Announcement on the “International Day for Civilized Dialogue” (III)

作者： “公民对话联盟”平台 2025年6月16日

编辑：王梦梦 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文

告中华人民共和国公民书：

2025年6月10日，首次“文明对话国际日”已结束。令人遗憾的是，积极推动并宣传该次活动的中国公民陈西，在有关组织长时间监管之下，于人身与手机均被限制状态下，结束了他的倡议工作。

更加令人痛心的是，当我们通过深度问答工具“DeepSeek”查询“倡导国”——中国在此次国际日中的具体行动时，发现官方将“对话”误解甚至等同于“文化交流”，推出了一系列与对话精神背道而驰的表面活动。

所谓的“文明对话”被呈现为：北京举办的“文明互鉴与全球合作”论坛，敦煌的“丝绸之路文明对话”，故宫的历史特展，国家大剧院的中外文艺演出，以及北大、复旦等高校组织的中外学生论坛和“一带一路”留学生文化交流项目等。

然而，这些活动无一体现“文明对话”的核心精神——面对冲突、包容异议、寻求和解、推动共和。我们没有看到任何冲突双方的平等出现，没有听到弱势群体或异议者的真实声音。正如一场劳资“对话”只邀请资本家而排除独立工会，这种形式主义的“对话”不过是单向的训话，是权力的独白，而非民主的交谈。

文明对话的初衷，是在面对分歧、冲突与发展失衡等全球性挑战时，为不同立场和社会角色提供一个平等协商的平台，通过对话凝聚共识，化解隔阂，迈向“共和”。真正的文明对话，不应回避冲突，而应勇敢面对它，并以契约精神予以回应与调解。

契约精神的基础是平等伙伴关系。在一个权力垄断、特权横行的社会中，不可能产生真正的平等，也不会有真正的对话平台。特权体制不仅扭曲了社会结构，更是阻碍中国迈向成熟、公正社会的根源。

中华人民共和国的公民们必须认识到：在特权主导的体制下，不存在良性对话的土壤。恶性冲突伤害生命，以专政与暴力作为解决手段；而良性对话尊重生命，以协商、法治与民主作为路径。特权者为了维护既得利益，固守恶性结构，竭力打压一切平等对话机制的萌芽。

因此，我们号召中华人民共和国全体公民：为了避免历史的恶性循环，为了摆脱停留在初级阶段的社会形态，为了争取真正的民主、平等与契约社会，请加入我们，共同建设“公民对话联盟”平台！这个平台将致力于发起、保障、维护真正的平等对话权利，广泛邀请社会各界人士，尤其是边缘群体、异议者、受压迫者，在平等基础上，共议社会冲突与转型之道！

“公民对话联盟”平台初始发起人：

贵州贵阳公民_陈西-手机号：19391111229 （社交软件同号）

四川成都公民-胡明君微信号：A13550171681（社交软件同号）

浙江杭州公民-陈树庆微信号：wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

湖南怀化公民-唐浩铭手机：13212390018，13974518171（社交软件同号）

江西赣州公民-刘少明手机：18802016201（社交软件同号）

贵州贵阳公民-徐国庆手机：13984086628（社交软件同号）

山东德州公民-陈立勇手机：18005449982（社交软件同号）

（按参加先后顺序排名）

欢迎中华人民共和国公民参加“公民对话联盟”初始发启人的活动！

Announcement on the “International Day for Civilized Dialogue” (III)

Issued by the “Civic Dialogue Alliance” Platform Date: June 16, 2025

Editor: Wang Mengmeng Supervising Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

To All Citizens of the People’s Republic of China:

The first International Day for Civilized Dialogue, held on June 10, 2025, has come to an end.

Regrettably, Chen Xi, a Chinese citizen who actively advocated for and promoted this event, was placed under prolonged surveillance by relevant authorities, and his person and phone were both placed under restriction. His efforts to continue the initiative were forcibly halted.

Even more troubling, when we used the advanced Q&A tool DeepSeek to investigate how the initiative’s origin country—China—participated in this international event, we found that the government had misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the concept of “dialogue,” reducing it to mere “cultural exchange” through a series of performative, surface-level activities completely misaligned with the spirit of true dialogue.

These so-called “civilized dialogue” events included:

• A Beijing forum on “Civilizational Exchange and Global Cooperation”

• The Dunhuang “Silk Road Civilization Dialogue”

• Historical exhibitions at the Forbidden City

• International cultural performances at the National Centre for the Performing Arts

• Campus forums for Chinese and international students hosted by Peking and Fudan Universities

• Belt and Road student exchange programs

However, none of these events embodied the core values of civilized dialogue: confronting conflict, embracing dissent, seeking reconciliation, and advancing republicanism.

We saw no equal representation of conflicting parties. We heard no authentic voices from marginalized or dissenting groups.

It’s like staging a “labor-capital dialogue” while inviting only corporate bosses and excluding independent labor unions—a monologue of power, not a democratic exchange.

True Civilized Dialogue: What It Is—and What It’s Not

The original intent of civilized dialogue is to create an equal, consultative platform where people of diverse positions and social roles can confront global challenges—conflict, inequality, and imbalance—and through genuine conversation, build consensus, resolve division, and move toward a republican society.

True civilized dialogue does not avoid conflict—it bravely faces it.

It seeks resolution through the spirit of civic contract, not silence or coercion.

But the spirit of contract depends on the foundation of equal partnerships.

In a society dominated by monopolized power and unchecked privilege, such equality is impossible—and so is any meaningful platform for dialogue.

The privilege-based political system not only distorts social structures, but is also the root cause preventing China from evolving into a mature and just society.

A Call to the Citizens of the People’s Republic of China

We must collectively realize this truth:

In a privilege-dominated system, there can be no fertile ground for healthy dialogue.

Destructive conflict devalues life and relies on dictatorship and violence.

Constructive dialogue respects life and pursues resolution through negotiation, the rule of law, and democracy.

To protect their vested interests, the privileged elites entrench the toxic structure and suppress every early sign of equal dialogue.

Therefore, we call on all citizens of the People’s Republic of China:

To break the historical cycle of destructive conflict,

To escape the trap of a society stuck in its primitive stage,

To build a truly democratic, equal, and contract-based society—

Join us in building the Civic Dialogue Alliance platform!

