Recently, I went back and reviewed many previous questions. The terms "revolution" and "reform" were frequently brought up. The media like to ask about those questions, but those questions-and-answers are rarely reported. No matter what I have to say, it is most likely (80% likelihood) not published. So in this first essay to answer readers' questions, I will give my views on the term "revolution." Here I have consolidated the questions from readers and domestic/foreign media outlets for me to answer.
Question: Recently mass incidents have been taking place regularly in China. Do you think that China needs a revolution?
Answer: In a nation with a complex social structure, especially in the eastern world, the ultimate winner in a revolution must be a vicious, ruthless person. Frankly, "revolution" is a seemingly straightforward and rousing word which does not require too much explanation. But revolution may not be the best option for China. First of all, a revolution usually begins with a demand, which is most commonly anti-corruption. But this demand isn't going to go too far. "Freedom" or "justice" do not have any markets. Except for certain artists or journalists, if you ask people in the street whether they feel free, most of them will answer in the affirmative; if you ask them whether they want justice, they will typically say that injustice is usually something that happens to other persons and they are happy just as long as it doesn't happen to them. Most people do not come across injustice personally, so it is hard to get them to seek justice and freedom for other people. In China, it is hard to find a collective demand. This is not a matter of need versus no-need, but one of possible versus not-possible. My view is that it is neither possible nor necessary. But if you ask me whether China needs stronger reforms, I will say surely.
Question: Why don't you go out and lead an uprising?
Answer: You must be joking. Even if I agree with the idea of revolution and lead a sizeable uprising, the authorities can just cut off the Internet and mobile telephone signals. I don't think that the government even needs to send out their stability-maintenance forces. Those angry people who were trying to chat on QQ or play online games or watch serial dramas will wipe us out. You better not hope that you can make microblog posts to support me. You will begin to hate me if you cannot go microblogging for three days.
Question: Does that mean that China does not need democracy or freedom?
Answer: This is a misunderstanding. Intellectuals frequently link democracy and freedom together. Especially for the Chinese, the result of democracy is frequently lack of freedom. Most Chinese people do not link freedom with publication, news, literature, speech, election or politics. Instead, they think of freedom from public morality so that those who have no social connections can freely make noise, freely cross the streets, freely spit in public; those who have some social connections can freely break the rules and regulations, freely take advantage of legal loopholes, freely commit misdeeds. Good democracy necessarily bring about social social progress as well as rule of law. This will make certain people who don't care about cultural freedom feel less free. Thus many Chinese people who feel very uneasy when they arrive in the developed countries in Europe and America. Democracy and freedom do not have to be linked together. I think that the Chinese people have their own unique definition for freedom, and freedom is not influential in China.
Question: I think that the ills in China are too deep-reaching so that reform is useless. Only a revolution can make this society better.
Answer: Let us suppose that the revolution was not suppressed. Of course, that would be impossible. Let us imagine this revolution in mid-stage. The students, the masses, the elites, the intellectuals, the peasants and the workers are going to be able to reach a consensus. There is another group that we have ignored so far: the impoverished people of which there are 250 million currently. You don't usually notice their existence, because they never use the Internet. Since the revolution has reached mid-stage, new leaders must have emerged. A revolution without any leaders is doomed to fail. The White Lotus is a good example. But the leader of the revolution is not going to be the good-natured, benevolent character that you imagine as you sit in front of your computer right now. Such a revolutionary leader is most likely going to be dictatorial, domineering, egotistical, presumptuous, venomous and incendiary. Yes, this sounds familiar but the Chinese people fall for this kind of style. This society is used to seeing the villains take charge and the good folks get slaughtered. The leaders who are preferred by the young culturati won't last a week. The more educated one is, the less likely one is to submit to a leader and so one is likely to quit the revolution earlier on. As the elites leave, the composition of the revolutionaries changes. No matter how nice-sounding the revolution slogans were at first, it will ultimately revert to a single word: money.
To put it gently, the point is to give us back our money. To put it not so gently, this is equality of wealth as enforced through plundering. You should not assume that because I feel that I have some money, I would be willing to go along because I don't want to lose it. In the mighty torrent of the revolution, if you own an Apple iPhone, or you drive a motorcycle, or you know how to use the Internet, or you read newspapers regularly, or you eat at KFC, you are the rich criminal who will be the target of the revolution. The person who has 100 million yuan in assets is safer than the person who has only 10,000 yuan in assets. The former can immigrate overseas and pick up his New York Times delivered to his home door, but the latter (mostly middle-class and petty bourgeois) is stuck here. In the various political campaigns of the past, people went after each other. Today, people recognize only money, so many people are well trained to go after each other for money. The Chinese people know how to settle accounts, and this will necessarily lead to suppression.
