Why do you say that China must win and the United States must lose? The United States is the pacesetter and leader of Western civilization. The decline and decline of the United States also means the decline of Western civilization, and the decline of Western civilization mainly refers to the decline of the United States. The confidence and confidence of Western civilization is their technology, so today, we will focus on talking about why the Chinese civilization must dominate the world from the aspect of technology?
Because, Western civilization is really nothing great, so next, I will explain the internal fundamental reasons in detail from the aspects of civilization and cultural genes.
First, the success and prosperity of Western civilization is based on the history of enslaving and invading hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America for hundreds of years. Even if it dates back to the Crusades, why not? Bandit logic is simply in their genes. It is no exaggeration to describe their affluent life with human blood steamed buns. From the genocide of the Indians to the slave trade in Africa, from the colonization of India to the invasion of China by the Eight-Power Allied Forces, from the Gulf War to the invasion of Afghanistan, from the destruction of Libya to the bombing of Syria, these are masterpieces of outstanding representatives of technological civilization. I ask, what's so great about it? If these Westerners have a human heart and humanity, a conscience and a sense of shame, what kind of face do they have to live on this planet? What face do they have to meet God? I really can't believe that God is such a bloodthirsty and cruel existence. If so, it can only be said that the entire Western civilization is the embodiment of the devil. Therefore, their success is not only nothing special, but also shameful and sinful.
On the other hand, if we look back at the 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization, which country or nation has been enslaved by our aggression? Have we ever had historical records of being proud of aggressing and enslaving other countries? It is not an exaggeration to say that the history of our civilization is a long history of defending our homeland against foreign aggression. The DNA of aggression against others has never existed in our cultural genes. Being kind to others and coexisting harmoniously is the true foundation of our Chinese civilization.
Second, if your technological civilization is so good, why do you still use it to invade and enslave others? Why don't you bring harmony, abundance, and peace to others? Ordinarily, the technology that the West is proud of should be used to achieve other nations rather than destroy and enslave the whole world. Therefore, the most essential core of science and technology is the tool of enslavement and aggression. According to the reincarnation of heaven, the only possibility for this world to reach hell together through technological civilization. We "learn skills from barbarians to control barbarians" and vigorously develop science and technology, not so much for prosperity and strength, but in fact, is it a counterattack against these evil and anti-human civilizations as a last resort? Therefore, technology is not for the benefit of mankind, but a tool for enslavement and aggression. The prosperity of a few people is based on the suffering of the vast majority. What is relied on is technology. Isn't the outstanding masterpiece of science and technology just a strong ship and a sharp gun? What they have brought to mankind has never been any gospel, only endless suffering.
Thirdly, compared with tens of hundreds of years ago, scientific and technological civilization is already so developed. It is reasonable to say that communism and human unity have already been realized, but what about the United States, the pacesetter and leader of scientific and technological civilization? Isn't it still the same deliberate and thoughtful thinking about oppressing and enslaving developing countries, and even denying allies of the same clan, isn't it the same brutal harvest? This is the truth and its wonderful demeanor that technological civilization is showing to mankind. Technology has long been reduced to a tool of enslavement and aggression, a tool of destroying human nature and hearts, and a tool of destroying the natural ecology. Even so, the United States has seized all the advantages of science and technology, but it is not getting stronger and stronger, but why is it declining? Shouldn't technology be omnipotent? Therefore, science and technology is a false proposition, and science and technology can never solve the fundamental problems of mankind. The decline of the United States is the demonstration of the last fig leaf of science and technology. It is the true appearance of restoring the spirit of scientific civilization to return science to a tool for understanding the world view, rather than a tool for aggression and slavery.