This platform is committed to launching, protecting, and safeguarding the right to equal dialogue.

We will actively invite participation from all sectors of society—especially the marginalized, the dissenting, and the oppressed—to come together and co-create strategies for resolving social conflict and navigating democratic transformation.

nitial Founding Members of the “Civic Dialogue Alliance” Platform:

• Chen Xi, Citizen of Guiyang, Guizhou

Phone: +86 19391111229 (also on messaging apps)

• Hu Mingjun, Citizen of Chengdu, Sichuan

WeChat: A13550171681

• Chen Shuqing, Citizen of Hangzhou, Zhejiang

WeChat ID: wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

• Tang Haoming, Citizen of Huaihua, Hunan

Phone: +86 13212390018 / 13974518171 (messaging apps enabled)

• Liu Shaoming, Citizen of Ganzhou, Jiangxi

Phone: +86 18802016201 (also on messaging apps)

• Xu Guoqing, Citizen of Guiyang, Guizhou

Phone: +86 13984086628 (also on messaging apps)

• Chen Liyong, Citizen of Dezhou, Shandong

Phone: +86 18005449982 (also on messaging apps)

(Listed in the order of participation)

All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are welcome to join the founding activities of the Civic Dialogue Alliance.

中国民主党贵州筹委会创办人陈西

Announcement on the “International Day for Civilized Dialogue” (II)

Chen Xi, Founder of the Guizhou Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party

作者：陈西 2025年6月2日

编辑：王梦梦 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文

致公权力：

“文明对话”是对懂得爱、包容，胸怀人类命运共同体的人说的，不是说给那些只图一己之利、奉行“我死之后，哪管洪水滔天”的特权者听的。

“文明对话”是为建立平等伙伴关系，让弱者与强者都能在同一个平台上平等对话；它不是为加固特权者霸凌弱者的权势地位，更不是为了确保特权者永远“正确”的活动；“文明对话”也不是让人追求虚无缥缈的高远理想，而是为了提醒我们共同守住社会的底线。

一个社会如果只鼓吹“伟大理想”，却不懂得守护“人性底线”；只知服从命令，不知独立思考；只知追名逐利，不讲公共责任；只重硬件建设，忽视制度、文化和精神建设时——这样的社会，不可能产生真正的“文明对话”，这样的社会在自取灭亡。

因为，真正的文明社会的基础在“软件”建设——在制度、思想、尊重、契约和共识中；而不是仅靠钢筋水泥所堆砌的“硬件”。文明社会懂得：“提问比回答更重要，质疑比服从更可贵。”

一个不能容忍提问、禁止质疑的社会，只能停留在文明的初级阶段。这样的社会不会保障每个人的自由权利，只能靠暴力迫使人们成为顺从的奴才，并要求每个人与它“高度一致”。特权者对其固有地位充满恐惧，他们因恐惧而不断筑墙——筑言“防火墙”，封锁舆论与表达；筑“文明对话”的围墙，防止异见者发声；筑“柏林墙”，阻断人民通往世界的路。

台湾学者林雅琴教授曾说：“筑墙是野蛮，搭桥是文明。”，而我们所倡导的“文明对话”，就是一场搭桥的社会运动。桥，是双向通行的；建桥，是开放的象征；而筑墙，是封闭的象征。

文明对话需要有甘愿成为桥梁的公民，他们勇于突破特权者筑起的壁垒，搭建善意、合作、理解、爱的桥梁；也搭建自信、友谊、不再恐惧、不再敌视的桥梁。

只有拆除那些阻碍对话的“高墙”，文明对话才能真正开始；之后，才能共商共建属于所有公民的公共领域。

我们在此呼吁所有手握公权力的执政者：

如果你相信权力属于人民，权力应服务于公共利益，而不是私人特权，

如果你承认自己所持有的权力是“公权力”，源自“天下为公”而非“天下为私”，

那么，请与你的公民一道，共同建设一个平等、开放、自由的对话平台！

请用你手中的权力，帮助公民搭建善意、合作、理解的桥梁！

请阻止那些将权力私有化的特权者，破坏即将到来的“文明对话国际日”活动！

在一个真正的公民社会中，一切权力都源自人民的授权，不属于任何一党、一派或个人；而在一个奴才社会中，权力属于主子，是私有物，是统治工具，因此才会有“特权者”的存在。

特权者偏爱奴才社会，拒绝公民社会，自然也就敌视一切形式的“文明对话”。

这份公告不是写给特权者的， 我们是写给那些仍愿意承认自己手中权力属于人民的公权力者。

我们是写给那些愿意与人民一起，共建文明社会、共同搭建平等对话平台的执政公民们。

如果你也是这样的人，请在下一个“文明对话国际日”与我们并肩站在一起！

让我们共同开启这座桥梁，迈向一个以自由、平等、对话、理解为基础的真正共和国！

公告呼吁人：

贵州贵阳公民_陈西-手机号：19391111229 （社交软件同号）

四川成都公民-胡明君微信号：A13550171681（社交软件同号）

浙江杭州公民-陈树庆微信号：wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

湖南怀化公民-唐浩铭手机：13212390018，13974518171（社交软件同号）

江西赣州公民-刘少明手机：18802016201（社交软件同号）

Announcement on the “International Day for Civilized Dialogue” (II)

Chen Xi, Founder of the Guizhou Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party

Author: Chen Xi Date: June 2, 2025

Editor: Wang Mengmeng Supervising Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

To Those Holding Public Power:

“Civilized dialogue” is for those who know how to love, how to embrace others, and who carry within them a sense of shared human destiny. It is not for those driven solely by self-interest or for those who live by the creed: “After me, the deluge.”

Civilized dialogue is meant to build equal partnerships, to provide a platform where both the weak and the strong can speak on equal footing. It is not meant to reinforce the dominance of the privileged, nor to guarantee that they are always “right.” It is not about chasing lofty but hollow ideals—it is about reminding us to defend the moral bottom line of society.

A society that constantly trumpets grand ideals but neglects to protect human dignity…

That blindly obeys orders but discourages independent thought…

That is obsessed with fame and profit but ignores public responsibility…

That prioritizes physical infrastructure while neglecting institutions, culture, and moral values…

—such a society cannot produce meaningful civilized dialogue. Such a society is walking the path of self-destruction.

