Looking for a model for Progressive policies? Check out China!

Dennis Etler

It is hard to read a newspaper in the United States without being told that China is an authoritarian human rights abuser and that the repressive black hand of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is behind all the oppression.

The efforts to paint the CPC as the epitome of evil in the corporate media, and in scholarly articles cranked out by various China experts, becomes more hysterical and fantastical by the day. As Americans become increasingly desperate watching their own government descend to the lowest levels of crass criminality, the risk grows that they will start to look around for a model of government that serves its people. They will not find it in Europe, where neo-liberals fight with neo-fascists to pursue ruthless economic policies behind a deceptive democratic façade. They will not find an alternative in Russia, where nationalist-flavored oligarchs have done their best to bury the socialist tradition that once made that country so influential.

But China is a nation whose leaders profess and discuss Marxism as a living, breathing doctrine, not an armchair philosophy divorced from practice, a nation where class issues are acknowledged and studied, a nation whose government is capable of putting the rich in jail for their crimes.

There are serious problems in Chinese society, as there are elsewhere, but the move to attribute them all to the “dictatorial” CPC is a ruse intended to distract us from the true source of the problems that we see in China, the persistence of traditional feudal values from Old China and the corrosive influence of bourgeois ideology that accompanied the “reform and opening up” policies of Deng Xiaoping and his successors. The breakneck industrialization of the Chinese economy that resulted from the implementation of “Dengism” had such negative results as environmental degradation, rampant corruption and a loss of faith in the efficacy of the CPC as a force for bettering the people and the nation.

The rise of Xi Jinping to power, however, was part of a movement to redress these grievances and to put China back on the path of socialist construction and national rejuvenation.

Nonetheless, the Western media, academics, and governments seek out only what is negative in China and refuse to report on the tremendous efforts of the CPC, and the Chinese government, to right wrongs and move in a progressive direction

This is done for one reason and one reason alone: so much abuse and negative associations must be heaped on the term “communist” that no one in the United States will even think that there is anything even vaguely positive about the concept. That task is getting harder and harder as more citizens long for social justice and see some form of socialism as the only means of resisting the ruthless assault of global capital.

There is another real danger lurking beneath the surface. Prior to the scourge of McCarthyism which destroyed the strong movement for socialism and communism in the United States, Communism was a viable political movement there. The Communist Party USA fought bravely for social justice in the United States and pioneered the struggle against segregation and the battle for labor rights. Those herculean struggles were later whittled away under successive Democratic and Republican administrations. In retrospect, it is ironic that the 1948 platform of the Communist Party USA presents what most true progressives in the United States today would like to see their political candidates advocate, rather than the “lipstick on a pig” efforts of the Democratic Party’s Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who ask for universal healthcare while backing militarism and the rule of global capital in Washington. Back in the day, the CPUSA’s platform stated,

“The nation's industries are not operated for the public welfare, but for the private gain and power of the multi-millionaire ruling class. Prices continue to rise because of vast military expenditures and because the monopolies, through price-fixing agreements and other devious devices, extract exorbitant profits.”

So, we had better make sure that no American ever thinks that the Chinese system, which is presided over by a Communist Party, and which proclaims itself to be building socialism, offers any sort of an alternative, inspiration, or model to benchmark.

But, let us take a look (just you and me in secret) at what progressives like Sanders and Warren do not want you to know about the CPC.

1. The Chinese Communist Party is part of the government and it is regulated

Anti-China “progressives” will tell you that the CPC is so terribly oppressive because it runs the government. This fatuous argument does not stand up under even superficial scrutiny. The CPC is the governing party, but it represents a broad range of interests and it consults with a number of non-communist political parties, interest groups, and stakeholders in a process of consultative democracy mandated by the PRC’s Constitution. Its actions and behavior are codified and carefully delineated by laws. And contrary to Western biases, its activities are transparent and its members accessible.

Let us contrast the CPC with the parties that make American policy: The Democratic and the Republican parties. Although the leadership of these two parties makes policy (or approves policies given to them by corporate lobbyists and obscure consulting firms working for the super-rich) their role in government is not sanctioned by the US constitution.

The US constitution describes in detail the process for the formulation and application of policy through accountable, transparent government agencies. Nowhere does it refer to the Democratic, Republican or any other party. And now government officials have also been increasingly cut out of the picture through outsourcing and privatization. The result? Governance by the Democrats and Republicans is clearly unconstitutional, rife with corruption and criminal in nature.

It is not that China needs corporate-driven American “democracy” but rather that the United States needs a regulated and transparent political party which is accountable to the people like the much-criticized CPC.

2. The Chinese government makes long-term plans and carries them out.

China has come to the fore globally for how it is addressing the environmental crisis, modernizing and expanding its infrastructure, setting new records in the exploration of space, and developing in every other aspect of its society to a large degree because the government is capable of formulating (and implementing) long-term policies for 10, 50 or even 100 years. Incredible as it may sound, scientists, academics, and political leaders are consulted at all levels in the drafting and the implementation of policies intended to respond to long-term concerns. The impressive policies for the fortification of marine protected areas and afforestation in anticipation of climate change noted by Nature are examples of such visionary programs, but there are thousands of such efforts in China to respond to what will be needed in the future.

The United States, conservative or progressive, may talk a good game on TV, but it is incapable of any long-term planning at all. The airwaves are full of bright ideas, but the cold reality is that the United States is increasingly run by corporations in search of short-term profits and there is nowhere to run. There is literally no long-term plan for the well-being of Americans remaining.

3. The Chinese Communist Party can put the big criminals in jail

The Chinese government under the leadership of the transparent and accountable CPC has carried out a campaign over the last five years to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate corrupt bigwigs, including politicians, bureaucrats and business people within the CCP itself. Imagine asking the Republican or Democratic Parties to investigate themselves!

Those involved with kickbacks, bribery and other forms of malfeasance in China have fallen before this massive anti-corruption drive. It's as if banksters, financial fraudsters, and crooked politicians were arrested and tried in the US for their corrupt practices. The seriousness of the Chinese campaign is undeniable, and it has not been muted. The Chinese people overwhelmingly endorse the effort.

In the US, not a single person has gone to jail for the 2000 election fraud, for 9/11, for the Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, or for the illegal incarceration of immigrants in concentration camps. Billionaires rack up bigger and bigger fortunes with the help of the government because the government serves them, not us.

4. China can stimulate the economy, not just shower money down on billionaires

After the 2008 global financial collapse, the PRC engaged in a massive stimulus program of investment and construction of much-needed infrastructure, including a national superhighway system, mass transit, a modern national electrical grid, and the world's largest high-speed rail network. The United States bailed out billionaires and hedge funds while allowing infrastructure to crumble and education to wither away.

China’s efforts are beginning to bear fruit. China has been transformed, with transit times cut to a fraction of what they once were and a flourishing e-commerce that allowes netizens in the far reaches of China to enter the socialist market economy. Now Chinese prefer trains over airplanes and automobiles for long-distance travel because of the convenience and purchases are made electronically rather than with cash. That is a true commitment to public infrastructure.

These are the types of investments that the US Left has been clamoring after for decades with no result.

China's massive stimulus program saved the world from a depression that would have devastated the world's economy. Such an economic downturn would have hit the least developed and poorest countries hard. It was China’s decision to invest in real things, infrastructure and in people, rather than in shady investment banks, that saved the global economy.

China has literally saved millions of lives from poverty and destitution throughout the world as a result and through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) continues to do so. China even financed the continued build-up of US debt which has kept the US economy afloat for the last decade.

5. China is committed to renewable energy and it actually does what it says it will do

China has been a world leader in investment and construction of alternative energy sources, including solar, wind and other non-fossil fuel sources. It is moving rapidly in replacing dirty coal with much cleaner natural gas and is investing hundreds of billions of US dollars in environmental clean-ups which resulted from its unprecedented growth over the last two decades. Again these are the sort of programs and investments the US Left has been clamoring for.