Fourth, what is the fundamental difference between Chinese and Western civilizations? In layman's terms, the subtext of the spirit of Western civilization is that I can only be good if you are not good; while the core tenet of the spirit of Chinese civilization is that I can be good only when others are good. Why is this so? Because Western civilization believes that everyone is guilty, and they came to this world to atone for their sins, so it is conceivable that in everyone's heart, it is natural for others to be bad people, so everyone else is a bad person , it is obvious that only when the bad people are bad can the good people be safe! If the bad guys get well, they will definitely not be at peace. I think this is determined by the inherent cultural genes of Western civilization that want to invade and enslave others.
At the same time, the spirit of our Chinese civilization is that everyone can be Yao and Shun, and everyone should learn to be good. "If you want to establish yourself, you must first establish others, and if you want to achieve yourself, you must first reach others" is the inner cultural spirit of our Chinese civilization. Not only that (it is Chinese civilization), but the core essence of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism is based on the premise of fully considering others. Confucianism Emphasizing "benevolence" is to treat others in the same or even more important position as oneself; Taoism emphasizes "less selfishness and few desires", whether it is "less selfishness" or "fewer desires", it is for others to use. Buddhism regards the heart of others as our heart, and it talks about almost complete dedication, let alone. So, to sum it up, I can only be good when others are good.
Therefore, it is obvious that it is not difficult to understand why the Chinese civilization can become an endless and long-lasting existence on this planet. As long as we get along with us, we always want to put others first. Excuse me, with our civilized spirit, who would not want to be friends with us? As for Western civilization, it can be said that in the womb, it is thinking about aggressing and enslaving others. Excuse me, if this kind of person is not intimidated by their lust, who would be willing to be friends with them sincerely?
Fifth, on the other hand, according to the cycle of cause and effect, the sins of Western civilization are too serious, and the crimes committed are too numerous to record. If they rule the world, what is the reason? How can it be so popular? Which country's people will be satisfied with it from the bottom of their hearts? It's like letting a person who believes in burning, killing, plundering, slavery and aggression be your community director or village head. Can you eat and sleep peacefully? Therefore, their decline and demise were predestined by their sinful ancestors.
To sum up, Western civilization has plundered and enslaved the vast majority of countries in the world for hundreds of years with the tool of technology, so that technology has almost become the belief and endorsement of Western civilization, but tools are tools after all, and it cannot solve the problem. The fundamental problem of the development of human society, the decline of the United States is an example. When the oppressed nations also mastered this tool, Western civilization gradually lost its foundation of enslaving other countries. During this critical period, it is the Chinese civilization that fulfills its innate mission of awakening the awareness of oppressed nations all over the world, and it is also the historical responsibility of the Chinese civilization to shoulder the development of human civilization towards a bright future. We have seen that the Chinese civilization has basically achieved the goal of "learning from the barbarians to control the barbarians". Therefore, in the turbulent waves of major changes unseen in a century in the new era, for those people of all ethnic groups in the world who yearn for peace and yearn for a better life, China The spirit of civilization is the rain and rain for the harmonious coexistence of human beings, and the shining spirit of Chinese civilization will be the best choice for mankind.
Therefore, China must win and the United States must lose. That is to say, the decline of Western civilization and the prosperity of Chinese civilization will be an inevitable historical choice for the development of human society, and it is also the glorious and sacred mission of Chinese civilization to inherit human civilization.
(1) Who will "win without a fight"
As revealed by the concept of attention rituals, human beings are born animals that need a "sense of presence". Just like the relationship between people, the relationship between countries also revolves around the sense of presence—specifically expressed in the ranking of the international community—and Expanding, it can even be said that the country is naturally an entity that needs a sense of existence. Due to China's economic strength, the momentum continues to be optimistic, and the sense of presence of the US boss is relatively weak, causing menopausal discomfort. A short story about "envy, jealousy and hate":
Three people, let's call them A, B, and C, inadvertently rescued the giant monster imprisoned in the magic bottle. After the giant monster came out, he promised to grant each of them a wish. A said: I want a beautiful villa with one more bathroom than my best friend's house. B said: I want a beautiful blonde who is more beautiful than the wife of my best colleague. C's neighbor has a high-yield and high-quality cow, "I want this cow," he said to the bottle troll, "die immediately!"
