与人脉的业力所致。然而，释永信上位后，争议与质疑并未停歇。

2008年与2015年，曾先后爆发两次针对他的实名举报，内容涉及财务不清、违背戒律、涉及女性关系等严重问题。举报者大多来自寺内、知情深入，细节清晰，但调查皆无果。公众一再质疑，释永信却步步高升，不仅担任全国政协常委、佛教协会副会长，还享有准副国级的生活与医疗待遇。

这一切无疑反映出一个问题：释永信不仅是一位宗教人物，更是体制中被制度性保护的“特殊身份者”。尤其在对外活动方面，释永信常年持公务护照出国访问，行程及比利时、阿布扎比、梵蒂冈等地，频频出席多边宗教会议。部分活动由名为“欧洲亚洲中心”的组织协调，该组织虽名为NGO，实则为中国对外形象工程的一环。这类“宗教外交”，往往游走于信仰与国家任务之间，其实质是政治角色的延伸。

甚至在一些敏感场合，如访问梵蒂冈的过程中，也有网络言论质疑他是否越权接触海外宗教人士。然而这正是中共的安排，中梵没有正式外交关系，中国政府不便公开派员，释永信的角色正好承担了那种“亦官亦僧”的模糊职能。

他代表的是体制中一种非常典型的“融合型人物”：宗教领袖、文化符号、政府代言人，三者集于一身。而其背后的少林寺，也早已不只是“禅宗祖庭”，更是一个跨界运作的经济体、舆论话题场与政商利益圈。

然而在这种“庙堂—庙门—庙市”三位一体化的发展下，那些曾坚守修行传统、试图揭露真相的大和尚们逐渐被边缘。他们或隐退山林，或被驱出寺门，或沉默不语。整个佛教体系在权力结构的裹挟下，越来越像是一套精密的“庙产管理系统”，而非一方净土。

结语

释永信并非孤例。他只是当代中国宗教—权力交界地带中，一个恰好被看见的人。他身上的争议，照出的是整个体制对信仰的工具化、对监督的空转、对僧人身份的政治塑形。

当一个方丈不再被问“是否持戒”，而被评价“是否得体、能出镜、擅公关”，我们是否该追问：如果信仰都可以被操控，那身在这片土地，还有何物不能被当局控制？

Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Temple: A Prolonged Struggle Between Power and Faith

By Tuo Xianrun | Edited by Gloria Wang | Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Shi Yongxin, Shaolin Temple, Chinese Buddhism, Faith

In the landscape of Chinese Buddhism, the Shaolin Temple holds a unique position. It is not only the ancestral seat of Chan (Zen) Buddhism, but also a commercial and cultural brand—and at the same time, an institution that serves the political system. Over the past two decades, the power center of Shaolin has indisputably been Shi Yongxin.

Since the late 1980s, Shi Yongxin had been striving to enter the temple’s leadership circle. Before even turning thirty, he repeatedly competed for the position of abbot. Though unsuccessful at the time, he did not back down. In the early 1990s, through various means, he sidelined the then-abbot Master Suxi, eventually placing him under soft house arrest, paving his own path to the top. This move stirred discontent within the Buddhist community. The then-President of the Buddhist Association of China, Zhao Puchu, persistently refused to approve Shi’s abbotship during his lifetime. It was only years after Zhao’s passing that Shi Yongxin was officially “promoted” in 1999.

His rise to power was not the result of virtue but a consequence of wielding political tactics and personal connections. However, Shi Yongxin’s ascent did not put an end to controversy and public skepticism.

In both 2008 and 2015, whistleblowers filed real-name complaints against him, involving financial opacity, violations of monastic discipline, and alleged improper relations with women. These accusations mostly came from insiders, with detailed and credible information. Yet no investigations yielded results. Despite the persistent questions from the public, Shi Yongxin continued to climb the political ladder, serving as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and as Vice President of the Buddhist Association of China. He also enjoys vice-ministerial-level perks in lifestyle and medical care.

