Countries' Powers in Rising Circulation of Democracy and Centralization 

——In the Balance of the Democracy and the Centralization

(Revised in 6/2017)

(English translation follows) 

 

    

纵看人类几千年，横看当今世界，古代的君主王国的社会，现代的国家，无论什么样的国家形式，总统制，议会制还是共和制，无论是资本主义制度,还是社会主义制度都离不开民主与集中的选择，他们在民主与集中统一的概念下共同接受历史的考量。

 

我们知道古今中外各国根据权力，基本可划分为统治阶层与被统治者，即人民大众。统治阶层与人民的矛盾、变革与斗争的中心议题就是社会的各种权力。当社会的权力倾向于人民时，也就是说当人民较多地掌握社会的各种权力时，就是民主。民主的极端例子是无政府主义和经济上的恶性竞争，弱肉强食。而权力倾向于统治阶层时，也就是说统治阶层较多地掌握着社会的各种权力时，就是集中。集中的极端例子是专制与个人独裁。总之，国家的中心是权力问题，而权力的中心问题是民主与集中,就是说是人民掌握更多权力,还是统治-管理阶层掌握更多权力。

 

迄今为止，人类是过着集体生活和依靠集体分工进行生产。在远古的时代，人类必须靠联合起来形成的集体力量，才能在比自己强大的多的猛兽出没的丛林中生存下来，而且比任何动物生存的好，后来为保护不同部落的利益,分割为不同的国家。伴随着各国之间的争斗，兼并，分割和战争，人类步入文明。在现代化机器电子时代，人类通过集体分工，不断达到生产的高效和生活的改进。人类生存离不开集体，而集体就有个人权力与集体权力共存的问题,而且要取得大致的平衡。民主是指个人的权力，它要求每人都有平等的权力。而集中是指集体的权力，它要求服从统一领导，以汇集每人的力量成较强大的力量。-因此这平衡就是民主和集中的平衡。民主与集中平衡了还会随着各种条件变化特别是生产条件的改变而变成不平衡，就必须再平衡。当民主与集中失衡时，就一定会出现各种问题。

 

有些国家，政治上，民主不足而集中过度，而常会不可避免地违反人民的意志; 有些国家民主过度而集中不足，而使整个社会与人民力量分散，以致人民和国家力量不足。而有些国家，经济上，民主不足而集中过度，使生产组织的不适应当时的生产条件而力度不足，经济得不到全面的发展;有些国家,经济上, 民主过度而集中不足，而出现无序竞争，恶性竞争，最后走向反面，出现财富的高度集中,严重影响经济的自由竞争。总之，一个国家即要考察它在政治上的民主与集中的情况，又要从经济上考察它民主与集中的情况。一个良好的社会必然是政治与经济的民主与集中取得大致平衡的国家，不可单看经济或政治。平衡与否的标准只有一个，就是这个国家经济上是否能得到较长期的增长并惠及每各人。当然一些小国有大自然给与自然资源的特殊馈赠，要单独考察。

 

人们不能单谈民主权力而忽略了集中权力，因那样就没有集体,个人就会变得异常脆弱。事实也不是这样。再民主的社会都必须要最后集中，不过集中程度不同，社会表现的力量也不同。各国有政府对社会进行管理实行不同程度的集中。不过以前的民主斗士为反抗君主国王的封建专制，而单独强调了民主这一面。人们也不能单谈集中的权力而忽略了民主的权力，因这往往会做出违反人民意愿的事，可能带来专制与独裁，也因缺乏人民生产的积极性,最终经济也不能保持快速而长久的发展。那样也没有个人恰当的位置及个人愉快的生活,大多数人只能像奴隶般的生活。

 

民主保证了正确的集中，而集中又使民主形成力量。不能因生产条件的进步，而觉的人类可以放弃集体，也不可随生产条件的提高而固守原先集体权力的状况。

 