China has taken the lead in combating climate change both at home and abroad, supporting the Paris climate accords and the UN, pledging billions of dollars to help poor and emerging nations deal with mitigation and adaptation. China has also vowed to forgive loans and debts of poor and developing countries and to increase financial aid.

This is unmatched by the US where foreign aid and debt forgiveness has been drastically reduced by a reactionary President and recalcitrant Senate. The Trump administration is moving to make renewable energy impossible at home, but the Democrats just look on in silence. The reason is simple. American politicians play different corporate clients off each other to their advantage. Chinese politicians have an institutional and ideological commitment to promoting the interests of the people.

6. China is committed to helping the disadvantaged through proactive policies

Over the last two decades, China has raised 800 million people out of poverty, over twice the population of the US. While the US Middle Class is dwindling the Chinese Middle Class is burgeoning and now numbers over 300 million, the size of the entire USA. But does the US Left herald that? No, they continually disparage China for the alleged “human rights” abuses that are touted by an array of US government-supported NGOs whose sole purpose seems to be to foment pro-American “democracy movements” and separatist campaigns that support US imperialism and global hegemony.

While the US economy stagnates, the Chinese economy is slowing down ON PURPOSE as part of a shift from an emphasis on exports to one based on consumption, not only of goods but services as well. The service economy in China does not mean low paying jobs such as baristas and fast food servers, but increasing social services, requiring trained personnel in the medical professions, education, childcare, and eldercare. That is because economic planning it undertaken by government officials and academics with a clear vision of the interest of the people, rather than being cooked up by analysts at private investment banks.

While the Chinese economy is being purposely slowed to become more sustainable it still outstrips US economic growth by a wide margin. Austerity in the West entails curtailing social services, while in China it means curtailing excessive government spending on ostentatious banquets and luxury automobiles.

7. China supports the sovereignty of nations and international law

Although we are told by the corporate media about how China oppresses its neighbors, in fact it respects the sovereignty of nations and international law and opposes the overseas intervention and interference of the US. The PRC has established a plethora of financial institutions and trade associations and it has invested in countless infrastructure projects worldwide through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that serves as an alternative to the US-dominated IMF and World Bank.

China has supported every progressive government in the world that the US Left loves, including Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in Latin America, and other countries throughout the world who have stood up to US bullying and regime change color revolutions.

China pursues a foreign policy of peaceful co-existence and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the antithesis of the imperialist foreign policy of the US, which has intervened against and invaded countries throughout the world, instigating so-called "color revolutions,” imposing stringent economic sanctions and other punitive measures to bully other nations into submission to its dictates. China has no foreign troops stationed abroad nor military bases around the world that are used as staging grounds for military interventions and posturing.

8. China has the largest labor movement in the world

Workers are free to strike and to demand redress of grievances against both foreign and domestic capitalists whom the government has allowed to conduct business. The government takes a hands-off policy towards daily management but tacitly supports labor actions for unpaid wages and benefits. The Chinese government has raised the minimum wage of workers in the lowest-paid industries 20% per year over the last few years while inflation remains low, increasing the spending power of migrant workers substantially while undertaking reforms that will allow migrants from rural areas to settle more easily in urban centers and to receive social benefits. All the while the US under Obama and Trump has deported millions of migrants from Latin America, who serve the same role as Chinese migrants from the countryside. And yet all the US Left can do is deride China for still having problems and contradictions in its developmental strategy.

9. China invests in the arts and culture, and education

Those over sixty can remember when the United States government helped finance the performing and visual arts in the 1960s. All that is gone now. But China has doubled down on its commitment to the arts, to the building of museums and cultural and educational resources throughout the country, many of which are free to the public.

This commitment to culture is a defining quality of socialism with Chinese characteristics. China is drawing on a profound commitment to culture as a key aspect of national policy that goes back for thousands of years and it is increasing the budgets for cultural production as the United States slashes them to the bone.

10. China regulates the critical elements of the economy to assure fairness and transparency while it encourages entrepreneurship in both small and large firms

China, while a socialist country in which the commanding heights of the economy are state-owned, encourages entrepreneurship and private capitalism on an unprecedented scale for a socialist country, allowing for a surge in innovation and job creation in the private sector. China thus has a more vibrant private economy than most developed capitalist countries, including the US.

Conclusion

China should be rightfully proud of its many accomplishments over the last 70 years. It has reduced poverty to levels unimaginable in the rest of the world. It has raised health standards to equal or surpass those of highly developed Western countries. It has educated its population such that its college graduates in the STEM disciplines far outpace those in the US and EU combined. Its people are housed, educated and healthy to a degree unprecedented in its long history. There should be no question that these accomplishments are the result of the latent skill, dedication and energy of the Chinese people unleashed by the Chinese revolution led by the CPC.

The strikingly progressive nature of Chinese politics and economics are thus no mystery, and increasingly they are becoming the benchmark in Africa, Central Asia, South America, and Southeast Asia. The mystery is rather why progressives in the United States bend over backward to paint China as authoritarian at the very moment the United States is becoming increasingly closed to the world.

China opposes the neo-liberal political and economic changes demanded by the United States because it has a core of committed intellectuals and public servants who can see how such neo-liberalism has destroyed other nations, above all, the United States. They have no intention of making China a stooge of the super-rich who run the United States for their personal profit. Besides all the above, there is no mystery to China’s very logical and entirely open and transparent policies. They do what they say and say what they do.

So why is there such animus against China among progressives?

Because China has a millennia-old political culture that is highly developed and differs from the Western “democratic” model that is dysfunctional and oligarchical? Because China tries to rein in corporate giants like Google and Facebook who want to control China's internet and lay waste to it as they have done in the US? Because China has vowed to protect its territorial integrity against US encirclement and containment?

The question is, rather, why it is that US Left engages in China-bashing rather than holding up China as a model? Why does the US Left cry out about human rights when China resists attempts at US-backed dismemberment by arch-reactionaries in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, but somehow is able to denounce US aggression against Central America or the Middle East?

Could it be because they tacitly support US Imperialism’s attempts to destabilize China and to foment a neo-liberal color revolution there? Or is it because the US Left harbors a virulent anti-communist ideology anda latent racist attitude towards China and so cannot countenance its rise from an economic backwater to become the most powerful economy in the world?

Zhang Weiwei, No. 32 of This Is China: Is China State Capitalism?

Source: Author of Observer: Zhang Weiwei Time: 2019-09-04

1070 China Road Number: A-A+

Share: Collection Printing

[Public ownership dominates the main body, and most people benefit from the development process. A political force representing the overall interests of the people is the most essential feature of Chinese socialism. It is as ridiculous to describe such Chinese socialism as state capitalism as to describe today's American capitalism as "American socialism". Even liberal economists may feel ashamed of the US government's intervention in the economy.

Oriental Satellite TV's political commentary program "This is China" continues to be popular every Monday night at 21:30. In each program, Professor Zhang Weiwei, Dean of China Academy of Fudan University, combines his own experience, compares Chinese and Western cultures and constructs Chinese discourse from the hot and difficult issues at home and abroad.

In the thirty-second program on August 26, Professor Zhang Weiwei analyzed the essential characteristics of Chinese socialism. The Observer Network organizes the speech and answer sections of the program to feed the readers. ]

It has been more than a year since the United States initiated the Sino-US trade war. During this period, the United States often accused China of engaging in state capitalism, and some of our domestic publicity echoed behind the United States. Last April, a delegation of the China Research Institute of Fudan University visited Yale University in the United States. I made a speech on the Chinese model and Sino-US relations. At that time, an American scholar also asked me this question. When will you abandon the state capitalist model? I said, wrong! We are not the state capitalist model, but the Chinese socialist model.