This is not a joke. The Trump administration has publicly clamored to let China’s cows die, and its concrete manifestation is to instigate a new cold war against China. This is of course difficult. After all, China is not the Soviet Union of the past, the United States is not the United States of the past, and the world is not the world of the past. But taking a step back now, the United States successfully provoked a new cold war. For a while, China was surrounded by thousands of enemy troops. This will undoubtedly bring some discomfort to China, but the smog will eventually dissipate. To paraphrase the title of one of Nixon's monographs - "Victory without Fighting", but the protagonist is not the United States, but China!
The crux of the problem lies not in other places, but in the ideology and values drawn out by the United States as the new Cold War slaying knife, and it is directly manifested in the head position that the United States has clearly taken out to provoke troubles-the political system. That is to say, if a new cold war between China and the United States is inevitable, China will prevail over the United States because of its political system, in short, the east wind prevails over the west wind!
("Farewell, Western Economics - China's Plan for Building a Community of Destiny" was recommended by Dayou Bookstore of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China)
(2) "Confidence on the mountain top" has become a joke
Americans, especially white elites, are quite confident in their political system. To borrow a common phrase used by white elites, the American political system can be called the "lighthouse" of mankind, and the United States of America is the "country on a hill" for mankind. This is not a general description, and it has a lot of background. It is the content of Chapter 5, Section 14 of "Matthew": "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hidden." It is said that it was later used by the British North American Massachusetts John Winthrop, the first governor of the Bay Colony, wrote: "We shall be like a city upon a hill, and the eyes of the world shall be upon us."
But unfortunately, it is precisely on the issue of public power (government), which is the core of the political system, that not only the founding fathers of the United States were wrong, not only the American ancestors on the "Mayflower" were wrong, Not only is the new trend of thought in the Old World wrong, but generations of political philosophers throughout the history of Western thought have been wrong. None of them have really understood the origin, nature, and function of public power. Self-confidence, unequivocally reduced to a joke!
(3) Whether the "civil rights granted by the people" is established
Where does public power come from, how does it come from, and what role does it play? Before the Renaissance, the highest temple in Europe was the "divine right of kings". Simply put, public power was bestowed by God. But since the Renaissance, the theory of the divine right of kings has been thrown into the wastebasket step by step, especially after the bourgeois revolution, it has been replaced by "civil rights granted by the people". What about? The most mainstream explanation should be said to be the social contract theory proposed by the 17th-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his political monograph Leviathan. There is a popular saying called "people are like wolves to people", which comes from "Leviathan", which belongs to his core view of human nature. In order to end the "natural state" in which people are like wolves to humans, Hobbes believes that individuals must transfer part of their power, and construct a public power through the social contract of all members, so as to protect everyone from danger and get out of the natural state. Leviathan writes:
"To entrust all the power and strength of all to one person or to a group of many people who can convert the will of all into one will by the opinion of the majority."
This is the social contract, that is, "civil rights granted by the people", through social contracts, the formation of public rights granted by the people! "Leviathan" is a typical representative of the theory of civil rights and civil rights, and it is also a pioneer in a certain sense. This is an important reason why Hobbes is known as the "father of modern political science". In fact, after the divine right of kings was torn apart, modern political philosophy has moved toward the right of the people, not only because of the absurdity of the theory of divine right, but also because of the overall interests on which public power is based. This is even evident in the name "Leviathan". Leviathan was originally a powerful sea monster mentioned in the "Old Testament". Hobbes' intention was the so-called "national whole". The so-called overall interests are originally the overall interests of all the people—since it is the overall interests of the entire people, the public power based on the overall interests is of course granted by the people, so why doubt it?
(4) The overall interest is actually a "gift from God"
But Moscow does not believe in tears. In science, there is no room for taking anything for granted. Public power is based on the overall interests of the country, and it is indeed closely related to all the people, but the theory of civil power and the people is not accurate, and it is a big mistake. "Eternal hatred" is so wrong that it is almost unforgivable!