通过用民主与集中的统一标准来考查人类的整个社会，我们就发现人类社会似乎按着一个周而复始螺旋上升的统一规律发展，而且发展越来越快。人类由原始的、较分散的、我们可以称之为原始的民主社会起，到奴隶社会和封建社会完成了第一次大集中的发展，这使人类变得更有力量。但封建的集权及束缚生产的各种关系阻碍了生产的发展，人类社会又在冲破集权和各种阻碍生产发展的束缚中，发展起了资本主义社会，向民主方向前进了一大步。资本主义本质上反对一切与金钱--资本这发展生产至关重大的要素没有任何关系的束缚。它几乎可以在一切事情上主张民主自由，但唯一例外的是钱财的私有，不能碰动。这些使生产关系较大程度地摆脱了封建的枷锁，为资本与为利润而生产的自由竞争和顺利运作开路。这一方面极大解放生产关系推动生产的发展，但另一方面由于过度和没有控制的民主，自由竞争，使之达到放任的地步。在经济方面,按照资本主义的民主,人们之间展开无情竞争，充满了人与人之间残酷而激烈的竞争和对他人利益无情的侵犯和并吞，最后使财富绝对高度集中。这展现了资本主义本性贪婪野蛮原始的一面。虽然后面有所改进，但根本核心没有触动。这引起马克思的批判，但他也肯定了资本主义对生产的发展。列宁反对国家对经济的绝对垄断，反对这大集中，提出 “新经济政策”，让国营与私营共同发展，但由于他死的比较早使这一政策没有执行下去。斯大林按照自己对马克思想法的理解，在二战威胁的压力下尝试了国家对一切的高度集中。于是人类社会又向斯大林的大集中的方向发展和尝试。西方各国也以罗斯福的“新政”为代表纷纷建立了国有企业, 并开始部分依靠政府这集中所聚集的力量。表面它似乎与封建社会的大集中一样，然而上升了一格，这苏联政权不再是家族内部相传的国王制，从封建控制人的自由到控制工厂企业及集体农庄的生产。尽管这大集中中间有巨大的成就，但终因违背了人民意志，最后以苏联的解体而失败。邓小平吸取教训，痛定思痛，坚决进行了大刀阔斧的改革。在斯大林式的高度集中的基础上，他使经济向民主大幅度靠拢—即充分允许人民自己创业而又不失去国家对一部分经济的集中领导与引导，依靠国有企业与民营企业两条腿走路，经济上基本较好地处理了民主与集中的关系。于是人类又发展了中国式的或讲有中国特色的又有民主又有集中的社会,在对立中求统一。到现在为止，它取得了巨大的成功。

 

欧洲的资本主义在金融与经济危机中，在自己惹起的难民潮中挣扎，美国也似乎依靠特朗普的反传统派求生存。中国现在的社会即从斯大林的高度集中后退一步，发展民主-人民有权自己创业，又比资本主义前进一步，即没有接受资本主义的全面私有化，这一缺乏控制的经济民主。中国仍保持部分经济的集中，保持国有企业这集体的力量。在这两种制度中，进行了这一进一退的调整。

 

西方各国建立起的国家企业在偏激的私有制观点下被否定，从眼前看它的效率比不过私有企业，但在稳定社会经济方面，在避免经济危机方面有着不可替代的作用。西方各国现在正苦于没有良方治理当前的经济与金融危机。发展国有企业，促进社会化的大生产，不失为一个良方。不要光注重眼前国企和私企比较效率上的一点差别，要着眼长远的利益，要看经济危机给社会和经济带来的破坏，而实际给盲目发展的私企平均效率大幅度降低的结果。就是说社会经济要向集中做适当的靠拢。其实罗斯福在30年代大危机后就早已采取过这方法。这对美国迅速摆脱30年代大危机起了巨大的作用。世界并没有因此而灭亡。但在二战后欧洲经济复苏的刺激下，国企被逐步抛弃了。现在又面临着这样一次选择。中国有勇气后退一步，西方就没有勇气前进一步吗？ 

 

以上就是国家权力通过经济和政治上民主与集中的发展史向我们足够展示了它们的规律。

 

民主与集中是统治阶层与被统治阶层的中心问题，它的分割点就成为关键。对一国来说，不同时期有不同的平衡点或分割点。从长远看，我们认为社会政治上会更民主，经济上会更集中。

 