Let me tell you a story. When the subprime mortgage crisis broke out in 2008, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson paid a special visit to China and asked China to help the United States get out of the crisis. What is the situation in which the American capitalist model asks the Chinese socialist model for help? At that time, the United States fell into the subprime crisis, the stock market collapsed, large companies went bankrupt, the government was short of money, but wanted to rescue the market, so it issued additional treasury bonds and IMF bonds. As one of the largest foreign exchange reserve countries in the world, if China does not take the lead in buying these bonds, other countries may not want to buy them. So US Treasury Secretary Paulson flew to China and earnestly asked the Chinese government to buy American bonds to help the United States tide over the difficulties.

I remember an article in the Independent at that time saying, "The success of the American bailout plan depends not only on American taxpayers, but also on the support of China and other countries. The ultimate fate of the largest financial rescue plan in history may be China and other countries. To this end, the first thing U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson has to do is to launch a "Tour Speech" in Beijing. But it may not be easy for Paulson to convince the Chinese and skeptical Chinese. What he needs to do... "What he needs to do is not just kneel on one knee," the Independent said.

Then, the article says that if China decides not to buy new U.S. bonds or even sell existing ones, the future of the United States will be very bleak, and of course, China's interests will suffer. Personally, I think that judgment is still realistic in retrospect.

Former US Treasury Secretary Paulson

Judging from China's economic situation at that time, foreign trade accounted for a high proportion of the total economy, and Sino-US trade accounted for a large part of it. Therefore, the US financial tsunami did have a huge negative impact on China. Chinese people really think that the world economy is you have me, I have you, no one can be alone, that is, we often talk about the loss of all the glory. The same is true of China's cultural genes, which are good for people and help each other in the same boat. So after careful consideration, the Chinese government decided to rescue the United States, increase its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, and enter a period of relative monetary easing. It introduced a controversial "4 trillion" policy in the future. But I think the overall "4 trillion" is still more advantageous than disadvantageous. After all, we have used 4 trillion yuan to upgrade China's infrastructure, including building the world's largest and best high-speed rail network.

At the same time, we have also seen a slight recovery from the crisis in the United States and began to be ungrateful. So I told Yale scholars during this visit that it was only a matter of time before the next big crisis of American capitalism broke out. For China, Chinese socialism was the only way to prevent the crisis from spreading to China, so China could not give up Chinese socialism, which was China's victory over the enemy. Magic weapon. I also said that I would rather not ask China for help next time the crisis breaks out in the United States. I hope you can carry the American capitalist model by yourself. How on earth is the community of human destiny built? We are all exploring, but its foundation can only be win-win cooperation, not the "zero-sum game" pursued by the United States.

I would like to take a moment here to explain more specifically why China is not state capitalism, but socialism with Chinese characteristics. Because there are at least three points in this institutional arrangement in China that are totally different from capitalism.

First, in China's economic structure, public ownership dominates, including land public ownership, the existence of a large number of state-owned enterprises in the strategic area of national economy and people's livelihood, and the state's ownership of many strategic resources, which is in sharp contrast to the dominance of private ownership in the United States. Our Constitution stipulates that in the primary stage of socialism, it is a long period of time to implement the basic economic system in which public ownership dominates and multi-ownership economy develops together. Now it has proved that this is a remarkable institutional arrangement. This model, known as mixed economy, has brought about the overall rise of China today and the rapid improvement of people's living standards.

Of course, this ownership system also has a development process, which can be roughly divided into three stages:

The first stage is the formation of state-owned economy and collective economy, or ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, after the socialist transformation in the 1950s. At that time, some people thought that we had copied the Soviet model in the first 30 years. In fact, the ownership models of China and the Soviet Union were quite different at that time. The Soviet Union adopted the policy of deprivation of private capital, and China adopted the policy of redemption. In 1936, the Soviet Union declared that it had built socialism. State ownership accounted for 99.97% of the total industrial component, almost 100%. In 1978, before the reform and opening up, the proportion of state-owned enterprises in the national economy was 56%. To a large extent, this was also to concentrate resources and build the industrial system of New China, including the national defense and science and technology system. The rest is mainly the collective economy, including a large number of "team enterprises". These enterprises became the main force of the rise of township enterprises in China after the reform and opening up, which can be said to have triggered the first industrial revolution in China, mainly in textile industry and light industry.

The second stage is the Deng Xiaoping period. At that time, it was said that public ownership was dominant, while individual economy and foreign-funded enterprises were allowed to develop. By 1997, when Comrade Deng Xiaoping died, the state-owned economy and collective economy accounted for roughly three-quarters of the national economy.

Then there is the third stage, the symbol of which can be said to be the 15th National Congress of the CPC held in 1997. The concept of public ownership has advanced with the times, including not only state-owned and collective ownership, but also state-owned and collective holding stock system. The definition of public ownership has also begun to emphasize the dominance of public assets in the total social assets, the lifeline of state-owned economy to control the national economy and play a leading role in economic development, instead of emphasizing the number of state-owned enterprises and collective enterprises or their proportion in the national economy.

This theoretical breakthrough has formed two unshakable patterns that we often talk about today: unshakably consolidating and developing the public economy; unshakably encouraging, supporting and guiding the development of the non-public economy, insisting on the equal protection of property rights, and forming a new pattern of equal competition among all kinds of ownership economies and promoting each other.

[Click on the big picture]

Jiangsu Wuxi Red Bean Group, the top is the site of the old factory in 1950s, and the bottom is the Red Bean Group Industrial City. The picture is from Xinhua News Agency.

Looking back at the rise of China's mixed economic model, I am really impressed. I don't mean that our model is perfect. It has its shortcomings. Every day we talk about reform. There are sometimes contradictions between the two sectors of the state-owned economy and the private economy. But at the central level, we can see that the general guiding ideology has been to promote the two sectors to promote each other and complement each other. Although this model is still in the process of perfection, it has obviously won the international comparison.

I've talked about this many times. On Shuang 11, 2016, I happened to be talking about the Chinese model at Oxford University. I said that today the curtain of China's Tianmao Shuang11 came to an end, with a turnover of 120.7 billion yuan. What's the concept? It is Tianmao Shuang's 11-day online trading volume that exceeds India's e-commerce volume for the whole year of 2015. This is a demonstration of China's new economic vitality.

Then an Oxford scholar said, "Isn't this just a confirmation of the vitality of China's private economy?" In fact, his subtext is that China's state-owned economy is not good, and the state-owned economy is not good.

I say you make sense, but equally important, it also proves the success of China's mixed economic model. As an entrepreneur, Ma Yun's personal talent and Ali's own achievements are very important, but at the same time, we should also see such aspects as China's national network governance model. Without this model, I am afraid that China's e-commerce market will not be a Chinese local company, but the Amazon and Google days in the United States. Next. This is the case in Europe today. Even without its own search engine, the big data in Europe are almost in the hands of American companies. How could it possibly lead the fourth industrial revolution?

Behind the success of Shuang11, there are the world's largest and strongest power grid, the largest and best highway network, the largest and best high-speed railway network, the largest and best 4G network, the plan of village-to-village highway, the popularization of compulsory education for all, and so on, which are almost all driven by the state. So I think Shuang11 is a successful example of China's mixed economic model. This is my first point.

The second point is that in the process of China's development, the vast majority of Chinese people are the beneficiaries of this process. The wealth of most Chinese has risen dramatically over the past few decades, in sharp contrast to the situation in the United States. China's middle class has grown from scratch, and today it has exceeded 400 million, more than the total population of the United States. These middle classes are also middle classes in the United States today, with stable income from real estate.

A while ago, the twelfth round of high-level economic and trade consultation between China and the United States was held in Shanghai. China invited U.S. trade representative Lethizer and Finance Minister Mnuchin to visit the Huangpu River at night. Later, I saw some interesting comments from netizens. One comment said that the location of Shanghai was chosen to let them have a look. In the case of the trade war, China's economy is still flourishing and their misjudgement of the economic situation has been eliminated.