Because the foundation of a truly civilized society lies not in its hardware, but in its software—its institutions, values, mutual respect, civic contracts, and shared understandings.

A civilized society understands that:

“To ask questions is more important than to have answers; to doubt is more precious than to obey.”

A society that cannot tolerate questions, that bans dissent, can only remain at the most primitive stage of civilization. It will never safeguard individual freedom, but instead will rely on violence to mold its people into submissive subjects, forcing them into “perfect alignment” with the regime.

The privileged few, in their deep fear of losing power, are obsessed with building walls—

• Firewalls to block free expression and independent thought;

• Walls of dialogue to shut out dissenting voices;

• And even Berlin Walls to cut people off from the outside world.

Professor Lin Yaqin of Taiwan once said:

“To build walls is barbaric. To build bridges is civilization.”

The “civilized dialogue” we advocate is a movement of building bridges—bridges of kindness, cooperation, understanding, and love; bridges of confidence, friendship, courage, and mutual respect.

Civilized dialogue needs citizens who are willing to be the bridge—to challenge the barriers erected by the powerful, and to connect people with empathy and trust. Only when the walls of silence are torn down can true dialogue begin. Only then can we collectively shape a public space that belongs to all citizens.

To Those in Power: We Appeal to You

If you truly believe that power belongs to the people, and should serve the common good, not private interests…

If you acknowledge that the authority you hold is public power, derived from the principle of “the world is for all,” and not a personal asset…

Then, we call on you to join us in building an open, free, and equal platform for civilized dialogue.

Use your power to help citizens build bridges of kindness and understanding.

Resist those who attempt to privatize public power and sabotage the coming International Day for Civilized Dialogue.

In a true civil society, all power originates from the people—it does not belong to any party, faction, or individual.

But in a slave society, power is the private property of rulers and a tool of control. That is why the privileged few exist—and why they fear and resist civilized dialogue in any form.

This announcement is not for the privileged class.

It is written for those in power who still believe their authority comes from the people.

It is written for those public citizens who are willing to stand with the people to build a civilized society and an equal platform for dialogue.

If you are such a person,

please stand with us on the next International Day for Civilized Dialogue.

Let us open this bridge together—toward a true republic built on freedom, equality, dialogue, and mutual understanding.

Initiators of This Announcement:

• Chen Xi, Citizen of Guiyang, Guizhou

Phone: +86 19391111229 (also used on messaging apps)

• Hu Mingjun, Citizen of Chengdu, Sichuan

WeChat: A13550171681

• Chen Shuqing, Citizen of Hangzhou, Zhejiang

WeChat ID: wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22

• Tang Haoming, Citizen of Huaihua, Hunan

Phone: +86 13212390018 / 13974518171 (messaging apps enabled)

• Liu Shaoming, Citizen of Ganzhou, Jiangxi

Phone: +86 18802016201 (also on messaging apps)

What Exactly Is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”?

作者：郭斌 2025年7月9日

编辑：冯仍 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文

中国政府常常强调“中国特色社会主义”的优越性。按照常识来看，世界上主要的社会制度大致可以分为几类，比如美国的资本主义、北欧的民主社会主义。那么中国所说的“中国特色社会主义”，到底是什么？它与其他国家的制度究竟有什么不同？

简单说，社会主义是一种强调社会福利与社会平等的制度，那么我们就从这两个方面来看看中国的现实。从国家之间横向比较来看，中国的福利体系远不如那些真正的福利国家。别说北欧国家，就连美国这个一向被认为“福利不高”的国家，也明显比中国做得好。 比如，美国的低收入人群可以领取食品券，有Medicaid医保；而中国的贫困人口，不仅缺乏社会保障，甚至还可能被当作“低端人口”清理出城市。

中国普通百姓和公务员之间的福利待遇差距非常明显。公务员的医保报销可以达到90%甚至更高，笔者祖父住院时就曾亲身经历；而农民的医保不仅额度有限，而且很多常用药根本不在医保目录中。 除此之外，农民和农民工在子女教育、社会保障和就业机会等方面也普遍受到歧视，这几乎是显而易见的事实。在一个既没有普遍福利保障，又缺乏基本平等的体制下，如果这还叫社会主义，那它也只能是“中国特色的社会主义”了。

不可否认，过去几十年，中国特色社会主义模式在经济上确实取得了显著成功：中国迅速崛起于全球产业链，在制造业、出口、基础建设等方面成绩亮眼。那么这种“成功”的模式，是不是有某种现实合理性？答案当然是肯定的，但它背后的逻辑其实并不复杂。在全球化大背景下，资本和技术总是流向那些劳动力便宜、劳动法松散、工会力量微弱的地区。想象一下，美国工厂里的中产工人一天工作七小时，还有工作生活平衡；而中国东莞的流水线工人一个月只休息两天，每天工作十二小时，工资却只有美国工人的七分之一。与此同时，美国的工会还经常组织罢工争取加薪。这种情况下，资本当然“水往低处流”。结果就是，那些高福利、高人权的发达国家开始面临制造业流失、产业空心化的问题，而中国则在这一轮资本转移中迅速壮大。

从某种角度看，这其实就是一种制度层面的“劣币驱逐良币”。高标准的文明制度在资本面前吃了亏，而更低底线的模式获得了竞争优势。面对这种局面，文明国家要么被迫降低自己的福利和自由标准去适应全球竞争，要么只能用贸易壁垒来限制资本和技术自由流动。而我们看到的贸易战，其实就是后一种反应的结果。

说到底，“中国特色”就是一种压低社会底线的血汗工厂体制，它在全球市场中暂时赢了那些讲人权、讲福利的西方文明国家。当然也必须承认，中国在过去几十年内的确取得了巨大的进步。人们的生活水平、医疗、教育、住房等方面相较于1980年代有了明显改善，这是事实，不应否认。但如果把中国放在全球坐标体系中比较，它的福利水平和个人自由，与“世界第二大经济体”的身份显然极不匹配。甚至可以说，中国至今仍然处于某种“负福利”状态。无论是看医疗、养老、民生，还是社会公平、公民迁徙权等领域，中国离现代文明国家的标准还有很大距离，更不用说言论自由、媒体监督、司法独立、政治参与这些领域的压制程度，已经低得令人发指。