政治上更民主，是说每人的说话权力会更大，会自动集合每人的意见，随时换掉不为民办事或办不成事的人，最终会形成“生动活泼那样一种局面”。经济更集中不是脱离现实的集中。经济与政治逐步脱钩，独立运行。当繁重而危险的工作被机器或机器人接手，每人可以最大限度而随时满足自己的需要，人与人为金钱而竞争会逐步消失，私有制会消亡，人们只是为满足成就感而工作。在互联网与物联网的基础上，计划不再是个别人脑子中比市场还要盲目的东西。计划完全根据现实和其变化，最大程度随时有力而精准地调整。当市场盲目性所带来的破坏大于它准确调节资源性配置的好处时，当大多数人不再非得要操心经济问题，其像一部巨大而特别的机器交由统一的部门负责运作和维护，当然这种构思是要在一定的条件下，逐步实现。

 

各国的民主与集中应包括经济与政治的制度。然而经济上的民主权力是人类改善自己生存条件的生产权力，因此是根本的权力,基础的权力,直接的权力。这是人类社会至关重要的权力，绝不能丝毫的忽略。这些在经济上的民主权力包括每个人是否能有创业、经营与发展自己生意与投资的民主权利和事实上有行使这些权力的可能；政治上，民主权力是领导人和人民代表或议会议员的选举，公投，人民意愿或意见的表达、汇集和采纳，制约与监督，官员的任命等。

 

人类在民主与集中平衡的位置中摸索与斗争，各国在民主与集中之间找寻不同的平衡位置。在民主与集中权力的天平中，一个国家或较多的倾向于民主或较多倾向于集中。在一定的范围内，我们不能单凭这一点就判断这个国家的制度是好是坏，关键是民主与集中的位置选择要符合这个国家人民的生活与生产的状况，适合人们的思想觉悟。

 

人类社会近一两千年来，总的趋势是由高度集中的独裁与专制封闭的君主王国，逐步走向开放民主的国家，世界各国正在融合。随着现代科技通讯和交通的迅猛发展，这使我们也正处在政治和经济上，在世界全球一体化中迅猛发展的阶段。毛泽东在《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题 》中早就指出：“在人民内部，不可以没有自由，也不可以没有纪律；不可以没有民主，也不可以没有集中。这种民主和集中的统一，自由和纪律的统一，就是我们的民主集中制。”（system of democracy and centralization）。不应狭义理解毛泽东所说的民主与集中，认为它只是指一个党党内开会讨论征求意见，毛泽东讲“民主属于上层建筑，属于政治这个范畴。这就是说，归根结底，它是为经济基础服务的”。又讲的是“在人民内部”。说明毛泽东把民主看着为整个国家经济服务的，而并非单独为一个党服务的，不过是拿党内的例子作说明。换句话说毛泽东就是针对整个国家讲民主与集中。中国的宪法也在第三条规定：“国家机构要实行民主集中原则”。整个国家也要实行民主与集中。

 

现在世界各国还没有完全摆脱国王君主制，还有些国家或多或少地保留着君王的位置和权利，父子相传的封建世袭制度。这是政治上的问题，但更严重的是“全球最富有的1%人口拥有的财富量超过其余99%人口财富的总和，收入分配不平等、发展空间不平衡令人担忧。” (见习近平2017年在达沃斯的发言)。财富贫富分化到了如此的地步，这绝不是民主应看到的结果，绝不是民主社会所追求的目标。这现象铁一般的说明这制度有根本的缺陷。因为经济上的不平等是根本的不平等，民主包含了平等。政治民主并不必然代表经济能得到发展。而长期不能带来经济发展的政治民主，就代表社会由于过度的民主而使这个社会变得散乱和虚弱。像早期希腊雅典城邦的民主就失败于专制的马其頓。

 

现阶段,民主的根本目的是要使这个国家经济能取得较快较长久地发展并能惠及每个人，并使每一个人生活的更幸福更自由。政治权力上对内要逐步恰当的倾斜向人民，使人民当家作主。对外全力争取国际和平与合作，防止战争，发展经济，打造人类共同体。这是人类和平发展唯一正确的道路。是关系到人类未来战争与和平的命运。 “一带一路”工程将最终改写人类历史上国家相处的合作方式，并把其变成不可动摇的趋势，把人类主要靠相互争夺变成依靠相互合作而生存发展。相互争夺要靠军事要靠霸权，而相互合作要靠民主制度。尤其绝不能发动侵略战争。因为依靠战争和人类的文明与民主相违背。不管打着什么旗号，靠武力或夺取他人的资源或表达自己的意志，这里面丝毫没有民主而言，而表现的是集权的专制与独裁，除非经过联合国的民主方法决定必须使用武力。