It can be said that this is the first socialist country in human history. According to purchasing power parity, it has become the world's largest economy, the world's largest middle class, the world's largest export of tourists, and the world's largest and fastest growing consumer market. China's housing ownership rate has surpassed that of all western countries, surpassing that of the United States. China has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world, and is also the world's largest trading country in goods. China has also basically achieved universal pension and medical insurance. Although levels vary from place to place, at least the United States is not yet able to do so. Another poster said, "Look at the prosperous peaceful times in Shanghai, the representative of the United States may be thinking, ah, if this is our city in the United States, how good it would be." It seems that this netizen knows the status quo of American cities very well.

[Click on the big picture]

American Supermarket

By the way, Edward Wolff, a professor of economics at New York University, has done an interesting research on the median net assets of American households from 1962 to 2013 in US dollars. In 1962, the median net assets of American households were 55,500 US dollars, equal to about 360,000 RMB, which is the level of the United States in 1962. Look more than 100 times higher than the Chinese family at that time. But by 2013, the median net household assets in the United States will only increase to $63,800, equivalent to about 450,000 yuan. I use today's exchange rate of 7, which is even lower if I use the exchange rate of 2013.

So what does the so-called median household net assets mean? That is, 50% of households are higher than that, and 50% of households are lower than that. The cross-border comparison of the median should be more realistic than that of the average. Because the United States is a country with a huge gap between the rich and the poor, it makes little sense to average out the wealth of the super-rich.

I don't have the statistics on the median net assets of Chinese households in 2013, but I think you can judge for yourselves what the median net assets level of the whole country of the United States should be in China and what level it should be in Shanghai. Then the net assets of households are all assets including real estate minus all debts. 。

I can also provide another data: 20% of Americans do not have any bank deposits, 39% of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings, and 40% of Americans can't afford $400 in emergencies. These are all public data, and they haven't changed much over the years. Some of our big online Vs just make up stories that Americans have good welfare, so they don't need to deposit. These people probably never really lived in the United States.

According to a survey conducted by Bankrate in 2019, one of the questions is what prevents you from saving money? The answer is interesting. 38% of the respondents said that the living expenses were too big to save money. 16% said that my job was not good enough, that is, the income was too low. Sixteen percent said they had not yet saved money; 13 percent said they still had to pay their debts and could not afford it; only eight percent said it was unnecessary, that is to say, smart people who could be carefree and did not need to save money, in fact, accounting for a very small proportion of the U.S. population.

This reminds me of Taiwan. Not long ago, the mainland of China announced the suspension of individual tourism pilot visits to Taiwan by mainland residents of 47 cities, which is a warning to the "Taiwan independence" forces. But a DPP figure said on television that the mainland's move was due to fears that tourists admired the "free elections" and "free air" only available in Taiwan, and the Taiwan guests present at that time could not help laughing. This remark attracted the enthusiastic ridicule of mainland netizens, one netizen said, really envy, the mainland has never seen frogs in the well, want to study what these frogs live on so confident! Another netizen said that the election chaos in the Gulf tells us how terrible and terrible a failed democracy is. Another one is that I understand what is called "one country, two intelligences", intelligence quotient. This is my second point.

The third point is that China has a political force representing the overall interests of the people, which is very important. And the United States today can not find the political power to represent the overall interests of the American people. You can ask any American you know if the United States has such political power. Western party theory generally believes that society is composed of different interest groups and each group should have its own representatives, so it needs a multi-party system, and then the party that wins through election and voting will gain the legitimacy of governance and realize the integration of the state and society. But the reality today is that this model is dividing more and more countries, not to mention many third world countries.

I have always said that China is a civilized country, a country of "the sum of a hundred countries", which has been integrated by hundreds of countries in their long history. In our own history, we have formed a tradition that I call the "unified ruling group". Once we depart from this tradition, the country will be torn apart. So I think the CPC is still the continuation and development of this political tradition to a large extent.

China's unique institutional arrangements, including the mass line, the united front and democratic centralism, have enabled 1.4 billion super-large countries to form the broadest social consensus and "work together with sleeves". Moreover, we can overcome the obstacles of vested interests, push forward the necessary reforms, and deal with the challenges that a super-large country will inevitably encounter in the process of its rise. For example, the relationship between stable reform and development, the relationship between central and local governments, the relationship between coastal areas and the mainland, the relationship between cities and countryside, the relationship between different nationalities and so on, all of which are unimaginable in the Western model of partial interest parties and can not be solved at all, and even more difficult in the American capital-led democratic system. Imagine.

China's ruling party is not the Republican Party of the United States, nor the Democratic Party of the United States. It represents a great civilization that has lasted for more than five thousand years without interruption. It bears the ultimate responsibility for the fate of its own civilization. It is this super-strong historical mission and responsibility that enables it to formulate super-long-term development goals for the country, and to work one after another, generation after generation, towards the goal of the great national rejuvenation, rather than the part-interest party model of the United States working one after another. This will also enable the Chinese model to overcome some of the most common problems in the Western model, such as populism, myopia, extremism and so on.

[Click on the big picture]

I think the above three points, public ownership dominates the main body, most people benefit from the development process, a political force representing the overall interests of the people is the most essential feature of Chinese socialism. This is my personal opinion for your reference. It is as ridiculous to describe such Chinese socialism as national capitalism as to describe today's American capitalism as "American socialism". I'm afraid even liberal economists will feel ashamed of the US government's intervention in the economy.

As for the U.S. view that the industrial policy or planning ability of the Chinese model reflects national capitalism, for the Chinese, this is of course Chinese socialism. Shortly after the outbreak of the Sino-US trade war last year, I said that it is common sense for Chinese socialism to do things without the approval of American capitalism, just as Chinese people do not need the approval of English to speak Chinese.

Do the United States agree that we should develop atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs? Of course not. But China needs to develop. Do the United States agree that we should develop aerospace industry? Of course not, but China should develop. Do the United States agree with our construction of the South China Sea Islands and Reefs? Of course not. But we should build it. We say we want to reunify Taiwan. Does the United States agree? Of course not. But we must unite, and the process of peaceful reunification has begun. Do we agree that "one belt and one road" is acceptable to the United States? Neither do they agree. But we should put it forward and implement it. We say that if the situation in Hong Kong deteriorates further and the Hong Kong SAR government fails to control the unrest, the Central Committee will never sit idly by. Do the United States agree? Of course not. But when the central government should do it, it will do it.

The reason is very simple. Socialist China is an independent country. The People's Republic is a war-fighting country. China has its own unique political system, its own unique national defense system, its own independent scientific and technological system and the world's most complete industrial system. So without this capability, where will China be today's great power? Where will China rise in all directions today?

Okay, let's talk about it today. Thank you.

Discussion link

Moderator: Western society often labels us with the so-called lack of freedom, democracy, state capitalism and so on. In fact, if you pay attention to Huawei, you will find that far before the beginning of Sino-US trade frictions, Huawei wants to cooperate or acquire with American companies. Almost all of the people in the United States come out and say no. The visible hand is very strong. The United States does this for itself, but why does it always label us as national capitalism?

Zhang Weiwei: An important reason why it always talks about China's state capitalism is that the mainstream of their economics is neo-liberalism, and neo-liberalism still agrees with free market, which is the free market economy. There are two things that it resents most about China. One is industrial policy, the other is state-owned economy. In general, China needs to carry out structural reform.

I told the Americans that when we thought you were strong, we would study you seriously. For example, your private enterprises were more developed, we also studied how to develop the private economy, your stock market was more developed, and we also studied how to do it. Deng Xiaoping spoke boldly at that time. We could try, but we couldn't. Drop. I say you can also learn something from China. But eventually they found a reason, hoping to get rid of China's advantages. But I think Chairman Xi said very well. We must change what should be changed, not what should be changed, and we must not change it. This is very clear.