All of this points to one conclusion: Shi Yongxin is not merely a religious figure, but a “special-status individual” institutionally protected within the system. Especially in the international arena, Shi Yongxin has long held a diplomatic passport and frequently travels abroad to attend multilateral religious forums in places like Belgium, Abu Dhabi, and the Vatican. Many of these trips are coordinated by the so-called “Europe-Asia Center,” an organization that claims NGO status but in reality functions as part of China’s global image-building initiatives. These instances of “religious diplomacy” often blur the line between faith and national duty, essentially extending the political apparatus.

In sensitive contexts—such as his visits to the Vatican—netizens have questioned whether Shi Yongxin overstepped in engaging with foreign religious figures. Yet this, too, is part of the CCP’s plan. Since China and the Vatican have no formal diplomatic ties, the government cannot dispatch official envoys openly. Shi’s role fills that vacuum—he is a monk, yes, but also a quasi-official emissary.

He embodies a very typical “hybrid identity” within the Chinese system: religious leader, cultural icon, and government spokesperson rolled into one. And behind him, the Shaolin Temple has long ceased to be a pure religious sanctuary; it is now a multi-industry enterprise, a media spectacle, and a hub for political and business interests.

However, under this “temple-court-market” trinity model, the elder monks who once upheld traditional spiritual discipline—and who dared to speak the truth—have been gradually sidelined. Some have retreated into seclusion, others have been expelled from the temple, and many have been silenced. The entire Buddhist structure, wrapped in layers of power dynamics, now resembles an elaborate “temple property management system” rather than a spiritual sanctuary.

Conclusion

Shi Yongxin is not an isolated case. He is simply one figure caught in the spotlight at the intersection of religion and power in today’s China. The controversies surrounding him reflect the broader reality: the instrumentalization of faith, the hollowing out of accountability, and the political redefinition of monastic roles under the current regime.

When an abbot is no longer asked, “Do you observe the precepts?” but instead judged by whether he “looks appropriate on camera, can handle public relations, and fits the Party’s image,” we must ask: If even faith can be manipulated, what in this land is beyond the reach of state control?

Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory

作者：华言

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文

关键词：马克思主义，马克思哲学，马克思政治经济学，科学社会主义，唯物主义

马克思主义由三部分组成：马克思哲学、马克思政治经济学和科学社会主义。马克思哲学和马克思政治经济学是工具，科学社会主义才是目的，这是我们所要论证的。

一、唯物主义是丑陋的哲学

唯物主义，在哲学基本问题上坚持物质第一性，精神第二性；世界的统一性在于物质性；意识是物质世界发展到一定阶段的产物；人的认识是对客观存在的反映。

唯物主义强调“物质第一性，意识第二性”，极力否定意识的价值，特别否定精神的意义。唯物主义的历史观，即所谓“历史唯物主义”，运用“生产力决定生产关系，经济基础觉定上层建筑”的“公式”，而否定个人的道德因素和精神意志作用。唯物主义的辩证法，“与万物普遍联系”和“按自身规律永恒发展”，唯物辩证法变成了诡辩论，消弭了对与错、是与非、善与恶的界限，变成了一种聪明但有欺骗性的、似是而非的推理和论证。唯物辩证法有时承认事物的永久运动，而否定事物的相对静止，否定概念的确定性，有时又以事物的相对静止否定事物的永久变动，把灵活性视作原则性。在解释命题时，崇尚玩弄概念、故弄玄虚，用华而不实的辞藻美化相对主义的说教。

唯物主义对意识的极度贬抑，乃至根本否定，使社会的精神支柱轰然倒塌，加速了社会道德沦丧。一是金钱崇拜。对物质的绝对肯定，自然导致对物质财富的推崇，也就是金钱崇拜，形成了“金钱万能”的畸形社会观念。二是精神空虚。物质财富不必然带来精神的充实，对物质财富的狂热贪求，所追求的是只有物质，导致精神世界空虚。

生命的意义在精神的意境中实现，精神之花一旦凋落,生命中将只剩下物欲本能,而没有精神的本能是丑陋的。哲学的价值在于,并且只在于摘取生命意义王冠上的明珠。精神之火熄灭了,生命就物化了,丑化了——唯物主义是丑陋的哲学。

二、剩余价值理论没有任何理论价值

马克思的剩余价值学说是马克思主义政治经济学的基石，是使社会主义从空想变为“科学”的奠基石。马克思的剩余价值理论是非常荒谬的，把马克思的荒谬学说作为指导世界无产阶级革命运动的理论基础，更是荒谬绝伦的。