 

现代资本主义的文明比较原始野蛮的资本主义有很多改进，从本质来说除在个人钱财-资本私有外，可以在大部分情况下主张自由平等，主张各人以财富私有为限的民主。从本性来说应该希望在和平的环境下维持自由竞争，好为资本和生产的顺利运作和自由竞争，自由雇佣创造条件。资本主义在国内也是这样做的。商品和资本的输出（不包括抢劫）有助于全球一体化，世界各国都可用。资本主义本可以对外延续这种政策，但我们见到的主要不是资本主义所一贯主张的通过对话谈判所展示的民主，而主要是军事暴力--这非民主的方法，看到是封建的专制与独裁和暴君的行为。再漂亮的借口，也掩盖不住血的事实。那些发达国家以封建帝国的行为对外到处发动侵略战争，到处用暴力表达自己的意志和解决问题。他们有军事上的优势，就不惜使用这一优势。忘掉文明，而延伸原始野蛮的资本主义那随意侵犯别人利益的本性。连人权也按“人权大于主权”的说法，而肆意践踏他人的权力，没有一点尊重他国的利益和民主选举的结果。而尊重他人及他人权利是人权合理部分与野兽本性的唯一分水岭。现在看，帝国主义具有唯一的特征就是军事武力的输出,名副其实。那些发达的国家带有帝国主义这具有封建社会特征的称号是因为他们对外政策具有强烈的封建社会专制与独裁的特征，并混有极端的民族利己主义。他们只有放弃对外的军事的和武力干预的对外政策，才可能摆脱封建主义和原始野蛮的资本主义并回归到现代资本主义较文明的本性上。在利比亚，叙利亚，伊拉克，前南斯拉夫问题上他们已有充分的表现。 

 

适度的集中好处是社会能很好的团结，有力量，并在国内在全球，有力量有义务控制贫富差别在一定合理的范围内，逐步缩小。但当权力过度向统治阶层集中，特别是过度集中于少数人手里时，这在经济方面就表现为极端少数人掌握着绝大部分财富，财富包括资本。而当财富或资本极端的集中，这不仅绝对不公平，而且由于极少数人拥有大量财富而掌握着重大生产与投资的决策权，这对社会的自由竞争、生产和投资决策的积极性与活跃程度具有多么严重的负面影响。因为活跃的生产无论如何需要经济的自由竞争，而自由竞争需要有一定的足够数量的中产阶层。当财富过度集中在少数人手里，这无形中在事实上剥夺了那众的中产阶层创业的可能，因而使国家经济往往会长期停滞不前和贫富差别过大。这在经济上表现了比垄断还厉害的专制与独裁。生产经理制远不足以代替财富所有人的决策。政治上，统治权力的寡头政治，会走向违反人民意志的道路。统治者或在国内压迫本国人民，或宣传本国国民特别优秀，同时贬低别国国民，为对外发动侵略战争做准备和对外争霸。而对外的侵略战争和争霸是想靠武力抢夺资源或表达意愿，这里面毫无民主可言。

 

我们认为社会总的生产积极性和财富集中度的坐标图形大致如一个正态分布形状。就是说，一般来讲，当财富集中和贫富差别逐步加大时，在生产条件比较艰苦的环境下，当多数人的劳动强度超越人类愉快工作的强度时，社会总的生产投资的积极性会得到提高。但当社会财富集中扩大到一定程度后，扩大到顶点时，社会总的生产与投资的积极性不升反降，而且财富越集中，社会总的生产积极性下跌的越快。从欧美日的情况我们已可以看出这种现象的端倪。这些国家由于大财团拥有绝对多的财富，已表现了经济的长期的低速或停止发展和极端的不民主。像洛克菲勒、摩根、第一花旗银行、杜邦、波士顿等,以及安田，三菱， 三井，住友等财团，罗斯柴尔德家族，奥纳西斯家族等等。这些财团不是说他们在生产发展与投资上不积极，而是说他们基本在没有什么控制且完全自由而残酷的竞争中夺取了大部分人的资本及发展能力，因而完全剥夺了那些众多中产阶层的投资与生产的机会，使99%的人掌握的财富还不如这1%的人多，这怎么能使各国经济通过自由竞争具有较活跃的程度呢? 当我们想到美国总统特朗普聚敛的财产时，他像其他财团一样信誓旦旦地表示要民主要平等，什么自由即是空气氧气。但我们知道民主所追求的根本精神是各种权力的平等，而经济平等是最关键的平等，是他们最不愿听的。那我们要问他们愿意拿出自已聚（巨）敛的一半财富分给贫穷的人吗? 在这核心的关键的问题上他们不能表现丝毫的民主平等，他们怎能奢谈什么民主和平等呢？怎么能谈为了人民呢？