而历史的讽刺在于，这种“中国模式”其实并不是什么新发明。十八世纪的欧洲，也曾靠这种原始的、压榨式的资本主义实现扩张。只不过今天它披上了现代化的外衣，打着“国家发展”、“民族复兴”、“脱贫攻坚”的口号，在强大宣传机器的包装下，看起来像是一种“成功的道路”。 但这套模式的本质，依然是以资源透支、环境破坏、人权牺牲为代价。它不仅带来了经济总量的增长，同时也造成了社会阶层的进一步固化、个人自由的进一步收紧、体制权力的进一步集中。说到底，它不是人类制度的未来方向，而是旧时代“黑工厂逻辑”在现代全球化背景下的重现。

从名称上看，“中国特色社会主义”这八个字本身就很混淆。它借用了“社会主义”的说法来维持合法性，但实际实行的，是一种国家主导、权力集中的混合体制。这种体制既不给人民足够的福利，也不给人民真正的自由和平等。它靠国家机器维稳，用压低底线的方式，暂时在全球市场中赢得了一场表面上的胜利。但这场胜利的代价，会由这一代人和下一代人一起承担。

What Exactly Is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”?

Author: Bin Guo July 9, 2025

Editor: Feng Reng Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translator: Bin Guo

The Chinese government frequently emphasizes the superiority of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” According to common sense, the world’s major political and economic systems can roughly be divided into a few categories: for instance, capitalism in the United States and democratic socialism in Northern Europe. So what exactly does China mean by “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”? How does it differ from other countries’ systems?

Put simply, socialism is a system that emphasizes social welfare and social equality. Let us evaluate China’s reality from these two perspectives. From a horizontal, cross-national comparison, China’s welfare system is far inferior to that of genuine welfare states. Not to mention the Nordic countries—even the United States, which is often criticized for having a relatively low level of welfare, performs better than China. For instance, low-income Americans can receive food stamps and Medicaid, while impoverished individuals in China often lack even basic social protections and may even be expelled from cities as “low-end population.”

There is a glaring disparity in welfare benefits between ordinary citizens and civil servants in China. Government employees may enjoy reimbursement rates of 90% or more under public health insurance—a reality the author witnessed firsthand during his grandfather’s hospitalization. In contrast, rural residents not only have limited coverage, but many essential medications are not included in the reimbursement list. Furthermore, farmers and migrant workers face widespread discrimination in areas such as children’s education, social security, and employment opportunities—realities that are almost self-evident. In a system that provides neither universal welfare nor basic equality, if this can still be called socialism, it can only be “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Undeniably, over the past few decades, the model of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” has yielded notable economic success: China has risen rapidly in the global industrial chain and achieved impressive results in manufacturing, exports, and infrastructure development. Does this model of success have some kind of practical rationality? The answer is, of course, yes—but the logic behind it is not particularly complex.

In the context of globalization, capital and technology naturally flow toward regions with cheap labor, lax labor laws, and weak unions. Imagine middle-class factory workers in the U.S. working seven-hour days while maintaining a work-life balance; meanwhile, assembly line workers in Dongguan, China, work twelve hours a day with only two rest days per month, earning just one-seventh of their American counterparts. At the same time, U.S. unions often organize strikes to demand higher wages. Under such circumstances, capital “flows to the lowest point.” The result is that developed countries with high welfare standards and strong human rights protections face deindustrialization, while China has grown rapidly by absorbing this wave of capital transfer.

In a certain sense, this represents a kind of systemic “Gresham’s Law,” where bad systems drive out good ones. Civilized institutions with high standards suffer under global market competition, while low-threshold models gain a comparative advantage. Facing this situation, advanced nations must either lower their welfare and freedom standards to remain competitive or resort to trade barriers to restrict the free flow of capital and technology. What we see today as “trade wars” are essentially manifestations of the latter.

Ultimately, the so-called “Chinese characteristics” refer to a sweatshop system that depresses the bottom line of social standards. It has temporarily outcompeted Western liberal democracies that prioritize human rights and welfare. Of course, one must acknowledge that China has indeed made enormous progress over the past few decades. Living standards, healthcare, education, and housing have all improved markedly compared to the 1980s—this is a fact that should not be denied.

However, when placed within a global framework, China’s level of social welfare and personal freedoms remains grossly mismatched with its status as the world’s second-largest economy. In fact, one could argue that China still operates under a “negative welfare” regime. Whether one looks at healthcare, elderly care, basic livelihoods, social fairness, or the right to internal migration, China remains far from the standards of modern civilized nations. Not to mention the shocking degree of suppression in areas such as freedom of speech, media oversight, judicial independence, and political participation.

The historical irony is that the so-called “China model” is hardly a novel invention. Eighteenth-century Europe also achieved expansion through this kind of primitive, exploitative capitalism. Today, it is simply wrapped in modern clothing and promoted under banners like “national development,” “national rejuvenation,” and “poverty alleviation.” Backed by a powerful propaganda machine, it appears to be a “successful path.” Yet at its core, this model still relies on resource depletion, environmental destruction, and human rights violations. While it has indeed boosted aggregate economic output, it has also intensified social stratification, restricted personal freedoms, and further centralized institutional power. In essence, it is not the future of human civilization but a reemergence of the “dark factory logic” of the old world, now operating under the framework of modern globalization.

Even the term “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” itself is deeply misleading. It borrows the rhetoric of socialism to maintain political legitimacy, while in practice it implements a hybrid system dominated by state power and centralized authority. This system provides neither sufficient welfare nor genuine freedom and equality. It relies on the coercive power of the state and the systematic lowering of standards to achieve a superficial victory in global competition. Yet the cost of this victory will be borne by this generation—and the next

Salute to Those Who Do the Dirty Work

作者：陈西（《零八宪章》首批签署人）  2025年7月9日 贵州 中国

编辑：罗志飞. 责任编辑：鲁慧文

德国总理默茨最近在G7峰会上声称：“以色列袭击伊朗是在为整个西方做肮脏的工作”，并罕见地向干脏活的以军致以“最崇高敬意”。陈西有文《向知白守黑的公民致敬》，同样表述了这一意思。干脏活，被陈西称为“守黑”。

