Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A694-W433
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A694-W433
Release
Date: Feb. 25, 2012
发布日：2012年2月25日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part LV): Reform or Revolution -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：《中国的出路》之五十五：改革还是革命 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
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/report2012/report2012-02/WeiJS120225ChinaWayOut55choicesA694-W433.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Way Out for China (Part LV): Reform or Revolution
--
Wei Jingsheng
In
the early 1990s, the Chinese official media all commented that the revolutions
in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had failed, and people were trapped in
poverty, and so on. In fact, at
that time the average income in Russia is several times higher than in China,
and the so-called poverty was a temporary phenomenon due to an irrational
economic structure. Chinese
Communist propaganda is always biased in using a partial truth to paint the
complete picture, just as a skillful scam artist does.
As
Russia's economic reform progressed, the irrational structure got rebuilt and
people's lives gradually normalized.
So the sour grapes theory of the Chinese Communist media is rarely
mentioned now. Rather, China's own
social conflicts have become more acute, along with a rapid expansion of the
gap between the rich and the poor.
As a result, more and more Chinese people are thinking about this issue:
which is more costly, the pain of revolution, or long-term poverty? Of course some people want a free lunch
to fall from sky without paying the price. This kind of retardation does not need to be countered.
From
a number of years ago, gradually people have been leaning to the model of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as being less costly. Of course it would be the best choice if one could get the
same result with minimum cost. So
recently, not just the opinion in China, but even the international public
opinion has been paying particular attention to whether the next generation of
the Chinese Communist leadership will choose democratic reform or
revolution. Xi Jinping and Li
Keqiang have become the focus of media attention. Even during U.S. Vice President Biden's visit to China, his
meeting with Xi was regarded as the focus of the visit, while the current
Chinese leadership was put aside.
The
Morally Upright Officials Complex in the Chinese culture has always placed
their hopes on a few saviors.
Western Christian culture is also similar. However, history does not support this hope. There have not been many successful
changes in human history resulting from a few saviors. Even though that there were no clear
leaders in Egypt and Libya, the desire of the people was still to overthrow the
autocratic rulers. Even through
Syria's opposition leaders are making some stupid mistakes, the dictatorship
will be able to last only a few more days. Popular feeling and the people's determination are the top
decisive factors in a revolution.
Without a Gorbachev, Egypt and Libya still had successful
revolutions. This was so even
during ancient times when the flow of information was not advanced, not to
mention the modern days.
So
it comes to a second question. How
is the smoothness of the road after the revolution related to the form of the
revolution? Is a peaceful
revolution always the least costly form?
The recent politics in Russia gives us a new way of thinking. Their "peaceful revolution"
which seems had the least price, has brought more than one decade of
dictatorship under Russia's Putin.
And it looks like Putin will continue for at least another decade. This result is close to the politics of
an emperor's dynasty, and it has aroused the anger of the Russian people.
Several
years ago, I had annual gatherings with the opposition leaders of the former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, to talk about the merits and faults of the
revolution. They had keenly
observed that an easy revolution might make it difficult for democratic
processes to be established, and that difficulty might even be
insurmountable. Russia and many
Eastern European countries are moving toward a totalitarianism model of
post-Communism, with corruption and cruelty even more rampant than in the
communist era. It appears that
they will need a second revolution.
However, the joining of authoritarian regimes and big capital will make
new revolutions even more difficult than the peaceful revolutions.
Unfortunately,
this prediction is being realized faster than we can imagine. The systems in Russia and some Eastern
European countries are gradually closing to the so-called Chinese model. That is, the capital class and
politicians are forming strong alliances.
They do whatever they want, with corruption and degeneration. The gap between the rich and the poor
in those countries is gradually widening, and the civilian population is being
reduced to poverty step by step.
This political structure is one that the big capitalist class desires
even in its dreams, but is also a structure that pushes the country to
collapse.
Some
people think that the Russian revolution has resulted in electoral politics,
thus the beginning of democracy.