 

那一个人敢说资本主义在钱财的私有方面能做的像在其他方面一样民主和平等。在这方面的平等最多不过是财产分配权力的平等，而不是每人所分得的财富多少的平等。这就像几个人争夺一定数量的财富，规定谁抢什么，什么就到归谁，看似非常平等。当然大个子强壮的人抢的就多，小个子抢到的就少甚至没有。在所谓平等分配的原则下，最后却是以极大的不平等收尾。当然搞生产与争夺东西不同，需要对劳动予以一定得奖励，但也需保持这不平等在一定的范围内，不应出现前面所说的财富绝对的集中。这个例子不过想说明平等与不平等的关系。不能只是简单和表面看分配方式是所谓平等的，而不管能够产生分配结果的严重的和巨大的不平等。而所得结果的平等是根本的平等，是人类长期追求平等理想的真正含义。当然分配权力的平等比封建等级制度有较大的进步，但这离真正的平等还相差很远。分配方式的平等及其带来分配结果的不平等在劳动强度很艰苦的条件下，有一定的积极性。但在人类生产条件得到改善并达到一定程度时，人们提供一般强度的劳动，就能产生足够的结果，这分配所得结果的不平等就凸显出来。这单独分配权力的平等不应把它当作永恒的思想加以维护，更重要的是分配结果的平等。不要以偏见把思想的精华当糟粕，把糟粕当精华。

 

人类最先进的思想从本质来说应更讲究民主。应该承认资本主义把民主向前推进了很大一步并打下了较好的基础，但停留在财产私有制前，造成分配财富结果的极大不平等和财富的高度集中。显然这远不是彻底民主所指的真正平等。人类先进思想的历史任务就是在这一基础上，再把民主与平等更推向前。不仅注重分配权力的民主与平等，而且注重分配结果的大致平等。我们认为这是统治者是否能代表人民的最后标准。人类共同体的最终要求也是要在利益上满足各自所需的平等。只有真正代表人民的阶层掌权，集中才更有积极意义，否则集中常用来欺压老百姓。

 

“奖勤罚懒”一般是不适合大多数人的。一般多数创业者勤劳程度是差不多的。不错,竞争的规矩是完全平等的,但机会是不同的,先天条件是不同的,它所带来的竞争结果是大不相同的，不用说那些根本没有资本的人。因此需要以不同政策给以足够的弥补,以控制财富分配的不平等在一定范围内。应是 “奖勤促众,控制差别,保证自由竞争”。西方国家大都有其华丽的外衣，但这不能改变本质的金钱关系。在剥去其华丽的外衣后“人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的“现金交易，就再也没有任何别的联系了”(马恩)。我们不能不观察这种利害关系。当我们一观察这种关系时就发现了问题。

 

理论上讲，个人创业的成果归个人是天经地义的，个人追求幸福是每一个人的权力。但个人生产所使用的资源是公共的资源，就是说每个人都可以使用，但你用了别人就不再能用。另外万物都有个度，超过了一定程度和失去任何控制就会出现个人之间的过度竞争。而绝对的个人主义不可避免地会导致这无情的竞争，不可避免地导致弱肉强食，最后走向财富的极端高度的集中，经济上的垄断与专制。难道我们应该容忍这如此大的贫富差别吗？难道我们能容忍这财富拥有的如此大的差别吗？任何完善的民主制度不应由于过度竞争而使人与人之间的财富有如此大的差距，要设法控制在一定的范围并逐步缩小。讲什么平等？这财富拥有如此大的不平等，难道不是最大的不平等吗？因此，那些使人拥有财富差距如此之大的国家绝不能称为完好的民主国家。有如此大的差距，就在事实上它们是经济上专制与独裁的国家。我们已知道这种财富绝对高度集中的结果。