文明世界需要干脏活的公民。浅层次理解，人类的生活垃圾、消费后的排泄物需要环卫工人清理，环卫工人是与脏黑垃圾为伍的人。中层次理解，医者面对病人，实际面对的是病毒病菌，医者帮病人恢复身体健康就得研究人体的病毒，与病人病毒为伍，医者也是在干脏活；同样，司法人员，尤其人权律师面对罪犯，得站在罪人一边，为其权利辩护是干脏活。因为人权律师干脏活，守黑，中国有许多人权律师就受到打压。如：为国母辩护的张思之律师，以及郭国汀、高智晟、李建强、唐荆陵、张鉴康、兰志学、张星水、张凯、李庄、李柏光、李和平，谢阳等等律师。

深层次理解，党治国先生，思想家，1954年以陕西省榜首考入清华大学的老右派，党治国先生对中国政权定义：“中国和欧洲国家的起源不同。在中国，国家政权起源于一种权力的篡夺和盗窃，因而它是一种赃物，它一来到世间便充满了阴谋和霸道，借用马克思一句话:‘它每个毛孔都充满血和肮脏的东西’”。陈西认同党治国先生这种观点，因这种观点与基督徒“原罪”观点相同。所以，陈西自供，他是带着镣铐与这个赃物——利维坦（巨兽）共舞的一名驯兽师，一名干脏活、与黑暗为伍的公民。

党治国先生是陈西的一面之师，于西安相识。2006年10月20日，七省市民主党人聚集西安，在为胡耀邦的秘书林牧老先生送别悼念活动中，先生送给陈西一本他的代表作《埋没的思想》。书中直言：“千百年来的改朝换代革命只是为了争夺这个赃物，没有新意，没有改革；只是把这个赃物换个姓而已，而每次改朝换代这个赃物都要流天下千万民众的血；最终，也还是另一批篡夺者、分赃集团而已”。

默茨定义伊朗为“死亡与破坏的来源”，伊朗是个主权国家，联合国宪章中有，关于主权国家不得被武力威胁的基本原则；然而，伊朗这个由神棍统制的极端主义国家，对内，行压迫伊朗人的专制行为，对外，叫嚣要灭掉以色列国，它先违反了联合国宪章；以色列迫于自卫，以武力来铲除来自伊朗的核威胁，似乎是干了一件脏活。党治国先生定义中国的政权是个赃物，身为基督徒的陈西时常在祈祷中忏悔自己的无知与污垢，我们生活在赃物中，没有别的选择，唯有信靠主耶稣的拯救。于是，就有知白守黑公民，带着镣铐与狼共舞的驯兽师。以求一点忏悔，一点改观，一点一点的驯化，从传统走向现代。

所谓“知白守黑”，这是一个负重，还是享受；是接受“污”名，还是接受“美”名的选择。守拙，背“十字架”、“进窄门”、“扒粪”，与病毒为伍是“自污守黑”；知巧，求功名、政绩，歌功颂德的事是“爱美守白”。谁不趋利避害呢，谁又愚蠢到“守拙守黑”呢？

“守拙守黑”者必遭人恨，讨人烦，是难有知己，知音，同道的。基督徒在世也遭人恨。作为基督徒的陈西，他受教：有病的人才需要医生，无病的人不需要医生；耶稣来是要从罪恶中拯救罪人，让病人得救；完美完善的世界不需要救恩。陈西得着耶稣的恩典后，就高高兴兴干脏活，守黑去了。记得曾有一位游走在重庆与贵阳之间的君子在网上发文，说陈西是贵州的“总线人”。确实如此，因陈西在与贵州民主人士搞“贵州公民人权研讨会”时奉行“阳光法”，提倡揭短、曝光、公开的维权活动，与公权力贴得紧，走得勤；因此坐监和受监管时间最长。

近日，又有一位君子，南京某大学前哲学教授，就讨厌陈西与肮脏的国和民为伍。陈西理解君子；高贵的君子们怎么会承认自己的不足呢？高贵的君子们怎么会去干“扒粪”、揭短、与黑暗，病毒为伍的脏活呢？因高贵的君子为高尚的政治两次坐牢，对这个国和民的肮脏体会得太深，他就说：他不爱这国和民，要爱你去爱；并说,在朋友圈要把陈西拉黑。

没有办法，君子可以洁身自好，基督徒则不能；革命者可以疾恶如仇，民主党人则不能；书生可以照本宣科，照搬苏俄或美丽国版本，公民则不能。基督徒得背起钉罪人的“十字架”负重而行；民主党人得尊重各方神圣，哪怕那个神圣是恶人，并还抹黑自己，他都得与赃物在一起，在干脏活中洗涤这世间的原罪。陈西或许是因爱，爱得深沉执著，不嫌国脏，不嫌民丑；他勇而不敢像君子般逍遥，更不敢像书呆子，动不动搬书本；他得作实干家，去实践现世的拯救之路。换句话说，有要面子的聪明人，有要里子愚蠢的守夜人；守夜人干脏活，把难题，黑暗和失败留给自己；聪明人做干净活，把成功，荣誉和政绩留给自己。陈西是愚蠢的守夜人，他学习“水善利万物而不争，(水)处众人之恶，养“知其荣，守其辱”之风骨。

 

Salute to Those Who Do the Dirty Work

By Chen Xi (Charter 08 First Signatory) July 9, 2025 — Guizhou, China

Editor: Luo Zhifei | Managing Editor: Huiwen Lu

At the recent G7 summit, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared: “Israel’s strike on Iran was doing the dirty work for the entire West.” In a rare move, he extended his “highest respect” to the Israeli military for undertaking such a burden. Years earlier, I wrote a piece titled In Praise of Citizens Who Know the Light but Keep to the Darkness, expressing a similar sentiment. What Merz calls “dirty work” is what I once described as “keeping to the black.”

The modern world cannot function without those willing to do its dirty work.

On a basic level, human waste and trash must be cleared away by sanitation workers. They labor daily amid filth, serving the public by keeping its refuse out of sight.

At a deeper level, doctors must confront disease and death head-on. To heal the sick, they must immerse themselves in pathogens and infection. Likewise, legal professionals—especially human rights lawyers—must defend even the guilty, standing beside them to protect due process and human dignity. That, too, is dirty work. And in China, many of those who engage in such work—lawyers like Zhang Sizhi (who defended “the mother of the nation”), Guo Guoting, Gao Zhisheng, Li Jianqiang, Tang Jingling, Zhang Jiankang, Lan Zhixue, Zhang Xingshui, Zhang Kai, Li Zhuang, Li Baiguang, Li Heping, Xie Yang, and others—have faced persecution.