The reason is simple. The overall interests of the country are not granted by the people, but transcend the existence of individual citizens, and also transcend the existence of any majority of citizens. They are not simply determined by the number of individuals. Let's look at the facts first:
There is a meadow with no owner, and the surrounding herdsmen graze freely. Because there is no owner, so there is no compensation. Every herdsman hopes to graze as many cattle and sheep as possible. As a result, the number of cattle and sheep increases uncontrollably, the grassland is seriously overloaded, and the quality drops sharply. Finally, it becomes a barren land, and the cattle and sheep are hungry. Death, the herdsmen went bankrupt one by one.
This is the "tragedy of the commons", which irrefutably shows the objective existence of the overall interests. How many cattle and sheep are most suitable for a piece of pasture, and what amount is the total amount to control, which not only ensures that the fertility of the pasture is not wasted, but also ensures the pasture itself. The regenerative ability, which is the overall public interest of the grassland, is not a matter of opinion, but a technical issue. There is no dispute, and it does not depend on the will of any herdsman or the will of any majority of herdsmen.
Just as the overall interests of the pastures are closely related to all herdsmen, the overall interests of the pastures are not granted by the herdsmen, nor are the overall interests of the country awarded by the citizens. Taking a step back, the citizens may grant other public rights, but the overall interests of the country are never granted by the citizens. Not only the overall interests of the country, but the overall interests of any human organization are by no means granted by the people, but derived from the most basic logical common sense-the inability to circulate "self" certificates (attention rituals), belongs to "heavenly grants"! This divine gift is not that divine gift, it is neither superstitious nor mysterious, that is, it is not an acquired choice, but a predestined nature. Because of the inability to prove itself in a circular way, "I" has to "see" myself through "other" people. "Other" people are not "outside" people, but a part of "I". overall benefit. Because people are born as a whole, everything that is connected with people will inevitably become the whole and the interests of the whole.
(5) Western-style democracy: the inescapable "agent's dilemma"
Inadequate understanding of the transcendental integrity of human nature leads to inaccurate understanding of the overall interests of the country, leading to the seemingly natural, specious, and even erroneous theory of granting rights to the people, and Western political theory has since deviated from the right path. Since then, political practice has also deviated from the right path, and both of them have gone on crooked ways. This is concentrated in the so-called "democracy"!
Do you want to deny democracy? Democracy is self-evident, the right that we are all born equal. All of these, plus some more, are all admitted, but there is a prerequisite, that is, what is concerned is individual interests. To be more clear, the original meaning of democracy is individual interests and the people's autonomy, just like the saying "the wind can enter, The Western proverb "The rain can enter, but the king cannot enter" strongly reminds that the land of the people is decided by the people.
But the current situation is that there are overall interests besides individual interests, so who is in charge? This is the essence of the problem! Since it is everyone's common overall interest, of course it is the people who make the decisions. Is this also a problem? This is exactly the origin of Western democracy. It is not aimed at individual interests and the autonomy of the people, but at the interests of the whole; In the interest of the whole?
Since it is in everyone's interests, of course we all come together to make decisions, and even act together. Thirty or fifty people can make decisions at the same time, but in a large group, especially a country, when the number of people exceeds a certain number, it is bound to be unable to perform any actions at the same time. What to do - the agent is inevitable, the agent's corruption and even the agent's control, and even the agent's rebellion, all follow, inevitable! Theoretically speaking, no matter how sound the democracy in which the interests of the people as a whole are determined, it is impossible to transcend the nature of agency, and thus cannot get rid of the "agent's dilemma".