 

基尼系数与工资的相对与绝对情况等往往只反映了贫富差别的历史横截面，也就是说它只反应一定时期，一般一年的情况，但缺乏反映财富差别历史累积的结果，它也是只反映相对差别的水平，而缺乏反映重要的绝对值的作用。结果越是发展中的国家如在拉丁美洲，在非洲南部的国家基尼系数越高，而财富拥有的数量和集中程度越高的国家如在欧美日，他们的基尼数反到越低，好像社会更公平。但实际情况绝非如此，习近平讲的财富所有的差别还不够说明问题吗？欧美日等国因历史的各种原因，他们占有人类的大部份财富，他们在财富上任何微小的差别，都意味着占有实物的巨大差别。就像一美元及十美元，一百万美元及1000万美元比，相对差别都是相同的，都是1:10，但实际财富的占有量，却有巨大的差别。欧美日和非洲在财富上比就像蚂蚁和大象比举重，因不是在一个数量等级上，不能简单类比。相对得出的结论，在实际中不能简单运用。欧美日的大财团根本不靠工资的收入，然而他们的投资与生产的收入却在整个社会中占有绝对大的比重。所以这贫富差别和这系数及工资反应的情况明显不公平，至少不全面，它的实际意义也大打折扣。这些数字都不能反映习近平指出的令人触目惊心的事实,即世界1%的人掌握的财富超过其余99%的人。人类的财富情况已集中到了如此地步，我们却还在粉饰太平，把人类的不公平推给相对贫穷的发展中国家。像洛克菲勒、摩根、第一花旗银行、杜邦、波士顿等,以及安田，三菱， 三井，住友等财团，罗斯柴尔德家族，奥纳西斯家族等等，他们集中了人类大量财富，这些财团在许多国家对经济的操控权已经远远超过政府。但如我们光看基尼系数和工资的相对数字对此点就不能了解。此系数和工资的相对数字实际上对此不公平加以隐盖。需要创造新的系数，准确反映这历史累积的结果，把收入和财富集中绝对值的影响准确反应出来，这是十分重要的，因我们需要反映人类有史以来所创造的财富集中的真实数量，程度和究竟这些财富集中在何人手里，而不是对这些要点讳莫如深。我们认为一个社会不但要看一定时期收入的差别，同样要看财富拥有绝对数量上的差别。一定时期收入的差别只反应一段时间的差别，拥有财富总数量上的差别才更为重要地反应了累积的差别，不公平的程度。(我们将另予以探讨)

 

上面谈到的良好的社会制度应是一个民主社会的标准，达不到这标准就不能称之为一个良好的民主社会，它应看政治方面，更要看经济方面。因为现阶段以发展经济为主，改善每一个人的生存条件为主。也在于，随着人民生存条件的改善，人民或早或迟自然会要求政治状况的改善。不应外界干预，揠苗助长，否则      事与愿违。这就是世界各国权力与制度向我们揭示的普遍现象。

 

从政治与经济汇总来看，中国在民主与集中的天平上所处的位置总的来说是好的平衡的，所以能创造出世界瞩目、无人能比、无人能否认的快速而长期的经济增长。民营经济的发展现在就是很好的经济民主。它从法律上允许个人自由创业，且实际上有这种可能。国有经济在各方面的存在不仅保证了经济的平稳运行，而且使社会总的财富不会大量集中在极端少数人手里。尽管中国一时贫富差别出现过较大，国有企业还有这种那种的缺点，但经过几十年的经济发展，中国已有足够的力量来纠正这贫富差别过大的现象，这就是当前的扶贫工作。但是我们政治上的民主做得还不足，因此付出了“文革”与大面积贪腐的代价，教训是深刻的。这不是一两个人所造成的问题，必须靠也只能靠民主的制度解决。

 

