(Above: the race to "common prosperity" is leaving many behind)
(Translator’s
preface: The fake Communist Xi Jinping projects a “leftist” image and often
refers to the Chinese Communist Party’s adherence to Marxism and its pursuit of
the elimination of poverty and the achievement of “common prosperity”. But what
is meant by “common prosperity” – with Chinese characteristics? Qian Changming
asked this question on September 18, 2021, on the “Utopia” website, and reaches
an important conclusion.)
"Common prosperity" is the pursuit of today.
However, what exactly is "common prosperity?" is a question that has
been debated in many different circles of opinion. If the goal is not clear,
how can it be achieved?
There is a view that "common prosperity is a differentiated prosperity on the basis of universal prosperity, not equal prosperity or simultaneous prosperity, let alone equalising the rich and poor and killing the rich to help the poor". This explanation seems hardly convincing.
Literally speaking, "common prosperity" is a kind of "prosperity" that "belongs to everyone" and "belongs to each other". ". In other words, "you have it, I have it, we all have it"; no one can be "pulled down".
The word "identical" means "equal", "synchronous" and "average". If not "absolute equality", "absolute synchronization" and "absolute average", at least "basic equality", "basic synchronization" and "basic average". How can we say "common" without "basic equality", "basic synchronization" and "basic average"? How can we speak of "common prosperity"?
What is "differential affluence on the basis of universal affluence"?
According to Baidu-Encyclopedia, "affluence" means "attaining a standard of living that is well-fed and well-clothed". Accordingly, "general affluence" means "differential affluence" on the basis of people's general "lack of worry about food and clothing".
In China today: on the one hand, 600 million people earn less than 1,000 yuan a month; on the other, some earn as much as 6 million yuan a day. On the one hand, 400 million "house slaves" are said to exist, each with an average debt of 1 million yuan; on the other hand, China has the highest number of billionaires in the world! (According to the Hurun 2021 Global Rich List, there are now 1,058 entrepreneurs with more than $1 billion in China, surpassing the 696 in the United States.)
Although we all have "food and clothing" (with the state "low income guarantee" to support the bottom), if we lose the "basic equality", "basic synchronization" and "basic average" - and the "poor" and "rich" are left to their own devices, is this "differential affluence on the basis of universal affluence", or is it a unique "polarisation"? Obviously, to describe "polarisation" as "differential affluence" is only to conceal the contradiction; but it does not solve it.
In order to achieve "common prosperity", we must first curb polarisation. Only when the "polarisation" is curbed can the path of "common prosperity" be followed.
Article 6 of the current Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly states that “The socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is based on the socialist system of public ownership of the means of production, that is, the system of universal ownership and the system of collective ownership by the working masses. The socialist system of public ownership eliminates the system of exploitation of man by man, and implements the principle of each according to his ability and the distribution of labour. At the primary stage of socialism, the State adheres to the basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and a variety of ownership systems develop together, and the distribution system in which distribution according to labour is the mainstay and a variety of distribution methods co-exist".
Why is there a "polarisation"? It is because of the deviation from this sacred principle of the Constitution in real life? On the pretext that the country is still at the "primary stage of socialism" and that "multiple ownership economies are allowed to develop together", some people are developing the private economy without restriction. On the pretext that the primary stage of socialism allows "a system of distribution in which multiple modes of distribution co-exist", the principle of "distribution according to labour as the mainstay" has been fundamentally abandoned and "distribution according to capital" is being pursued.
Imagine: without the unrestrained expansion of the private economy, without the hegemony of capital distribution according to capital, how could thousands of billionaires have emerged? China's richest man, Zhong Shanshan, has a fortune of RMB 550 billion! Could this have been achieved by adhering to the principle of "distribution according to labour"?
This is why the cries of "common wealth" and "not equalising the rich and poor, killing the rich to help the poor" are actually a reflection of capital's fear of labour and of socialism.
According to Marxism, capital and labour cannot "coexist peacefully". Either capital oppresses labour, or labour destroys capital. The Communist Manifesto clearly declares: "The Communists can sum up their theory in one sentence: the elimination of private ownership".
Of course, there needs to be a historical process to achieve common prosperity and the path has to be taken one step at a time. But the goal of the communists cannot be shaken and their nature is unchangeable. Fundamentally, as long as private ownership exists, labour cannot be completely emancipated. If people are to achieve "common prosperity", they must be free from the exploitation and oppression of capital. Only when private ownership is eliminated can exploitation and oppression be eradicated; only when communism is achieved can mankind be completely liberated and real "common prosperity" be realised.
(Below: Chinese Maoists held a protest rally outside the Southern Weekend newspaper office in Guangzhou back in 2013, holding a portrait of Mao Zedong and a banner with slogans disputing the road of “common prosperity” and declaring that “only Mao Zedong Thought can save China”.)
No comments:
Post a Comment