Xu Qinduo (host of China Radio International): In fact, the United States itself has done a lot of interference, and now it has seriously damaged its reputation. For example, it accuses US of being a "currency manipulator". Once the exchange rate breaks through 7, it immediately positioned China as a "currency manipulator". Everyone feels that this is very absurd. You don't even abide by the standards you set. China is far from what the United States has set for itself.

We also know that we are a rising country. We don't want to devalue our currency. We don't rely on devaluation to fight trade wars. Moreover, Trump has repeatedly put pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and cut them again. To support the economic development of the United States, I want to run for election, so you must cut interest rates to make the economy look good.

Moderator: Perhaps more and more people will gradually understand that the Western definition to summarize us, in fact, is to hope that all our development into its definition of the track.

MA Zechen (Researcher, Institute of Strategic Research in the Spring and Autumn Period): It clearly knows that you are a socialist country, and it labels you a capitalist country, which is closely related to its Cold War thinking. It knows that you are a socialist camp, and it wants to turn you around and say that you are national capitalism. Professor Zhang has repeatedly proposed that their economists and policy forecasters know that China's model has some merits, but how can we jump out of the current system of the United States and recognize that China is a model worth learning?

[Click on the big picture]

Questioning link

Q1: Professor Zhang is good and the host is good. I am a graduate student studying in Russia. Some of the Russian teachers and students I met all thought that China's economic system was actually a copy of the Soviet version of state capitalism in the Lenin era, including Deng Xiaoping's appreciation of some economic policies in the Lenin period in the early period of reform and opening up. What is the difference between China's current economic system and state capitalism in the Soviet era?

Zhang Weiwei: The state capitalism in Leninism is different from what we discussed earlier. This is a category of Leninism. Because Lenin spent a lot of time in Switzerland and Germany, he specifically talked about Germany as a kind of national capitalism. The government's intervention in capital is severe. At that time, he came to the conclusion that this is probably a stage before the realization of socialism, and after this stage, the next stage is socialism. During the period around the October Revolution, he had written something about German state capitalism and affirmed it in many places.

Lenin later put forward the view that state capitalism without Capitalists could be tried after the Communist Party of the Soviet Union came into power. Later, on the eve of the New Economic Policy, he wrote a well-known article entitled "On the Food Tax". He said that there are several conditions in the Soviet economy. One is the small-scale peasant economy, the other is the small commodity economy, the other is the private capitalist economy, the state capitalist economy and the other is the socialist economy. There are five forms. Then, he specifically analyzed that although national capitalism is not good, it is certainly better than small-scale peasant capitalism and commodity capitalism. This opened a window for Lenin to pursue a new economic policy and allow land leasing, foreign investment and so on to a certain extent.

Even we can learn a lot from this. The socialist transformation was from 1953 to 1956, when Chairman Mao also used the term "state capitalism". Chairman Mao said so, state capitalism under the leadership or supervision of the working class. This is somewhat similar to Lenin's "national capital without capitalists". For example, the redemption policy is strictly capitalist in nature. It gives capitalists 5% interest every year and buys their assets after a considerable period of time. But our socialist transformation has established that public ownership is dominant, state-owned economy and private economy, state ownership and collective ownership. By the end of 1956 and the beginning of 1957, it had been basically completed, and since then it has been less used as "state capitalism". Later, we used socialism all the time, and the concept of "the primary stage of socialism" was used in the period of reform and opening up.

So I don't think we need to care about a specific concept. Deng Xiaoping said that human civilization creates all advanced things. We all have to learn, including the creation of all beneficial things in capitalist society. But we no longer use state capitalism. We are beyond this category. We believe that we are society. Doctrine.

The three characteristics I have just mentioned are that public ownership occupies the main body, the majority of the people benefit, and the leadership of the Party. This is a new analytical framework. But as a historical background, we should understand Lenin's national capitalism, Chairman Mao's national capitalism, and the United States, as we mentioned earlier, denouncing China as national capitalism. This is not a concept.

Moderator: Mr. Zhang has just made it very clear that although these six words are all different concepts, this may be a point we should pay special attention to when we clarify the concept of state capitalism, especially the label that the West has labelled us.

Q2: There is a point of view that China's rise is due to the imitation of authoritarian politics in Japan, Korea and Singapore in the last century, coupled with the model of national capitalism, which has not much Chinese characteristics. What do you think of this view?

Zhang Weiwei: There is an open statement in academic circles called the East Asian Model, especially referring to the "Four Little Dragons". The rise of the four Asian dragons has some common characteristics, such as belonging to the Confucian cultural circle, attaching importance to education, people's diligence and other basic characteristics. In addition, the people respect the government relatively, and the government plays a larger role. South Korea was an economic boom when Park Chung-hee was born. They were called authoritarianism. When Taiwan was Chiang Ching-kuo, they also called authoritarianism. Singapore is Lee Kuan Yew, which is more regarded as authoritarianism. Although the Hong Kong government was not as authoritative as the other three places, it was also a colonial regime that rose during that period. The four are similar, so the outside world calls them the East Asian model.

Later, some people extended that China is also the continuation of this model. In my opinion, the Chinese model is similar to them. After all, they are all in the East Asian cultural circle and the Confucian cultural circle. Some of the above characteristics can be found in the Chinese model. But the biggest difference between the Chinese model and the Four Little Dragons is that we still have a transformation from a planned economy to a market economy to a socialist market economy, which is remarkable. In addition, we are too big, one hundred times bigger than them, one thousand times bigger.

For example, China's economic reform began in the countryside, and the people's communes became the household contract system. The reform involves 80% of the population, that is, the size of 7.8 billion people. From the complete ownership of the whole people and collective ownership of industry to the simultaneous operation of various ownership systems, this is a great change. How many contradictions were caused by the price reform we had experienced, but we all passed through. In the past, the price was stipulated by the state. One thing could only sell at this price. Later, the market decided the price and the supply and demand decided the price. Government institutional reform has also evolved from a planned economy to a market economy, such as the State Planning Commission or the Economic Commission in the past, and later to the Development and Reform Commission, which is quite different in nature from the past. These are not what the four East Asian dragons do not have, they have not undergone transformation.

Moreover, as far as scale is concerned, such as running a migrant worker Tutorial school with 100 students, which is also a school with 30,000 students in Fudan University. This is also a school, but the management method is totally different. China is a mega-hegemony, and it's not easy to do a lot of things. But the wonderful thing is that once I succeed, it will affect the whole world. My standard is international standards. Ma Yun achieves number one in China. He is number one, the largest company in the world. So this scale effect is beyond comparison with the "four small dragons".

What's more, because small economies are relatively much easier, especially on the side of a big country. If we have a better relationship with China, I'll give you one million more tourists. These small economies can develop on this one, that's all. But big countries are different. It is very difficult to develop hundreds of industries in an all-round way.

Q3: The system or electoral system of Western capitalist countries are more representative of the interests of big consortia. What advantages does China have in this respect? Thank you.

Zhang Weiwei: An important feature of the Chinese model is that public ownership occupies the main body and multiple ownership coexists. If the interests of big consortia in a country like Britain have a great impact on the whole situation, then China is probably the backbone of the whole economy by state-owned enterprises. In the strategic areas of national economy and people's livelihood, including national defense, science and technology, and energy, they have played a backbone role. Looking back now, it is very important. The reason why, as I said earlier, the Chinese socialist model is better than the American capitalist model is, to a large extent, the reason why it plays a role can be seen. After so many years of ups and downs in mixed economy, it is a good combination to explore this model. It has both the backbone of state-owned enterprises and the vitality of private enterprises. The two complement each other and complement each other. I admit that sometimes there are contradictions in this process, but the goal of the central government is to enable the two to cooperate with each other, play their respective roles, and ultimately achieve the best results.

In fact, during the whole process of globalization, the consortia of the United States, Britain and other Western countries have made a lot of money, but this wealth has not been redistributed to the ordinary people through secondary distribution. But China is now very clear that state-owned enterprises should devote 30% of their profits to social undertakings, which is the goal of 2020. So China is the only country in the world. I'm afraid there is no second one. Pensions have been growing all the time. There are many contributions from state-owned enterprises behind it.