马克思的剩余价值理论体系中有一个结论，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动，其他任何生产要素都不是价值的源泉，进而进一步提示资本“剥削”的本质。一颗钻石两千年前毫无价值，因为人们都不认识。今天价值连城，这中间没有任何“劳动”，产生价值的原因是人们都“想要”钻石。没有劳动而产生巨大的价值，如何解释？所以，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动根本上是错误的。

商品的价值只有在交换时才得到体现。没有交换，就没有商品的价值。因此，市场才是商品价值赖以存在的基础，没有市场也就没有商品的价值。什么是商品的价值？它是在充分而广泛的竞价基础上产生的，由供求关系决定的。生产了没有人要的东西，花费再多的时间也不产生价值；灵光一现的创意，花费少量时间，也可以产生巨大的价值。所以，价值与劳动无必然的关系，与社会必要劳动时间无必然联系，劳动价值论从根本上是错误的。奥地利学派认为，在生产过程中，资本家在提供其它生产要素的时候需要承担风险，而工人不需要承担这种风险。所以资本家获取利润是对于他们承担风险的一种补偿。制度经济学反驳马克思的剩余价值理论：如果其他生产要素毫无价值，那为什么工人要甘心接受资本家的剥削呢？他们完全可以单凭自己那唯一有价值的“劳动”去完成生产过程，去占据所有的“剩余价值”，不让资本家占便宜。

现代分配理论认为：按生产要素分配是按照生产要素的数量和质量以及生产要素贡献的大小。生产要素主要包括：劳动、技术、资本、管理等。各生产要素在国民收入中所占的份额大小，取决于它们各自的均衡价格。因此，工资、利息、地租和利润就是各生产要素的需求价格和供给价格相均衡的价格。工资是劳动的需求和供给均衡时的价格。利息是资本的需求和供给均衡时的价格。地租是由土地的需求状况和供给决定的。利润是资本家组织和管理企业以及冒风险的报酬。

因此，按照马克思定义,剩余价值=劳动价值-工资，劳动价值论是错误的，故而剩余价值论必定错误。

三、科学社会主义的不科学

社会主义就是通过不断革命，实行无产阶级的阶级专政，通过专政达到消灭一切阶级差别和由这些阶级差别产生的一切生产关系，从而进入共产主义。这一论述明确指出了社会主义本身是“过渡阶段”，是由资本主义社会向共产主义社会过渡的历史时期，直至最终实现共产主义。实现共产主义由三个阶段来完成：一是无产阶级暴力革命；二是无产阶级专政和社会主义社会；三是共产主义。

科学社会主义的基本原理和原则：政治上实行无产阶级政党的领导，无产阶级在共产党领导下进行革命和建设；经济上社会化大生产，公有制是社会化大生产的基础，推动社会化大生产的实现和发展的条件；文化上保持文化领导权，坚持文艺为社会主义主义服务，为政治服务，为共产党服务。

各国实施科学社会主义的共同结果是：如前苏共政治局委员、苏联解体后任俄共主席的久加诺夫所反思的那样，形成了苏共在苏联的“三个垄断”：政治垄断、经济垄断、思想垄断。无产阶级政党的领导成为了政治垄断，权力即资源和地位，当党天下成为了现实，党为了一直“为人民（币）服务”，就再也不愿意让他人染指权力，对一切意图获取权力者进行打压，乃至肉体消灭。经济上社会化大生产成为了经济垄断，将一切资源国有化，实质是官僚化，进而领导个人化，通过“二步走”，先是化私为共、再化公为私，让领导率先实现共产主义，让工人、农民成为领导进军共产主义车轮下的尘土，在公有制下，共产党政府对资源的垄断是全面彻底集中的，通过严格的生活资料票证供应制度，排除了任何个人对任何生活资源占有的可能性，人们的衣、食、住、行，每一项物质需求无不仰求于那个垄断者–共产党和无产阶级专政国家。在这种条件下，人们除了对垄断者–共产党彻底的人身依附外，已经没有任何存活的可能性。托洛茨基说：在一个政府是唯一的雇主的国家里，反抗就等于慢慢地饿死。‘不劳动者不得食’这个旧的原则，已由‘不服从者不得食’这个新的原则所代替。保持文化领导权成为了思想垄断，为了保持意识形态的统一性，必须从儿童抓起，不断塑造共产主义的新人，消灭一切异见，从而舆论一律、文艺一律。这“三个垄断”是反人道主义，是对人民的生存状态，对每一个人的社会、经济、政治、文化的价值观的根本控制与操纵，对人性尊严的侮辱和伤害。最后，人民丧失了民主自由，丧失了思想自由，造成新的奴隶制度，工厂成了集中营，农民成了农奴。

