Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A538-W312

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A538-W312


Release Date: April 11, 2010



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part VI) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之六 -- 魏京生


Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)



Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release.  If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2010/report2010-04/WeiJS100411ChinaWayOut6A538-W312.htm which contains identical information.




The Way Out for China, Part VI

-- Wei Jingsheng

When people talk about forceful revolution and resistance with force, there are some friends who will ask with doubt: "Is not it nowadays' fashion to talk about peace, rationality, and non-violence and a so-called 'color-revolution'"?  "It is so scary to hear the words of forceful revolution.  Isn't that terrorism?"  Therefore, we need to distinguish between a forceful revolution and terrorism first.


The definition of "terrorism" is not universally agreed upon yet.  However, in general terms, the world agrees on two main characteristics of "terrorism".  The first characteristic is to attack civilians in an effort to create a terror atmosphere in a population to reach a political goal.  The second is to attack a legitimate government that is not generally recognized as despotic and identified with by most of the people.  The terrorist attack of 911 is a typical act of terrorism that possesses both characteristics.


However, a reasonable and rightfully forceful revolution does not possess the above two characteristics.  First, it does not have the goal to attack civilians in an effort to create a terror ambiance.  A revolution will create chaos; even a non-forceful revolution will be chaotic and will very likely harm innocent people.  However, harming civilians and creating terror is not the needed means of revolution.  Any revolution would try to avoid harming civilians, for it runs counter to the goal of a revolution.  Relying on harming civilians and creating terror would ultimately receive the general opposition of the people and is an atrocity that is impossible to be successful.  It is fundamentally different from a revolution that was launched in an effort to strive for people's rights.


The second difference is that the target of a revolution is a despotic rule opposed by the majority of people.  When a despotic rule deprives people's basic rights and suppresses and exploits the majority, it thus encounters the opposition of the people.  When people have the right for legal struggles, normal people would try to use legal ways to reach their political goals.  There is no need for them to risk their own lives.  There is no need for forceful revolution.


However, when the forest is big, there are all kinds of birds.  Facing a government where one might exercise legal struggle, a government that guarantees people's freedom and rights, and a government that was not spurned by the people in general, there are always abnormal people who would want to use violence abusively in an effort to coerce the majority's will by creating an terror ambiance.  This is terrorism conducted by madmen, which is totally different from revolution, although both involve force.


Some kindhearted friends think that one could reach the goal of revolution without force.  I have not seen this kind of precedent yet.  Some so-called "color revolutions" that are extolled to the sky by some people probably would never have been successful if there was no support, or at least no involvement by the military and the police.  If the Romanian army did not support the revolutionaries, would Nicolae Ceausescu have surrendered to the people and been arrested with "peace, rationality and non-violence"?


Not only overturning tyranny for democracy needs a push forward by force, even maintaining the operation and development of a democratic politics needs force - the military and police.  There are people who live in a democratic country which is protected by the military and police, yet are against others using force to overturn a tyranny.  I do not consider that as a noble sentiment, to the least it is pretending they know what they do not know and forgetting their own origin.  For those people who live under the tyranny, yet are against people using force to overturn the tyranny, then that is a shame.  They are the accomplices of the tyrants.


Is tyranny a kind of peace?  Of course it is not.  When tyranny has a war against its own people, could you make rationality out of it?  Of course not.  Otherwise, it is not a tyranny.  Just like in dealing with hooligans and bandits who are not reasonable, only by using force could we make them to be reasonable and be able to reach peace within the society.  Only when there is peace within a society, can people use political means of peace, rationality and non-violence to operate and perfect the democratic politics.


The democratic politics is a politics operated via the means of peace, rationality and non-violence.  However, the characteristic of all autocracy is that those in power can forcefully ruin the rules of political operation according to their will.  The Chinese Communist Party is a model for autocracy.  Their knack for political operation is to use scheming and intrigues to wreck normal rules of political operation.  Whoever is able to play the cards without obeying the rules of the game, will get the upper hand.