But the reality is that Russia started a neo-authoritarianism that is
similar to China. Elections
can be manipulated; media can be bribed; and any opposition can be
repressed. Although the big
capitalists manipulate politics in different ways, the result is not much
different. Politics still belongs
to a minority rather than the public through democracy; wealth is still
concentrated in the hands of a few rather than the welfare of the public. Is the price of a peaceful revolution
really less?
The
conclusion is, not necessarily.
The means of revolution is not the most important factor. Regardless of whether the Arab Spring
revolution came in peace or violence, the result will depend on the strength of
the opposition, to the degree that it could forcefully constrain the
post-revolution government behavior or not. The opposition leaders of the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe concluded that the biggest lesson they learned is that when a revolution
is too fast and too easy, there is not enough time to rapidly form the
opposition forces to restrain the government. Even if the former opposition leaders got in power, it will
not change the direction of the trend toward neo-authoritarianism. The new dictators will not be more
merciful than the old Communist Party members. Some new governments could even be crueler than the
Communist Party. They could kill
thousands of opposition leaders in the country in an effort to maintain the
market economy of neo-authoritarianism.
Just
as in Putin's neo-authoritarianism, they buy off the support of some people
through an increased income, and brutally destroy the democratic rights that
people think are not important.
Ordinary people fall under the rule of a new dictatorship. The strategy of boiling a frog in warm
water makes shortsighted people once again accept the social system of the
dictatorship. Everything changed,
yet it seems that nothing has changed; just as when they got rid of the Tsar
and greeted a Communist Party that was even worse.
These
friends of Eastern Europe told me: it seems that only you Chinese are most
hopeful. I asked why. They said that is because you are in
the most difficult situation yet the most determined. Thus you are most likely to form a strong opposition in your
country; further, you are least likely to get a quick and cheap
revolution. Thus the opposition
after the revolution will be more mature, with a smoother transition to
democratic processes.
At
that time, I very much doubted this kind of claim. But recently, I saw that Ai Weiwei's event coalesced so much
popular support and Yang Jia's event also received that strong support of
public opinion on the Internet, etc.
Conversely, people are more and more indifferent to some sort of charter
calling for positive interaction with the Communist Party. I started to change my suspicions. We may have to pay a larger upfront