Any revolution takes time. China is such a large country, without even mentioning chaos everywhere, civil wars among warlords or the power vacuum. After a chaotic five or ten years, the people will surely yearn for an iron-fisted dictator to restore social order and clean house. By comparison, it matters little if we have to go back from the very open "Let The Hundred Flowers Bloom" back to reading People's Daily. Besides all our assumptions are based upon the nationalization of the military (note: instead of the military being under the control of the Communist Party as it is right now). Therefore these are merely fantasies. If we are even pessimistic in our fantasies, we can forget about carrying it out altogether.
Question: How do you view Egypt and Libya?
Answer: Egypt. Libya. Ruled by a dictator for decades. Not many cities. A single incident became the explosive point. A single public square for delivering speeches. The revolution can succeed. In China, there is no specific individual who is the target of a revolution. There are many cities. The population is huge. All sorts of extraordinary disasters have occurred already, so that people's G-spots have become de-sensitized, never mind any point of explosion. Even if the social conflicts intensify tens times as much, even if you have ten Havels speechifying in ten cities and even if the authorities don't act, those speeches will eventually end up being sponsored by a lozenge manufacturer to be given at the Haidian Opera House.
Of course, all of the above is a waste of time. The key point is that most Chinese people don't care about the lives of others. They only holler when they get abused themselves. They will never manage to unify.
Question: Your viewpoints sound very much like those of a Fifty Cent Gang member. Have you been bought off by the government? Why can't we elect a chairman on a one-person-one-vote basis?
Answer. In this world where it is either this-or-that, either black-or-white, either right-or-wrong, either a pro-western-traitor-or-a-government-paid-fifty-cent-gang-member, the term 'revolution' is very powerful but it will be very harmful if operationalized. Many people think that the urgent task right now in China is to elect a chairman on a one-person-one-vote basis. Actually, this is not our most urgent need. On the contrary, one-person-one-vote will ultimately result in the victory of the Communist Party. Who has more money than the Party? 50 billion yuan will buy 500 million votes. If that doesn't work, they can up the ante to 500 billion yuan. They collect a trillion yuan in taxes each year. How can you challenge them in terms of money?
You think that the friends around you are fair and independent. Such people will add up to a few hundred thousand votes. Your wise and knowledgeable candidate will be lucky to get 100,000 votes.
The only person who can compete with the Communist Party is Ma Huateng, because he can pop up a window whenever you enter the QQ service to declare: "Anyone who votes for Ma Huateng will earn 500 in QQ currency!" He may be able to gain 200 million votes. But the problem is that Ma Huateng will surely join the Communist Party first.
Democracy is a complex, difficult but inevitable social process. It is not attained through simple words such as "revolution," "universal suffrage," "multi-party system," "down with XX," etc. If you have never cared about the judiciary or publishing, then what is the point of caring about universal suffrage? The only reason is that it is easier to talk about. This is no different from the people who only speak of F1 when it comes to car racing, or only the World Cup when it comes to soccer.
Question: I think that revolution and democracy in China are only matters of timing. When do you think is the right timing?
Answer: Revolution and democracy are two terms. These two terms are completely different. A revolution gives no guarantee for democracy. We proved this already. History gave China an opportunity, and our current situation is the result of the choice of our forebears. Today, China is the least likely nation in the world to have a revolution. At the same time, China is the nation which needs reform the most in the world. If you insist on asking me about the best timing for revolution in China, I can only say that when Chinese car drivers know to turn off their high beam lights when they pass each other, we can safely proceed with the revolution.
Such a country does not need any revolution. When the civic quality and educational level of the citizens reach a certain standard, everything will happen naturally. Perhaps you will live to see magnificent changes in his China, or perhaps you will still see only the same deadlock up to your death. No matter what, you must always remember to turn off your high beam light when you pass another car. Maybe our children will be able to attain everything that our forebears sought for sooner.
From EastSouthWestNorth: http://zonaeuropa.com/201112a.brief.htm#011