On the most profound level, we must confront the moral stain embedded in the very structure of state power. Mr. Dang Zhiguo, a Christian thinker and former top-scoring entrant to Tsinghua University in 1954, once offered a searing critique: “Unlike European states, which grew from social contracts, the Chinese state was born out of seizure and theft. It is a stolen good. From its inception, it has been tainted by conspiracy and brute force. As Marx once said: ‘Every pore is filled with blood and filth.’” I share his view. To me, it echoes the Christian understanding of original sin.

That is why I see myself as a man dancing with the Leviathan while shackled—a beast-tamer in chains, a citizen who keeps company with darkness and bears the stain of the world’s filth.

I met Mr. Dang in Xi’an. On October 20, 2006, when members of the China Democracy Party from seven provinces gathered there to bid farewell to Lin Mu, former secretary to Hu Yaobang, Mr. Dang gave me a copy of his seminal work, Buried Ideas. In it, he wrote bluntly:

“For centuries, each so-called revolution was merely another grab for the same stolen prize. Nothing new. No real reform. Only a change in surname. And every dynastic change was bought with the blood of countless innocents. In the end, power simply passed to a new group of looters.”

Chancellor Merz described Iran as “a source of death and destruction.” Technically, Iran is a sovereign nation, and the UN Charter prohibits threats or use of force against such nations. But this theocratic regime, run by clerics, oppresses its own people and openly calls for the destruction of Israel. In violating the Charter first, it forfeits moral standing. In acting to eliminate the nuclear threat, Israel may indeed be doing the world’s dirty work.

Mr. Dang’s description of the Chinese regime as a “stolen good” resonates deeply with me as a Christian. I often pray in repentance—not only for my own sins, but for the filth in which we all live. We dwell inside the beast. We have no other choice but to cling to the salvation of Christ. Thus emerge those citizens who “know the light but keep to the dark”—taming monsters while wearing chains, dancing with wolves, hoping through such grim work to bring change, even just a little, step by step, from tradition into modernity.

To “know the light but keep to the dark”—is this a burden or a calling? Is it about accepting defilement or rejecting false glory? To “guard foolishness,” to “carry the cross,” to “enter through the narrow gate,” to shovel muck, to walk among viruses—this is to stain oneself in order to serve others. In contrast, to pursue cleverness, accolades, and political gains is to seek beauty and guard the white.

Who among us does not wish to avoid pain and seek benefit? Who is so foolish as to volunteer for the hard path, the path of dirt and shadows?

Those who take up the black are often hated, misunderstood, and left without allies. Christians are no exception. Christ himself said: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” He came not to praise the righteous, but to save the sinner. After I received his grace, I gladly went to do the dirty work—to keep to the dark.

There was once a gentleman who traveled between Chongqing and Guiyang. Online, he accused me of being “Guizhou’s top informant.” In a sense, that is not inaccurate. During our efforts to organize “Guizhou Civil Rights Seminars,” I insisted on transparency and public action. I advocated the “sunlight principle”—exposing injustice and confronting power directly. This meant constant scrutiny from the authorities. I have spent more time under arrest and surveillance than most.

More recently, a former philosophy professor from Nanjing University expressed his contempt for my closeness to the dirty realities of this nation and its people. I understand. High-minded intellectuals cannot bear to admit their own faults. How could such “noble gentlemen” stoop to shoveling muck, to exposing darkness, to working with filth?

This man, having twice gone to prison for his ideals, now claims to no longer love his country or its people. He says: “If you love them, that’s your choice.” He blocked me on social media.

And so be it. A gentleman can remain pure. A Christian cannot. A revolutionary can burn with righteous fury. A democrat must love even the enemy. A scholar can quote foreign doctrines by rote. A citizen must engage with the world as it is.

The Christian must shoulder the cross of the condemned. The democrat must respect all persons as sacred—even those who harm him. Even the “stolen good” must be met, confronted, and transformed. That is what it means to do the dirty work—to wash the world’s original sin, one deed at a time.

Perhaps I am simply one who loves too deeply. I do not shy away from the filth of this nation, or the ugliness of its people. I lack the courage to live aloof like a gentleman. I cannot bury myself in books like an academic. I must be a doer—a man who tries to redeem this broken world through concrete action.

To put it another way: there are clever men who preserve appearances, and there are foolish watchmen who preserve the substance. The watchman does the dirty work—he takes the risk, bears the blame, and endures the failure. The clever man does the clean work—he takes the success, the glory, the recognition.

I am a foolish watchman.

I strive to live by the example of water—nurturing all things without striving, dwelling in the lowly places that others despise. I seek to embody the spirit of “knowing honor, yet holding to humility.”

作者：王成果（2025 年7月6日洛杉磯） 编辑：王梦梦 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文

血染長街白紙寒，
鐵蹄輾夢亦難安。
雲開不懼風艱絕，
萬火終將洗玉山。

When the Wind Rises, the Clouds Will Scatter

— Dedicated to the souls of June Fourth and the White Paper Movement

By Wang Chengguo (Los Angeles, July 6, 2025)

Edited by Luo Zhifei | Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

Blood-stained streets, cold white sheets cry,

Iron hooves crush dreams beneath the sky.

Though storms may rage, the clouds shall part—

A thousand flames will cleanse Jade Mountain’s heart.