马克思高估了无产阶级领导的人性和人品，忘记了他们也是人，有人的一切缺点和不足。马克思高估了无产阶级制度的科学性，为了未来天堂的美好，在人间建设了一个惨无人道、最野蛮、最暴虐的恐怖的人间地狱，美其名曰：科学社会主义社会。

Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory

By Hua Yan | Edited by Zhou Zhigang | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Marxism, Marxist Philosophy, Marxist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Materialism

Marxism is composed of three parts: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The first two serve as tools, while scientific socialism is the intended goal. This article aims to demonstrate precisely that.

I. Materialism — An Ugly Philosophy

Materialism holds that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary; that the unity of the world lies in its materiality; that consciousness is a product of matter developed to a certain stage; and that human understanding is merely a reflection of objective existence.

Materialism emphasizes “matter over mind,” aggressively denying the value of consciousness and especially the importance of the spirit. Its historical view—historical materialism—uses a rigid formula of “productive forces determine relations of production; economic base determines the superstructure” to deny the role of individual morality and spiritual will.

Marx’s dialectical materialism, which claims “universal interconnectedness” and “eternal development according to internal laws,” degenerates into sophistry. It blurs the line between right and wrong, good and evil, becoming a deceptive form of pseudo-reasoning. Sometimes it affirms perpetual motion while denying relative stability and the definability of concepts; other times it uses stability to deny change—treating flexibility as a principle.

In interpreting propositions, it delights in conceptual tricks and empty jargon, beautifying relativist doctrines with flowery but hollow language.

This extreme devaluation—and even outright denial—of consciousness by materialism causes the spiritual pillars of society to collapse, accelerating the decay of social morality.

1. Worship of Money: Absolute affirmation of the material inevitably leads to the worship of material wealth, breeding a distorted worldview of “money is everything.”

2. Spiritual Emptiness: Material wealth does not necessarily lead to spiritual fulfillment. The blind pursuit of material gain leads to spiritual hollowness.

The meaning of life is found in spiritual realms. When the flower of the spirit withers, life becomes reduced to material instinct alone—and instinct without spirit is grotesque. The value of philosophy lies in uncovering the pearl that crowns life’s meaning. When the flame of the spirit is extinguished, life becomes commodified and debased—materialism is, therefore, an ugly philosophy.

II. The Surplus Value Theory Has No Theoretical Value

Marx’s surplus value theory is the cornerstone of Marxist political economy—the foundation upon which socialism claims to transform from “utopia” into “science.” But this theory is riddled with absurdities.

According to Marx, labor is the only source of value, and all other production factors contribute nothing to value creation. This underpins the idea of capital’s “exploitation.”

But consider: a diamond 2,000 years ago had no value because people didn’t recognize it. Today, it’s worth a fortune—without any additional labor. Its value arises because people want it. How does one explain the immense value generated without corresponding labor? Clearly, labor as the sole source of value is fundamentally wrong.

The value of a commodity is only realized in exchange. Without exchange, there is no value. Value arises from broad market-based pricing, dictated by supply and demand. A product no one wants has no value regardless of the labor poured into it; a flash of creative inspiration, produced with little labor, may carry immense value.

Thus, value is not inherently tied to labor, nor to so-called “socially necessary labor time.” The labor theory of value is inherently flawed.

Austrian economists argue that in production, capitalists contribute capital and assume risk—something workers do not. Profit, therefore, is compensation for risk. Institutional economists refute Marx’s surplus value theory: If other production factors are truly worthless, why would workers tolerate capitalist “exploitation”? They could use their valuable labor alone to control production and reap all the surplus value themselves.