Xu Qinduo: Let me give another example to illustrate the necessity of public ownership and state-owned enterprises. A friend went to Australia and felt very funny when he first arrived, but when he arrived in the mountains or scenic spots, there was no signal for three days, and his family was dying quickly, fearing that he would almost report his disappearance. Why is there no signal? Simply because Australian telecommunications companies are all private, private companies will not go to a small number of places to pull those wires, the cost is too high to return investment. But in any corner of China, no matter how remote the mountain villages are, there are signals.

Zhang Weiwei: China is a super-large country. For example, the West-to-East Power Transmission Project, which transfers electricity from Xinjiang to Shanghai, who does this project? Many industrial projects will not be done by private enterprises. For example, oil pipeline projects are all done by state-owned enterprises. Once done, they are thousands of kilometers. For many years, there is no return. For example, high-speed railway, only Beijing-Shanghai line is now profitable, and others are not profitable. However, these projects have led to the development of the whole economy and the overall improvement of people's living standards. I also think of an example of China Eastern Airlines (other airlines also have), the "color revolution" and "Arab Spring" in Libya in 2011 to help evacuate tens of thousands of overseas Chinese, which is the social responsibility of state-owned enterprises, must do, but private enterprises will not do.

[Click on the big picture]

Engineers from the British mobile operator EE inspect Huawei's 5G equipment in London, UK, on March 15, 2019. @ Visual China

Q4: Hello, Professor Zhang. My question is very simple. As another system, another camp, how likely is Europe to eventually join the trade war?

Zhang Weiwei: So far, major European countries, especially Germany and France, or most European Union countries have openly expressed their embrace of multilateralism and free trade, which is basically the same from their practice. They feel that if China and Europe are in conflict with WTO rules, they will go to WTO arbitration, so we are more consistent with Europe on this issue. Sino-US trade has fallen a lot this year, but Sino-EU trade is still growing at a fairly fast pace. The growth of Sino-African trade and the growth of China's trade in Southeast Asia have made up for the shortage of Sino-US trade.

I believe in multilateralism. The United States always thinks that it's OK not to participate in any international organization. But if you don't, we will worship and we will do it ourselves. The world is very big. Even in a country like Japan, once the United States withdraws from TPP, Japan says that when I carry the flag, he dares to do it. Why dare China? China is the largest trading partner of more than 130 countries. The United States really does not care, we will take you with us, mutual benefit and win-win situation.

China can provide the products of the "Four Industrial Revolutions". China-EU trade need not worry too much. They have seen that 5G alone can not be provided by other countries and Europe itself, so they must seize this opportunity. I remember that we once calculated that if Europe did not use Huawei products and really spread them to everyone, it would probably increase the cost of 5 G per person by 6,700 euros, which is a burden they can not afford.

Some Social Roots Behind Hong Kong's Amendment Storm

Source: Xinhua News Agency Author: Wang Xufangdong, Zhu Yuxuan Time: 2019-09-05

600 Hong Kong Title: A-A + Share to: Collection Printing

Xinhua News Agency, Hong Kong, September 4 (Reporter Wang Xufang Dong, Zhu Yuxuan) In the summer of 2019, a sudden storm swept through Hong Kong. Why could such a huge upheaval be triggered by a "revision" bill designed to hand over murderers to Taiwan?

After blowing up the noisy political bubble, there are some deep-rooted social contradictions and problems behind Hongkong. These contradictions in economic and livelihood are complicated and have not been solved for a long time, which has accumulated into huge social problems.

In the eyes of many young people, the future lacks brightness.

It is said that young people represent the future, but in the eyes of many young people in Hong Kong, the future lacks brightness.

Xiao Kuang, a 35-year-old driver, loves motorcycles and runs wild in the countryside every weekend on a high-powered motorcycle. At this time, he is full of pride. But when it comes to the future, the mood drops. "In the future, do we have a future?" Without a house, living in a crowded house with his family, his girlfriend who had talked for many years could not get married, and the idea of having children had disappeared. Renting? The monthly rent of a 30 square meter house is about HK$89,000, while Xiao Kuang's monthly income is only HK$15,000. How can we rent it? As for saving down to buy a house, it's even more important not to think about it. You can't save as fast as house prices.

Comparing the rising rates of house prices and income in Hong Kong, we can see clearly that the prices of different regions and housing types in Hong Kong vary, but most of them are above HK$200,000 per square metre. What about monthly income? A citizen told reporters: "Twenty years ago, university graduates received HK$10,000. In the past 20 years, they have risen to 12,13,000. How much has the price risen in these 20 years? Taking inflation into account, college graduates are actually depreciating.

According to the data of the International Labour Organization in 2018, from 2008 to 2017, the real wage growth rate of the Mainland reached 8.2%, Macau 1.6%, Korea 1.2%, Taiwan's real wage growth was only 0.2%, and Hong Kong even lagged behind Taiwan, only 0.1%. From 2004 to 2018, Hong Kong's housing prices rose 4.4 times.

It is high house prices and stagnant salary income that have led to a decline in the proportion of Hong Kong's own housing. Since 2003, the proportion of Hong Kong's own housing has dropped from 53% to 48.9%. Behind this data, wealth is more concentrated, and how many young people's dream of owning their own houses is shattered.

Like Xiao Kuang, if you only live in the present and don't think about the house, you won't worry about eating, drinking, shopping and outing, just "never think about the future".

Middle-class Falling Anxiety

The middle class has always been regarded as the backbone and social stabilizer. But in Hong Kong, the stabilizer is failing, and the fear of falling "middle-class anxiety" is particularly prominent in Hong Kong.

Zhang Bingliang, former director of the Transport and Housing Bureau of the HKSAR Government, has a general term for this, which is "grassroots middle class". What does it mean? "That is to say, the educational level and cultural identity of this class are middle-class, but the actual life has not reached the level of the middle-class, convergence with the grass-roots level."

In Hong Kong, the median monthly salary in 2018 is HK$17.5 thousand, and that of civil servants and teachers is HK$28.4 thousand. The overall income is already quite high. However, Zhang Bingliang disclosed that when he was the director, he did a small survey of civil servants'housing. He was surprised to find that many people could not afford to buy a house, and some even lived in a villa (referring to a housing unit being cut into many very small living spaces).

As far as Hong Kong is concerned, real estate is the wealth of the rich and the expensive ticket for the middle class. Hong Kong's middle class, which has no way out, paid a huge price for this ticket. Including extremely high debt, overdraft consumption and binding career. The so-called Hong Kong middle class, like the sand in the corridor of a house, reverses between the

The continued growth of high housing prices has torn Hong Kong society into two major opposites: those who own houses and those who do not. Without the idea of "getting on the bus" (owning a house), the moment of "getting on the bus" becomes the maintainer of high housing prices. It is the complex entanglement of various stakeholders that makes the HKSAR government in a dilemma and easily to blame. Recently, the most prominent example is the East Lantau Reclamation Plan, which was launched to cope with the shortage of land supply. As a long-term strategy to solve the housing problem, it has been questioned by many people for no reason.

Rising passage is narrow and "dumbbell" society is shaping

As a highly modern capitalist society, Hong Kong still has a large number of poor people. Behind the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the solidification of social strata in Hong Kong, there is a high degree of singularity and hollowness in the industry.

According to statistics, in 2016, the Gini coefficient of the gap between rich and poor in Hong Kong was 0.539, which was much higher than 0.4 of the danger warning line, and was equal to that of some Latin American countries. Despite the efforts made by the SAR Government to address the gap between the rich and the poor, the level of social welfare is not commensurate with the level of Hong Kong's economic development.