(
6) Western-style democracy: the undiminished "tyranny of the majority"
Since the proxy dilemma is unavoidable, the proxy should be canceled altogether, and all decisions on the overall interests of the country should be voted on every time, even in a referendum. Regardless of whether it is operable for the time being, is voting suitable for the overall interests of the country? Technically speaking, every citizen wants to be the master, and even N people have N+1 kinds of plans to be the master. Nothing to do! Only resignation to fate, only resignation to fate, is no different from divination and asking divination - this is not alarmist talk! The "October Surprise" is manifested in the year of the U.S. election. According to U.S. election rules, the last month before the official voting in the presidential election is often October of that year. Unexpected events in October often affect the election, and even change the process and results of the election. , the so-called October Surprise, reflecting the unreliability, contingency and irrationality of universal suffrage.
What's more deadly is that voting by the minority is born to obey the majority. Isn't it "tyranny of the majority"? But since it is the common interests of everyone, since it is the sovereignty of the people, and all people are born equal, why should the rights of the minority be sacrificed to the majority? It is obvious that Western-style democracy not only leads to the "proxy dilemma", but also not only leads to "tyranny of the majority" due to voting, the most serious consequence is the disintegration of the whole!
If the country, including other human organizations, implements the so-called democracy, the result can only be separation, and even become a mess in the end. Every citizen is a democracy. So why hasn't democracy actually led to disunity? The crux is that it is not a real democracy, but a tyranny of the majority over the minority! On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum on "Brexit" that attracted worldwide attention, and the supporters won with a narrow margin of 3.8%. Isn't that the tyranny of the majority? The implementation of the "Electoral College" system in the U.S. presidential election can be regarded as some kind of restraint and even correction of "majority doctrine", but "majority doctrine" is still a modification of the direct "tyranny of the majority".
Because of the taken-for-granted "granting of civil rights to the people", the essence of Western-style democracy is that the overall interests of the people are the masters of the people. In theory, it has entered a misunderstanding, but in practice it has fallen into a quagmire. Calling it a joke is a disgrace to human wisdom! Taking the pastures involved in the tragedy of the commons as an example, within the safety line of the total amount of grazing, neither wasting the pasture’s reproductive capacity nor destroying the pasture’s self-renewal ability, so as to achieve the maximum output of the pasture’s overall interests is purely a question. Wouldn't it be absurd to vote on technical issues at every turn?
(7) The origin of public power: the overall interests belong to "one"
How to deal with the overall interests? In addition to the gift of heaven, there is another distinctive feature of the overall interests, that is, indivisible. Taking the grassland involved in the tragedy of the commons as an example, the herdsmen can decide the number of cattle and sheep to graze according to their own ability. Because of different abilities, the number of cattle and sheep to be grazed by each herdsman is also different, but the overall benefit has one and only one , is to control the total amount of cattle and sheep grazing, which not only ensures the grazing output of the pasture, but also ensures the recuperation of the pasture itself. In technical terms, the overall interest of the pasture is to find and ensure the balance between the metabolism of the pasture and the pasture cattle and sheep. Balance, other than that, does not belong to the overall interests of the pasture, nor can it be called the overall interests. Strictly speaking, any divisible interests within an organization do not belong to the interests of the whole.
The indivisible feature determines that although the overall interests belong to "we" in common, they are not suitable for "us" to deal with jointly. The reason is very simple. "We" are all combined by various interests for reasons and reasons. They are not inseparable, but can continue to be decomposed. For example, "Husband and wife are originally birds in the same forest, and when disaster strikes, they fly separately." This is exactly the mistake of Western-style democracy. It allows the overall interest "we" to be the master, which violates the indivisible nature of the overall interest.
Does that mean that the overall interests are assigned to "I"? Because only "I" is truly indivisible! This is why the West believes in "individualism". The core point of so-called individualism is to regard the individual as the most basic social unit. The reason behind it is that "I" cannot be decomposed and constitutes the "logical atom" of interpersonal analysis. This point is evident in the etymology. The English "Individualism" of individualism comes from the Latin "Individuum", which means that it cannot be decomposed.
