Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A636-W397

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A636-W397


Release Date: June 26, 2011



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We Must be Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to Struggle Against Another -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之三十八:广州增城事件与2009年的乌鲁木齐事件一样,是中共挑动群众斗群众的典型 -- 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/report2011/report2011-06/WeiJS110626ChinaWayOut38groupstruggleA636-W397.htm which contains identical information.




The Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We Must be Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to Struggle Against Another

-- Wei Jingsheng



Recently, there was a large-scale riot that took place in Zengcheng of Guangzhou.  The Zengcheng riot was a super-freak.   Initially a result of economic exploitation,  the Communist government quickly turned it into a group struggle.  The way the government handled the incident proves that it relies on a social policy of the Mao Zedong era: to incite one group of the masses to struggle against another.  That is the Government uses the differences between different groups of the society to expand the conflict, to provoke emotions, and to use the "people who got rich first" to suppress other groups of people.  It is the same method used during the Cultural Revolution: cause one faction to struggle against other factions; incite one group of people to fight against other groups of people.  It is a common practice of authoritarian rulers for maintaining their political stability.


The center of the recent riots, Guangdong's Zengcheng area, is a typical export-oriented economic manufacturing zone.  Rapid economic development in this region resulted in a demand for a massive labor force.  Large numbers of laborers moved in, forming whole new towns.  In a democratic country where people have equal rights, such new towns provide equal opportunities to everyone.  Although there will be gaps between rich and poor, and differences between local and migrant populations, equal opportunity weakens the differences.  The opportunities will not favor one group over another and thus magnify the differences between different groups.  A responsible government will also take some measures to reduce the sense of differences between groups.  This is a basic policy for maintaining social stability.


However, the Chinese Communist Party's policy does just the opposite.  Since the Mao Zedong era, the Communist Party's basic policy has been to create differences between people, and to expand the differences between groups.  The Chinese Communist regime uses discrimination among the people to achieve its purpose of dividing people up and thus maintaining rule over them separately.  It is why, despite the coat of so-called communism which was supposed to be a society without classes, Mao Zedong had to emphasize the class struggle instead.  On the surface, the Chinese Communist Party eliminated class, yet on the other side, it highlights class struggle as its principle.  Borrowing the sarcastic tune of the Chinese people, it is called: when there is no difficulty, we must manufacture difficulties for ourselves; when there is no class, we must manufacture classes for the purpose of class struggle.  For the Communist government, when there are no factions, it will manufacture factions for them to fight against each other.  This is indeed the magical weapon that Mao Zedong was skillful in using to play tricks against all the Chinese people.


Many people say that Deng Xiaoping carried out economic reforms, but not political ones.  In fact, this statement is not entirely correct.  The economy is part of the whole social system.  When the people's social status is not free, their economic status is not free either.  Differences in their social status created the differences of their economic status as well, or even expanded such differences.  This difference of economic status has been a main reason forming the differences between social classes from the beginning, and is also one of the reasons for the further expansion of class differences.  The class difference is the basic condition for the Chinese Communist ruling clique to incite one group of the masses to struggle against another.


The area of Guangzhou is an example.  From the beginning of the so-called "reforming and opening up" era, the locals have enjoyed a variety of benefits, conveniences, even rights that the migrants do not have.  Thus, the locals have become the bosses, while migrants are the labor.  While the government and local bosses share the lucrative profits, naturally they join hands to suppress the labor cost, thus gradually expanding the differences between classes.  This is the pattern for the class differences produced in all the developed areas in China.  Thus, the current class differences in China also come with the tint of regional and ethnic groups.


The 2009 incident in Urumqi of Xinjiang and this one in Guangzhou share similarity in this aspect.  Regardless of ethnic differences or regional differences, they were all overlapped with the class differences.  With some incitement, severe hostility will break out and rapidly develop into violent activities.  When people's moods are out of control, it is totally meaningless to discuss who is right and who is not.  Yet, the government could skillfully lift the whole earth with a trivial lever to control the situation.  The government would use some official forces to support one faction while suppressing the other, to reach its own political goals.  This is the exact same method used in Mao Zedong's era, when the Communist Party government would manufacture different factions intentionally and then use one against another, to ultimately suppress all the rebellions.  It is also an excellent example of the traditional Chinese way of political intrigue called "playing one foreign power against another."