But a successful democratic politics is just the opposite.  Take the United States of America as an example.  After a democratic frame was forcefully built successfully, the rule within its people is peaceful, rational and non-violent.  Without this kind of rule, it is impossible to draft a democratic constitution that synthesizes various opinions.  Without a peaceful, rational and non-violent consultation, people would not identify with this constitution.  A constitution that could not be identified with by the people, could not be maintained except by force.  Then it would not be a democratic USA, but a Communist country.


The Chinese have been struggling for democracy for more than one century, yet made their root mistake on this important step.  It is all right to respect authority and respect stability.  But the mistake is to make the wrong attribution for misusing a forceful revolution that is targeted against tyranny, for the politics within the people.  When schemes and violence are used in the politics within the people, there are no rules for the politics.  The result is a tyranny, instead of a republic.


Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin creatively developed the theory of class struggle, as a way of dealing with the opposition forces in the society by the means of tyranny, and destroying the opposition parties.  In dealing with the opposition factions within the party, they simply used "spying crime" as in dealing with criminals, as an excuse to use violence for political struggles.  Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party succeeded and developed the approaches of Lenin and Stalin.  They expanded the classes from identity to thought, from spies to traitors, hidden traitors, scabs, and "so and so faction walking on so and so roads".  Thus, they were able to destroy any opposition within the party, and developed a Communist totalitarian system which is more autocratic than the former Soviet Union.


These processes of turning a democratic revolution into an autocratic regime share a common characteristic which is to smash the rules of political operation as one pleases.  Not only the common people, even the politicians themselves do not have the guarantee of basic human rights.  The portion of the people who control power rely on the terror ambiance created by abusively used forces, in an effort to reach the goal of eliminating dissidents.  There is no reason to be made.  There is no reason needed to be given when it is unreasonable.


Autocracy is state terrorism.  It maintains a regime by manufacturing terror and relying on terrorist actions.  It is essentially different from a forceful revolution in an effort to build a political rule of peace, rationality and non-violence.  They have totally different goals.


Nowadays, there are people who intentionally mix up these two things with totally different natures.  On one side, they think that you can be rational with the tyranny, and thus should not use force in dealing with the enemy to overturn the tyranny.  They want you to use "peace, rationality, and non-violence" in dealing with the tyranny.  On the other side, they call the people with different opinions to be unruly people and mobs, and encourage the Communist party to suppress the people with violence.


These kinds of people who are using not just action, but also emotion to speak for the tyranny by standing on tyranny's position are definitely not democratic personages.  To the best, they are the beggars who want to share a meal with the tyrants.  Sometimes, these beggars could get a cup of soup; sometimes they might be bitten by the dogs released by these tyrants.  We are sympathetic with them, but meanwhile despise them as well.



To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:



(Written and recorded on April 2, 2010.  Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)



This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org


The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China.  We appreciate your assistance and help in any means.  We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet. 


You are welcome to use or distribute this release.  However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org


Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well.  You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org.  Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.


For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org


To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:

www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org

for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.


You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or

Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539


Wei Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:

Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA


You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement.  To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject.  Please allow us a few days to process your request.





Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A538-W312

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A538-W312


Release Date: April 11, 2010



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part VI) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之六 -- 魏京生


Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)









-- 魏京生



说到暴力革命 、暴力反抗,有些朋友不禁会产生疑问:不是说现在时髦“和平、理性、非暴力”吗;时兴的是什么颜色革命;暴力革命听上去有点儿可怕,是不是恐怖主义呀?所以,首先要分清暴力革命和恐怖主义的区别。
























这些把民主革命转变成专制政权的过程,有一个共同的特点,那就是随意破坏政治运作的规则。不但人民,就是政治家们也没有基本人权的保障 。掌握政权的一部分人,依靠滥用暴力制造的恐怖气氛来达到消除异己的目标。什么阶级斗争,间谍,叛徒、内奸、工贼和走什么道路的什么派,都是破坏规则消除异己的手段。并没有什么理论,不讲理还能有什么理论呢。



















欢迎投稿(暂无稿费)或批评建议,请寄信箱:  HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG



Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA

电话: 1-202-543-1538 传真:1-202-543-1539






倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息,请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。