cost for China, but the follow-up road may go more securely and more hopefully.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS111208ChinaWayOut55choices.mp3
(Written
and recorded on December 8, 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.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A694-W433
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A694-W433
Release
Date: Feb. 25, 2012
发布日：2012年2月25日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part LV): Reform or Revolution -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：《中国的出路》之五十五：改革还是革命 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2012/report2012-02/WeiJS120225ChinaWayOut55choicesA694-W433.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《中国的出路》之五十五：改革还是革命
-- 魏京生
九十年代初，中国的官方媒体舆论一致地评论，苏联和东欧的革命失败了，人民陷入贫困之中，等等。其实当时的俄罗斯人平均收入是中国的好几倍，所谓的贫困正是经济结构不合理造成的暂时现象。中共的宣传总是以偏概全，像高明的骗子一样。
随着俄罗斯经济改革的进程，结构不合理得到了缓和，人民的生活逐渐正常化。中共媒体的酸葡萄理论也就很少有人提起了。反倒是中国本身社会矛盾尖锐化，贫富差距急剧扩大。这使得越来越多的中国人思考一个问题：到底是革命的阵痛损失大，还是长期陷入贫困损失大？有些人想不付代价就从天上获得馅饼，这种弱智不必计
算在内。
从不知道多少年前开始，人们渐渐地倾向于代价较小的苏联和东欧的模式。以最小的代价获得同样的结果，当然是最佳选择了。所以最近不但是中国国内的舆论，就连国际舆论也特别关注下一代中共领导班子会不会进行民主改革或革命。习近平、李克强成为舆论关注的焦点。连美国副总统访华都把习近平当作访问的重点，而现任领导却被晾在了一边。
中国文化里的清官情结，总是把希望寄托在几个救世主的身上。西方的基督教文化也差不多。可是历史并不支持这种结论。没有哪次成功的变革是由几个救世主造成
的。就算埃及和利比亚没有这样的领袖人物，人心所向仍然是要推翻独裁专制的统治者。就算叙利亚的反对派领袖们正在犯愚蠢的错误，独裁政权也不过再多维持几天而已。 人心的向背，人民的决心，是革命的第一位的决定性因素。埃及和利比亚没有戈尔巴乔夫也照样革命成功。即使在古代信息流通不发达的时代也如此，何况现代。
于是又产生了第二个问题。革命成功后的道路是否顺利，和革命的形式有什么关系呢？和平的革命就一定是代价最小的形式吗？最近俄罗斯的政治给了大家一个新的思考。看上去代价最小的和平转型，带给俄罗斯的是普京的十几年独裁统治，而且看上去还要继续十几年。这已经接近于皇朝政治了。这已经引起了俄罗斯人民的愤怒。
好几年前我和苏联东欧的前反对派领袖们每年都有一次聚会，谈论革命的利害得失。他们敏锐地观察到，太便宜的革命带来的是后续民主进程的困难，甚至是难以克服
的困难。俄罗斯和多数东欧国家正在走向后共产党的集权模式，甚至比共产党时代还要腐败和残酷。这些都预示着还需要第二次革命。而且因为专制和大资产的结合所产生的困难比和平的革命还要大。
遗憾的是这个预言比我们想象的还要来得快。俄罗斯和东欧国家的体制正在逐渐接近所谓的中国模式。也就是资产阶级和政客们正在结为坚强的同盟。它们为所欲为，贪污腐化。那些国家的贫富差距逐渐拉大，平民百姓正在一步步地沦为贫困阶级。这是大资产阶级梦寐以求的政治，也是推动国家走向崩溃的政治。
有人以为俄罗斯的革命造成了选举政治，就算是开始了民主。可是现实却说明他们开始的是和中国差不多的新权威主义政治。选举是可以操纵的；媒体是可以收买的；
反对派是可以镇压的。大资产阶级虽然是以不同的方式操纵政治，结果没有多少不同。政治仍然是少数人的政治而不是民主，财富仍然集中在少数人手中而不是大众 的福利。和平的革命代价会更小吗？
结论是不一定。革命的方式不是最重要的因素。阿拉伯之春的革命无论是和平的还是暴力的，结果都取决于反对派的力量是否足够强大，是否能够成为制约政府行为的力量。苏联和东欧的反对派领袖们总结的最大教训，就是革命来得太快太容易，而没有快速地形成反对派力量来制约政府。即使是前反对派领袖当权，也不能改变走向新权威主义的趋势。而新的独裁者们也不会比老的共产党更仁慈，甚至有的国家比共产党更残忍。它可以直接杀光本国大大小小几千名反对派领袖，来维持新权威主义的市场经济。
和普京的新权威主义一样，它们以增加收入收买一部分人的支持；以残酷手段消灭人们以为不重要的民主权利。一来二去的人们就陷入到了新的独裁统治之下。温水煮青蛙的策略使得短视的民众再一次接受了独裁专制的社会制度。一切都改变了，又好像一切都没有改变，就好像赶走了沙皇得到的却是比沙皇还不如的共产党。
东欧的朋友们都说：看来只有你们中国最有希望了。我问为什么。他们说你们最艰难，最坚定，最有可能在国内形成强大的反对派；还有就是，你们最少可能得到一个快速和便宜的革命，所以革命以后的反对派会更成熟，民主的进程会更顺利。
我当时很怀疑这种说法。但是最近我看到艾未未事件凝聚了那么大的民心支持，看到了杨佳事件得到网上舆论那么强烈的支持，等等。再反过来看，那些号召和共产党良性互动的什么宪章之类的越来越受到人们的冷淡。我开始改变了我的怀疑。我们中国可能要付出比较大的前期代价，但后续的道路可能走得更稳当，更有希望。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS111208ChinaWayOut55choices.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年12月8日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱： HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话： 1-202-270-6980
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
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)。