Modern distribution theory holds that income is allocated according to the quantity, quality, and contribution of production factors—labor, capital, technology, and management. Their share of national income is determined by their equilibrium prices:

• Wages = equilibrium price of labor

• Interest = equilibrium price of capital

• Rent = price based on land supply and demand

• Profit = compensation for organizing, managing, and risking capital

Therefore, by Marx’s logic, surplus value = labor value − wages. But if the labor theory of value is false, then surplus value theory is necessarily false too.

III. The Pseudoscience of Scientific Socialism

Marxist socialism is defined by perpetual revolution, implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat to eliminate all class distinctions and their associated production relations—ultimately reaching communism.

This vision involves three stages:

1. Violent revolution led by the proletariat

2. Proletarian dictatorship and socialist society

3. Realization of communism

The fundamental principles of scientific socialism are:

• Political: Leadership by the proletarian party (i.e., the Communist Party)

• Economic: Public ownership and large-scale socialized production

• Cultural: Cultural control, with art and literature serving socialism, politics, and the Communist Party

But wherever scientific socialism was implemented, the result has been the same. As former Politburo member and post-Soviet Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov admitted, it resulted in three monopolies in the Soviet Union:

1. Political monopoly: One-party rule meant power became resource and status. Once the Party held all power “for the people,” it refused to let go, crushing all challengers—even physically eliminating them.

2. Economic monopoly: State ownership evolved into bureaucratic control, then into personal control by leaders. This “two-step” privatization turned “shared property” into tools of personal privilege. While leaders got rich first, workers and peasants were ground into dust under the wheels of this fake communism. All resources were monopolized by the Party through strict rationing systems—leaving individuals no access to basic needs without submission to the Party.

3. Ideological monopoly: Cultural control meant total domination of thought. From childhood, citizens were molded into “new communist men,” while all dissenting thought was erased. Media and art served only one voice—the Party.

These “three monopolies” were anti-humanitarian. They enslaved people spiritually, economically, politically, and culturally—stripping them of dignity and turning society into a new form of slavery. Factories became concentration camps, peasants became serfs.

As Leon Trotsky once said:

“In a country where the government is the sole employer, resistance means starvation. The old slogan ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ has been replaced by a new one: ‘He who does not obey shall not eat.’”

Conclusion

Marx overestimated the moral integrity and character of proletarian leaders—forgetting they are still human, with human flaws. He also overestimated the scientific nature of the proletarian system. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, scientific socialism created a horrifying earthly hell—brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical. And it had the audacity to call itself “scientific.”

Notice of the 2025 Leadership Election of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform

洛杉矶中国民主平台负责人（2025）换届大会通知

根据本平台章程, 2023届本平台负责人今年7月到期并组织总结及选举大会，相关事宜通知如下:

一、投票资格: 已缴纳2025年度会费的洛杉矶中国民主平台成员

二、投票时间: 2025年8月2日 （星期六 ）18：00

三、投票方式及目标：现场投票、唱票、计票，并公布投票结果（新一届的五位平台负责人）

四、顾问： 林劲鹏 王丹；场地控制：金岩

五、主持人：王栋良 史庆梅

六、投票公证人：童木、周鹤；投票见证人：朱虞夫

七、唱票人：耿冠军、王应国

八、选举结果宣布人：陈维明

九、场地摄影师：黄杰瑞

十、平台财务：吴立新，会计：刘国建

十一、投票地点: 六四纪念馆 3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732

Notice of the 2025 Leadership Election of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform

Date: August 2, 2025

In accordance with the platform’s charter, the current leadership team (elected in 2023) will conclude its term this July. The platform will hold a leadership election and summary meeting. Details are as follows:

1. Voting Eligibility:

Members of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform who have paid the 2025 annual membership fee.

2. Voting Time:

Saturday, August 2, 2025, at 6:00 PM

3. Voting Method & Objective:

On-site voting, vote counting and announcement of results. Five new platform leaders will be elected.