The indivisibility of the overall interests and the indivisibility of the "I" hit it off, so is it possible to implement the ownership of the public overall interests to a certain individual "I"? Take the grassland involved in the tragedy of the commons as an example. If it is not a common land for all herdsmen but belongs to a certain herdsman, under the actuarial care of the herdsmen, not only will the tragedy not happen, but the maximum output of the grassland can be realized. According to existing economics, this is "clear property rights". Once property rights are clear and external costs are internalized, speculation in "negative externalities" will be suppressed, and resource allocation will be natural. According to the terminology of Chinese classical philosophy, this is the "Great Unification". The Great Unity integrates the inside and outside, and no longer goes their own way. Negative externality speculation is also suppressed, and the optimal allocation of resources is self-evident.
This is the origin of public power. It exists for the overall benefit. It is formed because the overall benefit is integrated into "one". It is an endogenous necessity for the optimal allocation of resources and belongs to natural selection. Is it a contract? Is it granted by the people? In a specific system, as long as the optimal allocation of resources goes to the bottom, negative externality speculation will inevitably be suppressed, property rights will inevitably be clear, and it will inevitably lead to unification. Public power must be needed and public power will be born. This is natural, and no force can stop it. To put it bluntly, it is God's will and objective laws!
Suddenly looking back, this is why the theory of "civil rights granted by the people" and "social contract" are wrong. The public power they demonstrate is not a natural selection, so it does not inherently match another characteristic of the overall interest, that is, "given by heaven". In fact, the mistakes of the theory of civil rights and the rights of the people and the social contract theory are obvious. Hobbes did not consider transaction costs at all when he made related discussions. How easy is it for a society to let individuals transfer power and reach a common contract? Hobbes postulated a social contract with zero transaction costs, but it was only on paper!
From the existing political terminology, the great unification means public power, the unification of the internal and external, and the suppression of negative externality speculation, which is essentially the birth of public power; from the existing economic terminology, clear property rights mean public power , Clear property rights internalize external costs and restrain negative externality speculation, which is essentially the birth of public power. Simply put, public power is the power to suppress negative externality speculation. Taking the pastures involved in the tragedy of the commons as an example, drawing a red line for the total amount of cattle and sheep to be raised for the safety of the pastures is public power.
The so-called "private property rights" in Western economics originally belonged to public power, but "changed" due to "flow", but later became private property rights in the process of change. The so-called "private (private property rights) enterprise" is actually a unified enterprise. The key lies in "unification", not "individuals". Into an indivisible "I," that's all.
Economically speaking, property rights are clear, and politically speaking, unified leadership is determined by one person. In contrast, clear property rights are exactly the same as private enterprises, and setting one person is exactly the same as politically clear property rights. Political determination and economic property rights are completely the same thing. They have exactly the same, identical, and true common origin and essence—oneness! The so-called clarity of property rights means that property rights belong to "one". The key lies in oneness. Its essence does not lie in the private ownership of "the owner is in place" emphasized by Western economics, but in the indivisible unity of the overall interests.
("Farewell, Western Economics - China's Plan for Building a Community of Destiny" was recommended by Dayou Bookstore of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China)
(8) 1: The soul of the American political system
The indivisible overall interests have to be "one", so there is public power. For ordinary people's organizations, such as enterprises, the overall interests or the only subject can handle it well, but for non-general people's organizations, such as the country , its overall interests involve many parties, can the sole subject handle it well? Any individual is extremely limited, and no matter how wise and powerful an individual is, it is impossible to effectively represent and protect the overall interests of the country. What should we do? So a cabinet was formed—and there was a government! In fact, the government is far more than just one person, but it is essentially the sole subject of the overall interests of the country. Others are formed by the sole subject to represent and protect the overall interests of the country. This cannot be ambiguous.
Misleaded by the specious "granting of civil rights to the people", modern Western political science does not recognize the "one" way of clear property rights and the sole subject of the country's overall interests. Water" poured out. Perhaps because of the trauma of history, modern Western political science is not even willing to positively affirm the existence and significance of the government. This is manifested in the fact that the government is regarded as the so-called "necessary evil". evil". But no matter what kind of liberal radicalism, in fact, it cannot deny the existence and significance of the government, especially the existence and significance of the government—to be precise, the only government—that represents and protects the overall interests of the country.