The Origins of the Democratic Party (Part 4): The Democratic Party Moves Toward Grassroots Politics

作者：朱虞夫 编辑：胡丽莉 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文

我只手空拳，无法施展，想到了民主墙时期的老朋友毛庆祥、王荣清、李锡安，八九六四，我因为“参与动乱”被抓（收容审查二十七天），随即被江干区房管局解除工会负责人职务，逐出机关，下放基层，病休在家，恰好毛庆祥开在清泰立交桥下的化工原料店歇业，在与陈维健、张震毅商量后邀我去开照相馆，他自己在温州做生意，经常两头跑。他家离我住的地方很近，相距不到一百米。我听说他回家了就去找他，他回家也会第一时间来我家聊聊。组党的事我也每次都对他说起。那天我又讲了民主党的事，现在正缺人手，希望他能把温州的生意结了，回杭州来，毛庆祥很爽快地一口答应，就回温州去清理转让业务了。

1998年10月，浙江筹委会初创时期接待外地朋友，左起前排：王荣清、王东海、邓焕武、朱虞夫，后排：吴义龙、毛庆祥、王培剑、姚遵宪、傅升、祝正明

王荣清的家已经从建国北路搬到离我不远的采荷新村，也就是一里地左右，他在家附近经营一家洗头店，79年民主墙时期的几个老朋友时而去他那里叙叙旧。李锡安住在望江门，经营过自行车和锁具生意，均不如意，王荣清在自己的门店附近帮他盘下一间洗头店，我这里搞民主党正缺人，就去一个一个请他们出来共襄义举。

祝正明写了一本《民主政治》的书，经济本不宽裕的他希望圈内的朋友能帮助他回流一些款项，并以文会友，结交更多志同道合的朋友。我带他见陈立群——她是二十年来杭州最活跃的社会活动家之一。她在杭州民运圈的人缘不错，在组党过程中我很希望她能与我们一起努力，便约了祝正明一起去她家动员她出山。祝正明带上十本《政治民主》，与我到卖鱼桥立群的家，我给他们二人互相作了介绍后，立群买下了这十本书。但是，对于我们邀请她参加民主党的事，她非常遗憾地说，她明天就要启程去多米尼加了。这一别就是许多年。

我想起民主墙时期有勇有谋的方醒华，在问到他的电话后，向他要了地址，就与祝正明一起去他萧山的厂里动员他出山。方经营着一个制作市政工程人行道地砖的工厂，原料就是隔壁萧山（火）电厂烧剩的废渣，他的办公室里坐着一个陌生人，自始至终抽着烟一言不发。方婉言拒绝了我们，说他的心是与我们一起的，但是他的工作很忙，不能参加。其时，我心里已经怀疑那个陌生人是他叫来的萧山政保，直到我被逮捕的那天才证实。那天杭州市政保押送我去老东岳看守所，一个戴墨镜的便衣在车上对我说，你这样做害了你的伢儿，你看方醒华就比你聪明，他为了儿子能去省检察院工作，答应我们，永远不搞民运了。

我因为在秋涛宾馆突然病倒，与王东海差不多时间放出来了，王有才和祝正明又关了些日子。出来后，趁着中共没有取缔中国民主党，大家都觉得不能自我放弃。同时在城隍山和湖滨一公园有许多关心时事的人也通过“美国之音”播报的新闻，知道了杭州组建中国民主党的事略，大家聚在一起议论纷纷。渐渐有几个比较活跃的市民大胆地发表自己的见解，引起上城区政保科张建华和郑刚的注意。

那几天，市民来金彪每天都在湖滨一公园用普通话发表政论，口才滔滔，经常在那一带的李锡安把他带进了我们筹委会的圈子里（同时带来的还有池建伟和李坝根等人）。有人说，湖滨来了一个北京的大学生，这消息传到上城区公安分局政保科，被张建华和郑刚盯上了，他们潜匿在公园出口处附近的灌木丛后面，当来金彪走出公园的时候，他俩猛扑上前，架住来金彪就往车里塞。正巧被人看到，来马上告诉池建伟，池了解到来金彪被关在南星派出所，急急忙忙找来我家。因为南星派出所在我工作的南星房管站隔壁，平时他们有文案都来找我帮忙，我立即赶过去探视。来金彪家里只有一个老母亲，他怕母亲着急，希望我能去报个信。我叫上复兴北苑社区的治保主任祝德胜一起过去了，看到他家境十分贫困，我向治保主任借了二百元钱，交给他母亲，安抚她，待她情绪稳定下来，再回派出所隔着铁栏杆聊天，七点正，我把随身携带的收音机调到“美国之音”频道，把国际新闻中来金彪被抓的新闻放给他听，门口值班的那个警察也感到不可思议。

第二天，我遇到张建华，问他来金彪的事，张大呼上当。他说，他们接到“耳目”（线人）说湖滨有个北京来的大学生在演讲，他们悄悄去听了，估计这个人是“徐文立”，就把他抓起来，到湖滨派出所做笔录，这个人说自己名字是来金彪，问他哪里人，他说是南星桥的。

原以为抓到了一条大鱼，结果大失所望，张建华和郑刚的沮丧可想而知。

毛庆祥、王荣清、李锡安络续各自担负起各方面的工作。吴义龙与他女友单称峰没有住处，毛庆祥找到戚惠民，让戚惠民把自己在景芳一区的一套房子无偿借给这对热恋中的年轻人居住，同时戚惠民这个民主墙时期的老战友也来为羽毛未丰的民主党做些实务，毛庆祥又发挥他在民主墙时期办理民刊的特长，编辑、发行了《在野党》。更重要的是，毛庆祥找来了当年民主墙时期的老战士聂敏之，当民主党的各位干将被捕入狱后，面对群龙无首的局面，聂敏之当仁不让地站出来担当重任，继续带领大家艰苦卓绝地奋战（聂敏之最后被捕并判刑，在服刑期间去世，成为中国民主党的第一个殉道者）。各地的民运朋友纷纷前来杭州，王荣清的家就成为接待大家的地方，由于他经商多年，经济比较宽裕，凡是来杭的各地民运朋友，他往往有所接济；李锡安经常在市民活跃的地方走动，把有意加入民主党的新人带来圈内，当时像李巴根、池建伟、萧利彬、高天佑、苏元贞、来金彪、王富华、吴远明等都是他带来的，这些新人又陆陆续续带来其他人，杭州的民主党活动蒸蒸日上。

The Origins of the Democratic Party (Part 4): The Democratic Party Moves Toward Grassroots Politics

By Zhu Yufu | Edited by Hu Lili | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

Empty-handed and powerless, I thought of my old friends from the Democracy Wall era—Mao Qingxiang, Wang Rongqing, and Li Xian. During the 1989 Tiananmen protests, I was arrested for “participating in the turmoil” and held in custody for 27 days. Soon after, I was removed from my position as union leader at the Jianggan District Housing Bureau, expelled from the agency, and relegated to grassroots work. I later went on sick leave and stayed home. At that time, Mao Qingxiang’s chemical material store under the Qingtai Overpass had just closed. After consulting with Chen Weijian and Zhang Zhenyi, he invited me to open a photo studio. Mao was running a business in Wenzhou and frequently traveled between there and Hangzhou. His home was very close to mine—less than 100 meters away. Whenever I heard he was home, I’d go visit him, and he’d often come to chat with me first thing upon returning. I talked to him about the founding of the Democratic Party every time. One day, I told him again that we lacked manpower and hoped he could wrap up his business in Wenzhou and return to Hangzhou. He readily agreed and soon went back to Wenzhou to handle the transfer.