4. Advisors:

Lin Jinping, Wang Dan

Venue Control: Jin Yan

5. Hosts:

Wang Dongliang, Shi Qingmei

6. Voting Notaries:

Tong Mu, Zhou He

Voting Witness: Zhu Yufu

7. Vote Counters:

Geng Guanjun, Wang Yingguo

8. Election Result Announcer:

Chen Weiming

9. Venue Photographer:

Huang Jierui

10. Platform Treasurer:

Wu Lixin

Accountant: Liu Guojian

11. Voting Venue:

June 4th Memorial Hall

3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732

（宪法第三条：国家名称的意义与愿景）

On the Future of Democracy in China: A Detailed Interpretation of the “Five-People Constitution”

Part V — Article 3 of the Constitution: The Meaning and Vision Behind the Nation’s Name

作者：何清风 编辑：冯仍 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文

关键词：五民主义，宪法，中华联邦共和国，历史

中华民族联邦共和国宪法第三条是一条载深厚历史底蕴与前瞻愿景的条款它不仅明确了国家的名称与简称，还通过“五民主义”的核心理念，勾勒出一个致力于民族团结、民主治理与文化复兴的联邦制共和国的蓝图。本文将从历史背景、条款内容、设计理念及其现实意义四个方面，深入剖析这一条款的内涵。力求以通俗清晰的方式让读者理解其精神与价值。

一、历史与文化的根基：国家名称的意义

宪法第三条开篇即明确国家的全称为“中华民族联邦共和国”，简称“中华联邦”或“中国”及“中华民国”。这一名称的选择并非随意，而是对中华民族悠久历史与多元文化的深刻总结与致敬。“中华民族”这一概念，承载了中国数千年文明中多民族融合的独特历史。从黄河流域的华夏文明，到草原、西南、西域等地的多民族交融中国形成了以汉族为主体、多民族共同繁荣的文化格局。宪法以“中华民族”作为国家名称的核心，彰显了对多元族群共存共荣的尊重，强调各民族在国家建设中的平等地位。且中华民族联邦共和国的简称能更好地兼顾“中国”、“中华民国”这两个现有政体，为未来可能实现的统一提供法理依据。

“联邦共和国”的定性则进一步明确了国家的政治架构。联邦制意味着在统一的国家框架下，各地区、各民族拥有明确的自治权，这既是对中国历史“郡县制”与“藩属制”传统的现代演绎，也是对当代多民族国家治理挑战的回应。简称“中华联邦”或“中国”，既保留了历史上的国家认同符号，又以“中华民国”呼应了近代以来追求共和的理想。体现了历史传承与现代性的融合。

二、五民主义的理念：国家治理的灵魂

宪法第三条的核心在于提出了“五民主义”作为国家治理的指导原则。 即“五民主义”——民治、民主、民权、民生、民族。是对国家治理的系统思考，更是对中国传统政治哲学与现代民主理念的融合。

民治：公民治理国家

民治强调国家权力来源于公民，公民不仅是国家的主体，也是治理的参与者。这一理念承接了西方民主理论中的“民有、民治、民享”精神，同时与中国传统“民本”思想相呼应。民治意味着政府必须对公民负责，确保决策过程公开透明，并通过选举、听证等方式推动公民直接参与公共事务。在中华民族联邦共和国的框架下，民治不仅是理想，更是通过联邦制赋予地方更大自治权，让各族群、各地区的声音都能在国家治理中得到体现。即国家源于公民，权力源于公民。

民主：实现民主共和

民主是五民主义的核心支柱之一。宪法明确国家为“联邦制共和国”、表明追求的是权力分立、依法治国的民主共和制度。与单一制国家不同，联邦制通过中央与地方的权力分配，保障了治理的灵活性与多样性。民主共和不仅体现在选举制度上，还包括对多元意见的包容、对弱势群体的保护以及对权力滥用的制约。这种制度设计旨在避免集权带来的弊端，确保国家在统一中保持活力。

民权：保障公民权利

民权是五民主义中对个体尊严的承诺。宪法通过“保障公民权利”强调了每个公民在法律面前的平等地位，无论其民族、性别、宗教或社会背景。民权不仅包括基本的自由权（如言论、宗教、结社自由），还涵盖经济、社会、文化权利，如受教育权、劳动权等。在一个多民族国家中，民权的保障尤为重要，它是化解族群矛盾、促进社会和谐的基石。宪法通过联邦制赋予地方明确的立法权，使得民权保障能够因地制宜，更好地适应各地实际情况。