This is clearly reflected in the founding process of the United States of America. As a country founded by a group of European exiled Pilgrims sailing across the ocean on the "Mayflower", the United States was not originally a whole and the existence of overall interests, but only some loose associations at first. , highly advocated the autonomy emphasized by the "Mayflower Convention", and even did not want the emergence of a government, but in the end the reason why the government had to be organized was indeed because it needed a cross-community organization to unite the masses into one and coordinate the indivisible overall benefit.
In fact, before the emergence of the federal government, the United States had established a "Confederate" government through the "Articles of Confederation", but it was loose and fragile, known as "a monster whose mind obeys the command of its limbs", and failed. It is no exaggeration to say that the tortuous birth process of the U.S. federal government strongly disproves the existence and significance of the sole government representing and protecting the overall interests of the country.
What is even more intriguing is that modern Western political science, which takes anti-authoritarianism and advocating democracy as its mission, cannot deny the need for the overall interests of the country to be clearly unified. , It can also be called the decline from the feudal monarchy to the modern centralized system of responsibility. This is also clearly reflected in the governance of the United States. As one of the founders of the United States, Alexander Hamilton (Alexander Hamilton) clearly wrote in the Federalist Papers, known as the "Principles of the American Constitution":
"Power is placed in the hands of a few, whose interests and views are easily unified by skilful leaders, so that power is more likely to be abused than in the hands of one, and power is more easily abused by several than by one It is more harmful; and if one person is in power, if only one person is alone, he will be more closely supervised, more likely to be suspected, and it is impossible for many people to unite to form a greater influence."
Also in The Federalist Papers, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, known as the "father of the U.S. Constitution," also wrote in the form of citing examples:
"One hundred and seventy-three despots must be as tyrannical as one. Anyone who doubts this, look at the Republic of Venice! It would do no good if they had been elected by us. "
This is the "one" way of clarifying property rights. Not only is the government unified, but power is also unified. This is how the "presidential system" in the United States should have come about. "There are thousands of people in a family, and one person is in charge." The supreme power of the country is not in the hands of a group of people, but in the hands of one person. This is called the "president." There is no doubt that the presidential system is not a clear unification of property rights; but there is also no doubt that the presidential system is a clear unification of responsibilities. Regardless of the unification of property rights or the unification of responsibilities, they all belong to the unification of overall interests, and the indivisible overall interests of the country must be unified. One is the fundamental attribute of any human organization, and it is the soul of any political system.
(9) True democracy: a republic and balance of the overall interests of individuals
So far, I have to talk about China's political system. It is universally recognized at home and abroad that the most obvious label of China's political system is the centralized leadership of the Communist Party of China. This is considered "dictatorship" and "dictatorship" by mainstream Western society and non-Western people who have been brainwashed by mainstream Western thinking, but it is exactly in line with the "one" way of clear property rights. Furthermore, at the internal micro level, through the unification of the only core leadership, the grand unification is finally realized—the overall interests of the country are unified, which can theoretically surpass the helpless "agent's dilemma" of conflicting left and right in Western political science.
This does not negate democracy, on the contrary, the unification of the overall interests of the country constitutes the natural premise of democracy. To put it bluntly, only "one" can have many; without "one", how can there be many? The essence of democracy lies in the relationship between the overall interests of the country and the individual interests of the people. If there is no overall national interest subject first, a huge question mark will immediately fall from the sky: who will not allow democracy? Who are you going to talk about democracy with? The absence of the subject first, democracy is in fact incomprehensible, logically unreasonable, nonsensical! The tragedy of the commons has strongly demonstrated that if the interests of the whole cannot be guaranteed, individual interests cannot be guaranteed either; only when the interests of the whole are attributed to one master can individual interests benefit from democracy.