In a healthy society, young people and grassroots people can usually achieve upward mobility through employment, education and other means. However, Hong Kong's social class is basically solidified. For example, people at the top of the rich list have remained unchanged for many years, mostly property developers and their families. The reasons for this situation are very complicated, and the hollowing of industry is one of the main reasons for the narrowing of the rising channels of youth.

In the 1970s, nearly half of Hong Kong's workers were industrial workers. Since the 1980s, Hong Kong's finance, shipping, business logistics and service industries have sprung up. Management, administration, technology, finance and professionals have absorbed a large number of labor and entered the middle class. However, in the subsequent industrial upgrading, in addition to the original trade and shipping, only the development of financial, tourism and other services.

"The failure of science and technology industries to develop is a major pain point for Hong Kong," said Lei Dingming, professor of economics at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. "Hong Kong's financial sector accounts for about 19% of GDP, but only provides about 6% of employment." The ability of the financial industry to create wealth is astonishing, but only a small number of local elite young people can be absorbed. Most local young people are not able to engage in high-end services, and many Hong Kong financial practitioners are more talented from overseas.

As for the current situation, the SAR government has tried to change it by various means, but the industry of scientific and technological innovation has made several efforts and died several times. Among them, the opposition has made various unprovoked obstructions for political purposes, such as the founding Bureau set up by the SAR Government to promote the development of innovative science and technology. The opposition has opposed it and has been blocked for three years in the Legislative Council in spite of repeated calls from the society to stop political waste.

This has led directly to the fact that Hong Kong's manufacturing output today accounts for only about 1% of Hong Kong's GDP, with very little labour force to absorb.

Political disputes persist and difficult problems are more difficult to resolve.

High housing prices, the gap between the rich and the poor, and the difficulty of the upward mobility of young people. These social problems have long been exposed. Over the past 22 years since returning to China, successive SAR governments have also made efforts to varying degrees. But so far, the results have been very little, and it is difficult to resolve public grievances. This is an important reason for the outbreak of the storm of revision once instigated.

Tian Feilong, a professor at Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, said: "Since the return, for various reasons, the SAR government has not been able to solve the social and livelihood problems of Hong Kong more reasonably through policy guarantees and livelihood guarantees, resulting in a strong endogenous momentum to politicize economic and livelihood issues in Hong Kong."

It is undeniable that some people's grievances are caused by the lack of foresight in the policies of the SAR government. However, the deep contradictions in Hong Kong are difficult to resolve because of the mutual restraint of political structure, resulting in difficulties in governance, the inappropriate actions of the government and the inaction caused by the dogmatic implementation of the concept of "small government, big market" under the long-standing concept of a free market. The most important thing is that the opposition continues to create. They have created various kinds of difficulties artificially by provoking political disputes and ignoring the overall situation of the economy and people's livelihood.

These factors are intertwined, together with various interest groups seeking what they want, and those with ulterior motives take the opportunity to stir up the situation. As a result, problems are constantly being discussed, measures are delayed, and contradictions are hard to return with the passage of time.

Typical is to increase the supply of housing. Tung Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive, proposed an annual increase of 85,000 housing units, but the plan could only be canceled as house prices plunged under the impact of the Asian financial crisis.

Consideration of increasing land supply has led to endless controversy. Many people think that Hong Kong has "more people and less land", but the actual level of land development in Hong Kong over 1100 square kilometers is 24.3%, and residential land only accounts for 6.9%. Of the 75.7% of the undeveloped land, 42% are designated as country parks. Even if it is not developed for environmental protection, there are more than 300 square kilometers available. But after years of controversy, development is still far away.

Especially in recent years, in order to fight for the power of governance, the opposition has artificially created political disputes, which has greatly increased the cost of governance. For example, in 2010, a Hong Kong old lady was fooled by the opposition to propose a judicial review of the impact of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge on environmental protection. Although the government won the case, the project was delayed for more than a year and the cost increased by HK$6.5 billion. Other similar economic and people's livelihood motions, whether in policy or funding, the opposition must make every effort to create obstructions and use the Legislative Council as a political arena. It will never take into account the needs of the majority of the citizens and the development of Hong Kong's society.

Many politicians in Hong Kong abhor the so-called "democracy" which can't do anything like this. In their talks with reporters, they repeatedly mentioned "Never engage in this kind of democracy".

Who will answer the second question correctly?

In the storm of revision, the opposition, by virtue of the closed and exclusive trend of thought that has emerged in Hong Kong in recent years, has desperately described the mainland as a flood beast.

Huang Shenghua, a 29-year-old Hong Kong youth, is deeply distressed that some people in society have extended their dissatisfaction with the SAR government to the central government and the mainland.

He could not forget the pride of the Hong Kong people brought by the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, nor the deep feelings of the two places where blood was thicker than water during the Wenchuan earthquake. For some of the emotions and collisions that exist in Hong Kong society, he looks at them from a broader perspective: "These conflicts and contradictions, which I personally believe will inevitably occur in the period of integration, are inevitable when two different cultures and different values are integrated."

Liang Haiming, president of Silk Road Zhigu Research Institute, scorned the mainland for stirring up and excluding anti-riot Hong Kong elements: "Hong Kong has a hollow industry, a limited market size, and the ability of self-hematopoiesis?" Many Hong Kong people only know.

Liu Peiqiong, an adviser to the Hong Kong Economic Association, said: "Closure does not bring opportunities for development. Young people nowadays do not understand that if Hong Kong is really separated from the Mainland, it will be worse. In the face of the current economic difficulties, Hong Kong needs to have closer and more effective links with the Mainland. The opposite trend of thought is actually taking place in Hong Kong. Pushing into the abyss."

Do you have confidence in the development of our motherland? The old man of history once gave the same exam in 1997. On the eve of the return, a group of doubtful Hong Kong people panicked and left home. But the final facts prove that they made the worst choice in their lives and missed the opportunity to develop with their motherland.

History will prove once again that loving our motherland is not only a just and correct act, but also a farsighted and wise one. I hope 20 years later, today's Hong Kong Youth Association proudly replies: I have made the right choice!

Chairman Xi Jinping "On Struggle"

Today, why does Xi Jinping emphasize "struggle"?

Source: Study Group Time: 2019-09-04>

1280 Xi Jinping's Speech Title: A-A+

Share: Collection Printing

[Learning Group Press]

Today, Xi Jinping attended the opening of the training course for young and middle-aged cadres in the Central Party School (State Administration College) in the autumn of 2019. This is the second time since March this year that Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the opening ceremony, which is enough to show the importance attached by the Party Central Committee.

The group read through the speech and found that this was the first time that General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically discussed the "great struggle" with the strength of his speech.

So why talk about struggle at this time? How can we carry forward the spirit of struggle and enhance the ability of struggle? Please see the annotated version and video of the group's manuscript.

The training course for young and middle-aged cadres of the Central Party School (State Administration College) in the autumn of 2019 opened in the Central Party School on the morning of 3rd. Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee, President of the State and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, made an important speech at the opening ceremony, emphasizing that cadres, especially young cadres, should undergo rigorous ideological, political and practical training, carry forward the spirit of struggle and enhance their fighting skills. A complete system is proposed. Among them, the greatest struggle ranks first. So, how should the majority of cadres, especially young cadres "struggle"? Look down with the group. In order to achieve the goal of "two hundred years" and realize the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we have fought tenaciously.

Great struggle is necessary to realize great dreams

Xi Jinping pointed out that the process of the emergence and development of Marxism and the birth and development of socialist countries is full of hardships of struggle. The establishment of the Communist Party of China, the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the implementation of reform and opening up, and the promotion of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era are all born, developed and strengthened in the struggle. Today's world is undergoing unprecedented changes in a century. The great struggle, great projects, great undertakings and great dreams led by our Party are in full swing. The task of reform, development and stability is arduous and arduous. We are faced with rare historical opportunities and a series of major risk tests. In order to achieve the goals and tasks set by our Party successfully, we must carry forward the spirit of struggle and strengthen the ability of struggle.