民生：建设民生社会

民生作为五民主义的实践目标，体现了国家对人民福祉的重视。宪法将“建设民生社会”作为目标，意味着国家政策将优先聚焦于教育、医疗、住房、社会保障等基本民生领域。与传统“以经济为中心”的发展模式不同，民生社会的建设强调的是公平与可持续发展，旨在缩小城乡差距、地区差距、贫富差距与族群差距。这种理念不仅是对中国近代以来“富国强民”理想的延续，也是对全球化时代社会公平诉求的回应。

民族：复兴民族文化

民族文化的复兴是五民主义中最具中国特色的部分。中华民族联邦共和国作为一个多民族国家，拥有丰富的文化遗产，如满族、鄂伦春族的渔猎文化每一种文化都是国家软实力的重要组成部分。宪法通过“复兴民族文化”强调对各民族文化的保护与弘扬，以及去除糟粕革新民族文化，同时促进各民族文化的交流与融合。这种文化政策不仅增强了国民的归属感，也为国家在国际舞台上树立了独特的文化形象。

三、设计理念：平衡统一与多元

宪法第三条的设计理念可以总结为“在多元中求统一，在统一中促发展”。这一理念通过联邦制与五民主义的结合得以实现。首先，联邦制是应对中国多民族、多地域现实的最佳选择。中国幅员辽阔，人口众多，各地在经济、文化、语言等方面差异显著。单一制治理容易造成政策统一而缺乏差异化，难以满足地方实际需求。难以满足地方需求。而联邦制通过赋予地方自治权，允许各地区根据自身特点制定政策，既保证了国家的整体统一，又尊重了地方的独特性。例如，少数民族地区可以在教育、语言、文化保护等方面拥有更大的自主权，从而增强民族认同与国家凝聚力。此外，宪法第三条的设计还体现了“以文化为纽带”的国家构建思路。中华民族作为一个多民族共同体，其凝聚力不仅来自政治与经济，更来自共同的文化认同。通过复兴民族文化，宪法试图在多元族群之间建立情感纽带，从而增强国家认同感。这种以文化认同为纽带的治理理念，在中国历史传统中根基深厚。如“和而不同”的儒家思想，为现代国家建设提供了重要的精神资源。

四、现实意义：面向未来的国家蓝图

宪法第三条不仅是一条法律条款，更是一个面向未来的国家蓝图。它为中华民族联邦共和国的建设提供了清晰的方向，可替换为“在当前环境下尤显关键”以增强语气。首先，它为多民族国家的治理提供了新范式。在全球范围内，多民族国家的治理是一个复杂课题，族群冲突、地区分裂等问题时有发生。中华民族联邦共和国通过联邦制与五民主义的结合，提出了一种既能保障统一又能尊重多元的治理模式。这种模式不仅适用于中国，也为其他多民族国家提供了借鉴。其次，它回应了公民对公平与参与的期待。在现代社会，公民对政治参与、权利保障与生活质量的诉求日益强烈。宪法第三条通过民治、民主、民权、民生等原则，承诺构建一个以公民为中心的社会。这种承诺不仅增强了政府的合法性，也为社会稳定奠定了基础。最后，它为文化复兴与国家软实力提升提供了保障。在全球化的背景下，文化软实力成为国家竞争力的重要组成部分。宪法通过“复兴民族文化”明确了文化建设的重要性，这不仅提升了国民文化自信，也增强了中国的国际文化影响力。

结语：

中华民族联邦共和国宪法第三条以简洁的文字，描绘出一个宏大的国家愿景。它以“中华民族”为核心，凝聚多民族的历史与文化；以“联邦共和国”为框架，平衡统一与多元；以“五民主义”为指导，回应公民对治理、权利与福祉的期待。这一条款不仅是国家治理的纲领，更是中华民族迈向未来的宣言。通过深入理解其内容与设计理念，我们可以看到一个致力于民主、公平与文化复兴的国家的美好前景。这不仅是对中国历史传统的继承，也是对未来治理挑战的积极回应。