From the public's point of view, individuals are originally scattered and appear to be empty. Only by first establishing a subject that represents the overall interests of the country can it be turned from empty to real. Once the national subject is established, the people will not only become real, but will also be transformed into a transposed subject of the national subject in the interaction between the subject and the object, and sit on an equal footing with the national subject. In a specific context, the people are even higher than the main body of the country, just like the boss said "the customer is God". The ancient Meng Ke clearly stated: "The people are the most important, the community is second, and the king is the least." The modern Chairman Mao even shouted the strongest voice of worshiping the people: "The people, and only the people, are the driving force for creating world history. This is the logical origin of democracy, and it is also the inner meaning of Chinese-style democracy (the core is the organic unity of the party’s leadership, the people being the masters of the country, and the rule of law).
It has to be mentioned that the ideal country that the founding fathers of the United States hoped to build was not a democratic country. Historical data show that at the 116-day Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, democracy was loudly denounced by the founding fathers. Madison pointed out: "If the government adopts a democratic form, it is inherently troublesome and inconvenient. This is why people condemn democracy." In fact, the constitution represents the proposed government of the United States, not a "democratic government" but a "republican government." This point is quite wise. The "republic" obviously belongs to both sides of the game, and it is a relationship, unlike democracy, which has the unilateral meaning of the people.
The issue of democracy cannot be clearly cut out in the history of Western thought, but in the final analysis, the essence lies in the relationship between the interests of the individual as a whole. Symbiosis. If the interests of the whole are guaranteed, true democracy means that individual interests are the masters of the people. The overall interests are originally indivisible, how can the people democratize them? In terms of the source, the overall interests are originally determined by the inability to circulate the "self" certificate (attention ceremony), which originates from the gift of heaven, how can the people rule it? Western-style democracy takes it for granted that "citizenship is granted by the people", and mistakenly makes democracy the overall interest of the people. Throw it to the teeth of the rats!
(I love fermented bean curd cake)
(10) China is closer to the "other shore" than the United States
On the surface, the political systems of China and the United States are very different, and even considered to be in opposition. But it can be said that "not afraid of the clouds to hide your eyes, and you are at the highest level." Once you look back at the basics, the political systems of China and the United States are not said to be brothers, but they do have the same root and converge in important joints. Both affirm the existence and significance of the government, and both emphasize the clarity and stability of responsibilities. The difference is that the existence of the government has always been regarded by the Chinese nation as an "essential good" rather than an "essential evil" in Western political science, due to different understandings of overall interests and the underlying human nature issues; China's core system reflects clear and stable responsibilities, while the US presidential system only achieves clear responsibilities, while China's core system can ensure that property rights are clearly assigned to "one", so it is more stable and more suitable for protecting the overall interests of the country. If we say "the other side", in terms of political system, the other side is not the United States, but China.
Liberal democracy is not a patent of the United States at all, but a misunderstanding of the United States; the political system is not a dragon-slaying sword of the United States at all, but a silver-like wax gun head of the United States; due to the length of history and insufficient accumulation, including ideological Spiritual culture or soft power including cultural values and values are not the strengths of the United States, but precisely the weaknesses of the United States. This is doomed that the United States will find it difficult to win in the competition with China, insisting on a cold war. Compared with the Chinese civilization, which was once vast, splendid, profound and consistent for five thousand years, the United States may only lose.
But the reason is not that China defeated the United States. Unlike the Western history of "a strong country must seek hegemony", China is quite benevolent in international relations. It does not fight for hegemony. Who, even if they are convincing, also emphasizes convincing others with virtue, and pursues convincing with sincerity. The problem is that if the United States does not make changes, it will be tossed by its own demons—the anti-epidemic crisis and the constitutional crisis that the United States is experiencing in 2020 are facts—so that it will lose, and it will defeat itself. China is just doing a good job. For myself, let history choose naturally—this kind of sincerity is a gentleman, this kind of sincerity is king, and this kind of sincerity can win without fighting!
评论
发表评论