Press: Here we talk about the necessity of struggle. Why should we talk about "struggle"? Because the struggle always comes unsolicited and does not shift from our good wishes. In history, the struggle in Jinggangshan, the Soviet anti-encirclement and suppression, the Long March of the Red Army, the War of Resistance Against Japan, the War of Liberation, the War of Resistance against the United States and the DPRK, at the expense of so many people, was a struggle; the negotiations in Chongqing and the talks in Panmendian were also a struggle. Of course, there has been an escalating trade frictions between China and the United States recently. On the other hand, we are also engaged in a great struggle ourselves. It is also a struggle to focus on economic construction, adhere to reform and opening up and adhere to the four basic principles. Is it a struggle to implement eight definite and fourteen perseverances in the new era? It's also a great struggle.

Xi Jinping emphasized that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation can never be achieved easily by beating gongs and drums. Great struggle must be carried out to realize the great dream. On the way forward, the risk test we face will only become more and more complex, and even encounter unimaginable storms. The struggles we are facing are not short-term but long-term, at least along with the whole process of realizing the goal of the second century's struggle. (Press: A judgment has been made on the duration of the struggle. Opportunities and challenges always coexist in this historical stage of climbing and crossing the ridge. If we overcome the danger, we can seize the opportunity. If we lose the opportunity, we will face the danger. We must strengthen "four consciousness", firm "four self-confidence", achieve "two safeguards" and firm will to fight. When the grim situation and the task of struggle are in front of us, we must be tough, dare to attack and win. (Press:'Prepare for the worst and strive for the best results. This is the attitude of the Communist Party of China. "The battle will win." This is the confidence of the Communist Party of China.

The Communist Party's Direction of Struggle

Xi Jinping emphasized that the struggle of the Communists has a direction, a position and a principle. The general direction is to adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the unshakable socialist system of our country. (Prescription: The Communist Party of China treats contradictions and struggles objectively and rationally.)

• All kinds of risks and challenges endangering the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system of our country,
• All kinds of risks and challenges endangering China's sovereignty, security and development interests,
• All kinds of risk challenges that endanger our core interests and major principles,
• All kinds of risks and challenges that endanger the fundamental interests of our people,
• All kinds of risks and challenges that endanger our country's realization of the goal of "two hundred years" and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,

(Press: General Secretary Xi Jinping listed the above five "risk challenges" that must be resolutely confronted and won. To deal with these five kinds of risks and challenges, in the final analysis, the key is to adhere to the general direction of struggle, that is, to adhere to the leadership of the Party and the socialist system, and not waver!

As long as we come, we must fight resolutely and win the struggle. We should be particularly clear-headed and firm in our stand, firmly grasp the correct direction of struggle, and be "fearless" in the face of all kinds of major struggles.

Xi Jinping pointed out that the struggle of our Communists has always been challenged by contradictions and risks. At present and in the coming period, China's development has entered a period when various risks and challenges are accumulating and even concentrating. There will be no less major struggles to be faced, including economic, political, cultural, social, ecological civilization, national defense and army building, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan's work, diplomatic work and Party building, and more and more. The more complex it is. Leading cadres should have the ability to know the deer's past, the tiger's coming together with the pine breeze, and the subtlety of the autumn, to predict the potential risks scientifically, to know where the risks are, what their manifestations are, and what their development trends will be, and to fight for them. (Press: Requirements are put forward for leading cadres to judge the direction of struggle.)

Struggle is an art

Xi Jinping emphasized that struggle is an art and should be good at it. In all kinds of major struggles, we should adhere to the unity of strengthening the sense of suffering and maintaining the strategic determination, the unity of strategic judgment and tactical decision, and the unity of the struggle process and effectiveness. Leading cadres should be responsible for keeping the land and fulfilling their duties. They should come as soon as they are called, be able to fight and win the battle.

Xi Jinping pointed out that we should pay attention to tactics and methods and emphasize the art of struggle. We should grasp the main contradictions and the main aspects of contradictions, adhere to the principle of rational, advantageous and restrained, rationally choose the mode of struggle, grasp the temperature of struggle, keep pace with the principle and be flexible in tactics. According to the needs of the situation, we should grasp the timeliness, degree and effectiveness and adjust the strategy of struggle in time. We should unite all forces that can be united, mobilize all positive factors, strive for unity in the struggle, seek cooperation in the struggle, and strive for win-win results in the struggle.

Consolidate the ideological foundation of daring to struggle and being good at struggle

Xi Jinping emphasized that the spirit and skill of struggle are not innate. Leading cadres should undergo rigorous ideological tempering, political experience and practical training. They should survive the hardships and hardships of the complex and severe struggle, see the world, strengthen their muscles and bones, and truly forge into real gold. We should understand the Party's innovative theory and grasp the methods of Marxist standpoint and viewpoint (according to the following: the struggle needs correct ideological guidance, the most important of which is the Party's innovative theory and Marxist standpoint and method). To consolidate the ideological foundation of daring and being good at struggle, to be clear in theory, to be firm in politics, and to be strong in struggle. We should persist in honing our courage, will and talent in major struggles, where there are many difficulties and contradictions, and when the situation is severe and complex. Leading cadres should take the initiative to engage in various struggles.

• Dare to shine a sword in the face of right and wrong.
• Dare to face up to difficulties in the face of contradictions and conflicts.
• Dare to stand up in the face of crisis.
• Dare to fight resolutely in the face of unhealthy tendencies.

(Press: This is the mobilization order for the great struggle, and here is the training camp for the preparation of the great struggle.)

Be a fighter who dares to fight and is good at fighting

Xi Jinping pointed out that society is advancing in the movement of contradictions, and if there are contradictions, there will be struggles. Leading cadres, no matter what positions they hold or what positions they hold, should be brave enough to take on and overcome difficulties. They should serve as commanders and combatants, cultivate and maintain a tenacious fighting spirit, a tenacious fighting will and a superb fighting ability. The struggle we encounter in our work is multifaceted. Reform, development, stability, internal affairs, foreign affairs, national defense, and running the Party, state and army all need to carry forward the spirit of struggle and improve the ability of struggle. We should strictly administer the Party in an all-round way, adhere to the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field, deepen the reform in an all-round way, promote the structural reform on the supply side, promote high-quality development, eliminate hidden dangers in the financial field, guarantee and improve people's livelihood, win the battle against poverty, control the ecological environment, deal with major natural disasters, and comprehensively rule by law. Countries, dealing with mass incidents, fighting against evil forces, safeguarding national security, and so on, should dare to fight and be good at fighting. (Press: 14 aspects of struggle are listed.) Leading cadres should be warriors who dare to fight and are good at fighting.

(Press: Therefore, as the ruling party, we must truly maintain the spirit of struggle, improve the ability of struggle and master the art of struggle. Instead of losing the tradition and magic weapon of the Communist Party of China in the "model opera" of relaxed and drumming formalism and bureaucracy. This is why General Secretary Xi Jinping has to come to the middle-aged and youth class again after six months to give the first lecture on the opening of the school and to explain the meaning of "struggle" to the young cadres.

Chen Xi presided over the opening ceremony and made a speech. He said that learning and carrying out Xi Jinping's socialist thought with Chinese characteristics in the new era should be taken as the fundamental task and the main theme of all the work. We should consciously study on our own initiative, follow up on learning in time, integrate learning with practice, and be faithful to learning. We should strengthen "four consciousness", "four self-confidence", "two safeguards" and exercise loyalty. We should play a clean and honest political character, carry forward the spirit of struggle, improve the ability of struggle, put our original intention and mission into our position, and make due contributions to the realization of the goal of "two hundred years" and the realization of the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

In the autumn of 2019, the young and middle-aged cadres training class of the Central Party School (State Administration College) participated in the class opening ceremony, and the relevant departments of the Central Committee were responsible for the attendance of comrades in the class opening ceremony.