“五民主义” 奠基人、《五民宪法》撰写人何清风。

On the Future of Democracy in China: A Detailed Interpretation of the “Five-People Constitution”

Part V — Article 3 of the Constitution: The Meaning and Vision Behind the Nation’s Name

By He Qingfeng | Edited by Feng Reng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Five-People Doctrine, Constitution, Federal Republic of China, History

Introduction

Article 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is a clause rich in historical depth and forward-looking vision. It not only clarifies the official name and abbreviation of the nation, but also, through the core principle of the “Five-People Doctrine,” outlines a blueprint for a federal republic committed to national unity, democratic governance, and cultural revival. This article analyzes Article 3 from four perspectives: historical background, content of the clause, design philosophy, and real-world significance. The aim is to help readers understand its spirit and value in a clear and accessible manner.

I. Historical and Cultural Foundations: The Significance of the Nation’s Name

Article 3 begins by stating that the official name of the country is “Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation,” abbreviated as “Zhonghua Federation,” “China,” or “Republic of China.” This name is not arbitrary; it is a tribute to the long history and cultural diversity of the Chinese people. The term “Chinese Nation” (中华民族) embodies the unique historical process of multi-ethnic integration over thousands of years of civilization—from the Huaxia culture of the Yellow River basin to the diverse ethnic mingling across the steppes, the Southwest, and the Western regions. By placing “Chinese Nation” at the heart of the national name, the Constitution affirms equal participation of all ethnicities in nation-building and honors the co-existence of diverse groups.

The abbreviation accommodates both “China” and “Republic of China,” providing a legal basis for potential future unification.

The designation “Federal Republic” defines the political framework of the nation. Federalism implies that within a unified national structure, regions and ethnic groups hold clear autonomous powers. This not only modernizes traditional Chinese systems such as the junxian (prefecture-county) and fanzhou (vassal) systems, but also responds to the contemporary challenges of governing a multi-ethnic state. The use of “Zhonghua Federation” or “China” retains historical identity symbols while resonating with the republican ideals pursued since the early 20th century—showing a harmonious blend of tradition and modernity.

II. The Five-People Doctrine: The Soul of National Governance

At the core of Article 3 lies the introduction of the “Five-People Doctrine” (五民主义) as the guiding principle of state governance. This doctrine—comprising People’s Governance, Democracy, Civil Rights, People’s Livelihood, and National Culture—represents a systemic vision for governance, integrating traditional Chinese political thought with modern democratic ideals.

• People’s Governance (民治): Citizens Governing the State

This concept emphasizes that state power derives from the people, who are not only the foundation of the nation but also active participants in governance. It echoes the democratic spirit of “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the West while aligning with China’s traditional “people-oriented” (民本) philosophy. Under this framework, governance must be accountable, transparent, and participatory, allowing citizens direct involvement through elections, public hearings, and more. Federalism enables broader local autonomy, ensuring that the voices of all ethnicities and regions are heard. The state exists because of its citizens, and its power originates from them.

• Democracy (民主): Realizing a Democratic Republic

Democracy is one of the central pillars of the Five-People Doctrine. Declaring the nation a “federal republic” signals a commitment to power separation and the rule of law. Second, it responds to citizens’ demands for fairness and participation. In modern society, people increasingly expect political involvement, protection of rights, and quality of life. Article 3’s principles—people’s governance, democracy, civil rights, and welfare—commit to building a citizen-centered society. This not only strengthens governmental legitimacy but also lays a foundation for lasting stability.

Finally, it supports cultural revival and the growth of national soft power. In the era of globalization, cultural identity is crucial to national strength. By affirming cultural development in its Constitution, the nation boosts citizens’ cultural confidence and its international image.

Conclusion

With concise language, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation outlines a grand national vision. It centers on the “Chinese Nation,” embracing its historical and cultural diversity. It frames the nation as a “Federal Republic,” balancing unity and pluralism. Guided by the Five-People Doctrine, it answers citizens’ calls for governance, rights, and welfare.

This clause is not just a constitutional principle—it is a declaration of the Chinese Nation’s future. By understanding its content and design, we glimpse a hopeful prospect: a nation devoted to democracy, fairness, and cultural renewal.

He Qingfeng, founder of the Five-People Doctrine and author of the Five-People Constitution.