In October 1998, in the formative period of the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee, members received friends from outside the province. From left to right — front row: Wang Rongqing, Wang Donghai, Deng Huanwu, Zhu Yufu; back row: Wu Yilong, Mao Qingxiang, Wang Peijian, Yao Zunxian, Fu Sheng, Zhu Zhengming.

Wang Rongqing had moved from Jianguo North Road to Caihe New Village, which was only about a mile from my place. He ran a small hair salon nearby. A few old friends from the 1979 Democracy Wall period would occasionally drop by to reminisce. Li Xian lived in Wangjiangmen. He had tried his hand at bicycle and lock businesses, both unsuccessfully. Wang helped him set up a hair salon near his own shop. As I was organizing the Democratic Party, I approached them one by one, inviting them to join this collective cause.

Zhu Zhengming had written a book titled Democratic Politics. Financially strapped, he hoped friends in the circle would help recoup some costs and also use the book to make connections with like-minded people. I introduced him to Chen Liqun, one of the most active civil society figures in Hangzhou over the past two decades. She had strong connections in the local democracy movement, and I really hoped she would join us. Zhu brought ten copies of his book, and together we visited Chen’s home near Maifuyu Bridge. After introducing them, Chen bought all ten books. However, when we invited her to participate in the Democratic Party, she regretfully declined, saying she was leaving for the Dominican Republic the next day. That farewell lasted for many years.

I remembered the clever and courageous Fang Xinghua from the Democracy Wall days. After getting his phone number and address, I went with Zhu Zhengming to his tile factory in Xiaoshan to persuade him to return. Fang was running a business making sidewalk tiles for municipal projects, using leftover slag from the nearby Xiaoshan thermal power plant as raw material. In his office, there was a stranger silently smoking. Fang politely declined, saying his heart was with us, but he was too busy with work to get involved. At the time, I suspected the stranger was from political security. This suspicion was confirmed the day I was arrested. As Hangzhou State Security was escorting me to the Laodongyue Detention Center, a plainclothes officer in sunglasses told me, “What you’re doing is hurting your son. Look at Fang Xinghua—he’s smarter. He agreed to stay away from dissident activities so his son could work at the Provincial Procuratorate.”

Because I collapsed at Qiutao Hotel, I was released around the same time as Wang Donghai. Wang Youcai and Zhu Zhengming remained in custody a few more days. After their release, we knew we couldn’t just give up—especially since the CCP hadn’t yet officially banned the China Democracy Party. Meanwhile, at Chenghuang Hill and Hubin Park, many politically aware citizens had learned of the CDP’s formation in Hangzhou through Voice of America broadcasts. People began gathering to discuss it.

A few active citizens started boldly sharing their views, catching the attention of Zhang Jianhua and Zheng Gang from the Political Security Division of Shangcheng District.

One man named Lai Jinbiao delivered fluent political speeches daily at Hubin Park in Mandarin. Li Xian, who often roamed the area, brought him into our preparatory committee (along with Chi Jianwei, Li Bagen, and others). Someone said a university student from Beijing was giving speeches in Hubin, and this news reached the Political Security Division. Zhang Jianhua and Zheng Gang lay in wait behind bushes near the park exit. As Lai Jinbiao left the park, they sprang out and grabbed him, shoving him into a car. A bystander saw this and quickly informed Chi Jianwei, who learned that Lai was being held at the Nanxing Police Station. He rushed to my house. Since that station was next to my workplace at the Nanxing Housing Office, and its staff often asked me for help drafting documents, I immediately went to check on Lai.

Lai lived only with his elderly mother and didn’t want her to worry. He asked me to inform her. I went with Zhu Desheng, the neighborhood security director from Fuxing North Court. Seeing the family’s dire financial situation, I borrowed 200 yuan from Zhu and gave it to Lai’s mother to comfort her. After she calmed down, I returned to the station and chatted with Lai through the bars. At exactly 7 p.m., I tuned my portable radio to Voice of America and played the news segment reporting Lai Jinbiao’s arrest. Even the guard at the door found it unbelievable.

The next day, I ran into Zhang Jianhua and asked about Lai. Zhang cursed, saying they’d been tricked. He explained that their informant told them a university student from Beijing was giving speeches in Hubin. They listened quietly and assumed it was Xu Wenli, so they arrested him. At the station, the man gave his name as Lai Jinbiao and said he was from Nanxing Bridge. They thought they’d caught a big fish—only to end up disappointed.

As time went on, Mao Qingxiang, Wang Rongqing, and Li Xian each took on specific responsibilities. Wu Yilong and his girlfriend Dan Chengfeng had no place to stay, so Mao asked Qi Huimin to lend them his apartment in Jingfang District for free. Qi, another veteran from the Democracy Wall era, began helping with the early organizational work of the party. Mao also used his publishing skills from those days to edit and distribute Zaiye Dang (The Opposition Party). More importantly, he recruited Nie Minzhi, another veteran of the Democracy Wall movement. When the key party members were arrested and the leadership was decapitated, Nie stepped up without hesitation to lead the movement. He was later arrested, sentenced, and died in prison—becoming the first martyr of the China Democracy Party.

Democracy activists from across the country began coming to Hangzhou. Wang Rongqing’s home became a reception hub. With his years of business experience and financial stability, he often provided assistance to visiting activists. Li Xian frequently moved among politically active citizens, bringing interested newcomers into the circle. People like Li Bagen, Chi Jianwei, Xiao Libin, Gao Tianyou, Su Yuanzhen, Lai Jinbiao, Wang Fuhua, and Wu Yuanming were all introduced by him. These newcomers, in turn, brought in others, and the China Democracy Party’s activities in Hangzhou began to flourish.