However, Deng Xiaoping was more insidious than Mao Zedong.  After all, Mao wanted to create a communist society, thus he was unable to legitimately create real class differences.  But Deng Xiaoping quickly made true class differences by using the unequal economic development of a semi-market economy.  Therefore, Deng did not need to create political factions first then to incite one against the other.  Instead, the Communist regime could directly apply the class differences which had already become clear, overlapped with ethnic and regional differences to incite one group of masses to struggle against the other.  Both the incidents in Urumqi of Xinjiang and Zengcheng of Guangzhou are very typical examples.


However, just as in the Cultural Revolution time, this policy of inciting the masses to struggle against each other is a double-edged sword.  Either the highest authority, or various local officials, and even the rebels themselves, all could turn a struggle to their advantage.  This situation happened right in Guangzhou back in the Tang Dynasty more than 1100 years ago.  At that time, colluding with the wealthy classes mainly composed of foreign merchants resident there of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Parsees, the local officials in Guangzhou exploited and suppressed the local poor.  The situation was quickly taken advantage of by Huang Chao's rebel forces that had been running around all over China.  Thus began a genocide movement under the banner of killing the foreign businessmen, which resulted more than 120,000 lives were massacred.  At the time many innocent civilians lost their lives, Huang Chao's rebellion army was able to expand its strength and weaken the Tang Dynasty.  Even in modern studies, it is hard to conclude clearly which faction was right or which one was wrong.


But, one thing is certain: the manufacture and expansion of differences between people, as well as the policy of inciting the masses to struggle against each other, will eventually lead to large-scale disaster.  Victims will not be confined to a small number of people; in fact the majority of people will become victims.  After the Cultural Revolution, when the rebellion factions recalled their past in prisons, they realized that there was not much hatred for the people they were incited to persecute; they learned that they are all the victims.  Indeed, they are all victims of conspirators in power, and we are all the victims of authoritarian ruling cliques.


Regardless whether being a modern democratic country or the centralized government of ancient China, a normal government acting responsibly must weaken any social contradictions.  It needs to avoid the superposition and coincidence of different social contradictions, in an effort to avoid major social conflict.  This is the right way to maintain social stability.


Nevertheless, in an effort to maintain its rule, the Chinese Communist regime continues its basic policy of manufacturing and utilizing social conflict.  This creates a basic condition of social unrest.  From this angle, we can see that both the Urumqi and Zengcheng incidents were produced by the policy of the Communist regime.  Both sides of people who are harmed are the victims of the Communist regime's policy.  We must keep a clear mind of this policy and its purpose.



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



(Written and recorded on June 17, 2011.  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: 1-202-270-6980


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: A636-W397

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A636-W397


Release Date: June 26, 2011



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part XXXVIII): From Urumqi to Zengcheng Incident, We Must be Alerted to the Chinese Communist Party's Skill of Inciting One Group to Struggle Against Another -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之三十八:广州增城事件与2009年的乌鲁木齐事件一样,是中共挑动群众斗群众的典型 -- 魏京生


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









-- 魏京生



最近广州发生的大规模骚乱,是所谓中国模式的超经济剥削所制造出来的怪胎。而政府处理事件的方式,证明了这个政府执行的是毛泽东时代的政策:挑动群众斗群 众。也就是利用社会上不同人群之间的差别,来扩大矛盾,挑拨情绪,利用“先富起来的一部分人”压制另一部分人民。这和文革时代利用某某派打击其它派别,挑动一派的群众斗另一派群众的手法完全相同。这是专制统治者维持社会稳定的常用手法。

































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: 1-202-270-6980






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)。