Wake up（144）

 

144

 

The social phenomena that the public can feel can be compared to waves, which are the appearance of those chaotic images on the surface of the ocean that we know nothing about in the depths of the ocean. Whether it is China or the West, yesterday's popular heroes will be humiliated today if they fail. Of course, the higher the reputation, the stronger the reaction. There is an old Chinese saying: the winner is the king, and the loser is the bandit. This is the truth in the proverb.

When discussing the theory of "class struggle" with his friend Li Si, Nanshan Yun sighed: The people will always regard the heroes at the end of their lives as their own kind, and take revenge for bowing to an authority that no longer exists. There can be no civilization without tradition, and no progress without the slow elimination of tradition. So what exactly is Chinese traditional civilization? Is the way of Confucius and Mencius an excellent tradition in China? Is Laozi's theory China's civilization theory? Are the descendants of Yan and Huang the best nation in the world? How did China's dynasties change? Is it the people who created history or the result of the emperor's struggle for power?

Crowds are always obedient to power, but rarely moved by benevolence. In their view, benevolence and kindness are only synonymous with weakness and deceit. The public has no ability to distinguish, so they cannot judge the authenticity of things. Many viewpoints that cannot withstand scrutiny can easily be generally agreed.

The consciousness of group blind obedience will overwhelm the rationality of the individual. Once the individual classifies himself into the group, his original independent rationality will be overwhelmed by the ignorance and madness of the group.

Nan Shanyun's words were approved by Li Si.

Li Si said to Nan Shanyun: Your words remind me of the most taboo sentence today, which is "anti-party". Anyone who disagrees with the leadership or the society will be labeled as "anti-Party" and punished with serious crimes. What exactly is the so-called "anti-party"?

Nan Shanyun said: The characterization of rightists ends up being the so-called "anti-Party and anti-socialist reactionaries", and a small number of "extreme rightists" are still regarded as "counter-revolutionaries". So what counts as anti-Party? Are the shortcomings and mistakes of the opposition party also anti-party? Is criticizing the "party world" tantamount to being anti-Party and anti-socialism? Is being against the party the same as being against the revolution? These issues have not been clarified. This is also another theoretical origin of the anti-rightist "expansion".

During the Anti-Rightist movement, almost anyone who raised critical opinions on party committees and party branches was criticized as "anti-party", not to mention criticizing Mao Zedong's "party world".

Nan Shanyun said to Li Si: Criticism of a certain party organization or party member cadre is a constitutional right enjoyed by every citizen. I saw a message from the Internet,

A professor in the Department of Physics of Tsinghua University said that "Chairman Mao's sun did not shine on Tsinghua University", and criticized the school's party committee leaders for covering the sky with one hand. He was criticized as serious anti-Party and anti-Chairman Mao. In fact, he only criticized individual leaders of Tsinghua University. How could he be against the entire Communist Party? The deputy secretary’s theoretical explanation was: “The party organization is composed of party members. How can there be a party organization and a party center without party members? Therefore, they oppose the party by opposing individual party members!” This is the formation of a political community (party) ) properties of individuals and parts, which are equated with properties of the whole, are contrary to system theory. Just as the nature of the house cannot be equated with the nature of the bricks and tiles that make up the house.

Li Si asked: Is criticizing "Party Tianxia" anti-Party?

Nanshan Yunhui said: It can be said that Lenin was the earliest founder of the theory of "Party Tianxia". In his book "Leftist Infantile Diseases in the Communist Movement", he said that society is composed of the masses, and the masses are divided into classes. Classes are led by political parties, and political parties are supported by leading groups. From class to political party to one-party dictatorship, Stalin developed into a dictatorship of the leader himself.

Rosa Luxemburg, a well-known Marxist in the international communist movement, once criticized Lenin for equating the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the party and the dictatorship of the leaders. She pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat "is a dictatorship of a class, not a dictatorship of a political party and a group. It is the broadest, most The most open class dictatorship", "this dictatorship must be the task of the whole class and cannot be exercised by a few leaders in the name of the class struggle."—that is, it must be carried out step by step through the participation of the masses; it must Must be under the direct influence of the masses, controlled by fully public activity; must be the product of increasing opportunities for political training of the masses of the people."

In "On Coalition Government", Mao Zedong also resolutely opposed the one-party dictatorship of the Kuomintang and advocated the establishment of a coalition government. In the early days of liberation, the vice president of the country, members of the Central People's Government Committee, and ministers and vice ministers all had people from democratic parties, and it was not a one-party "world". As early as 1941, Deng Xiaoping criticized the mistakes of "ruling the country by the party" and "the party's power is above all else", thinking that "'ruling the country by the party' is the legacy of the Kuomintang, and it is a way to paralyze the party, corrupt the party, destroy the party, and separate it from the masses." most efficient way."

Chu Anping's criticism of the "party world" is nothing more than opposing the Communist Party's one-party rule of the world and above all else, and it is meant to challenge the Communist Party's exclusive power. But this is not much different from Luxembourg, Mao Zedong, and Deng Xiaoping's criticism of the party's dictatorship in essence. "Dangtianxia" is another way of saying "ruling the country by the party" and "party power is above everything else".

The problem is that criticizing the "party world" is just a political opinion, and there is no violence or incitement to overthrow the regime.

Furthermore, the party's ruling status is not natural or hereditary, but must be authorized by the people through elections. Even if the new China is "under the rule of the Communist Party", the Communist Party has to go through the formal election of the Political Consultative Conference of the democratic parties led by the Communist Party on the eve of the founding of the country, and confirm and authorize the leader of the Communist Party as the leader of the country. legal status. Although the 1954 Constitution and subsequent constitutional amendments affirmed the Party’s leadership in the preamble, it did not stipulate that the Chinese Communist Party must or should be the ruling party. The leading party is not necessarily the ruling party. Before liberation, our party was the leadership core of the revolution, so it was not a national ruling party.

Li Si said: I once saw a paper "Authority, Right or Power ----- Jurisprudential Thinking on the Relationship between the Party and the National People's Congress" published in the first issue of "Legal Studies" in 1991. The author Guo Daohui pointed out that the party's leadership Power cannot be equated with state power, and the Party Central Committee and local Party committees are not higher organs of state power than the people's congresses; "The party's ruling status is not a natural right, nor is it once and for all." The author said that at that time some people could not bear this kind of view, and wrote articles criticizing these views of mine, saying that they were the leaders of the opposition party. Now the latter sentence is written almost as it is in the resolution of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Party, "The Party's ruling status is not inherent, nor is it once and for all." He also specifically quoted this sentence, saying that it "incisively summarizes the historical lessons of our party", and the commentator article of the People's Daily also quoted this sentence to emphasize it. I was criticized as "deviant" just because I said it 11 years earlier.

Nanshan Yunhui said: If our Communist Party does not overcome the increasingly serious corruption, if we do not eliminate the legacy of "ruling the country by the party" and "party power is above everything else", and if we do not make new achievements, the party will be in danger of dying. Has the party status stepped down and become an opposition party? Wasn't the Kuomintang also driven out? This is a lesson learned.

Although Nan Shanyun and Li Si criticize the "Party Tianxia", they will not and cannot express their views in public, because whoever dares to criticize the "Party Tianxia" is anti-Party, and this is a well-known reality in China .