清朝末年，太平天国农民起义，带有宗教行会的色彩，起义军至死效忠一个人，石达开，结果起义军真的兵败大渡河最后全死了。但共产党那时已有民主制度，一个领袖不能胜任了，就推选出另一个领袖，结果共产党就活了。所以毛泽东是靠民主推选出来的领袖。在长达28年争取独立和解放的战争，加上朝鲜战争共30多年的战争中，需要战时体制，讲求高效，基本不用任何不同机构的交叉监督与制约，党政军实质上三位一体，并代表一切。但在朝鲜战争刚一结束，共产党领导全国，迅速转入和平体制。为了使人民当家作主，在1954年成立了全国及各级人民代表大会，完成了民主机构的建设。

 

人大与政府的分立，大大优于西方的“三权分立”就在于前者是以最大的受益人为依据对权力进行分割。因此从理论上讲，这体制能够时时保证人民的利益；而 “三权分立”是单纯从权力的功能上对权力进行分割，虽然它能监督与制约权力，有时也能一定程度地反映人民的意愿，合理的细节也值得学习。但总体来讲“三权分立”不能时刻保障和代表人民的利益，而往往成为大利益集团权力斗争的工具。选民往往只能在选举时候，在大的利益集团已经预定的候选人中选择。而且候选人依靠个人筹资而非政府出资而获得提名，这就给大的利益集团用金钱控制选举打开了绿灯。

 

但我们从人大与政府分立后的60多年里，这体制的优势没能完全发挥出来。我们过去强调集中多一些，因为那时我们还比较弱，需要集中各种资源，需要团结与集中各方有限的力量以保证我们能将其发挥最大。但现在不同于过去，我们有力量来完成我们的目标。我们也应看到现在的干部和老一代革命家的不同。老一代革命家经过血与火的考验，经过与老百姓长期生死与共的考验，但现在大多干部缺乏这些考验。他们大多数是党和国家拧在国家机器上的普通螺丝钉。在民主制度不健全不科学的情况下，是容易引起部分螺丝钉脱扣，我们必须有一个清醒的认识。我们的老一辈还建立了人大民主的机构希望人民能当家作主，能有监督的民主权力，尽管没有完成，正等待新一代人来完成。我们的新干部就更需要科学民主体制来管理与监督。我们应完善这良好民主集中的机制-----科学的制度和科学的机构设置来杜绝贪腐，来保证人民的利益。

 

像毛泽东与老一代革命家为使人民当家作主奋斗终身。毛泽东在他生命最后的十年里为了人民民主的权力而奋不顾身,令人可歌可泣。他为什么把他生前最后的奋斗与建立新中国并提？这也正是其可歌的地方，就在于他认为这奋斗是在为了实现人民能真正当家作主，即民主的事业，否则他不会将两事相提并论。文革前后大量提拔工农干部到中央，建立三结合的领导班子并想以此为运动的结束等等有力地说明了这他是为人民民主权利而努力。但可泣的是，我们事后看，他由于采用群众运动的方式而不是从完善人大的民主机制，这恰恰不是以民主的方式而有序地进行，使其奋斗没有成功，而“继续革命”的理论与打击方向也有严重的错误。后这经过邓小平重大与决定性的纠正，经济上与国有经济一起广泛而恰到好处地采用“大众创业万众创新”的民主手段,使生产关系适应生产力历史发展的水平，在世界经济史上创造了史无前例的辉煌。其中民营企业为我国经济发展这一辉煌做出了巨大的贡献。我们政治上也需完成这人民当家作主前人未竟的事业，做好“以人民为中心”,不忘老一辈建国与建立人大机构的初衷, 并沿着前人没有走过但又一直追求的根本目的前进。

 

基层（比如乡镇或县级）的人大，是否可以两年依据宪法重选三分之一代表,而省级的人大代表三年改选一半代表,全国人大像现在一样五年一选举,可以连选连任，但需加强基层选举制度的正规化，不可随便。它的好处是，第一，加快代表的选举，使基层政权的血液及时更新，可又有一定的稳定性; 第二，使人民加快得到直接选举的锻炼，会越选越好; 第三，这也是参考了国外选举代表的经验。基层第三次，中层第二次选举不一定要和五年一次的全国人大选举时间上一致。或嫌多，中层选举可和全国人大一样五年选一次。不要搞过分的竞选和民意调查，可书面公开陈述一下自己的打算，不能靠临时抱佛脚，由政府支付必要的费用。频繁的选举如果加公开大规模的竞选会分裂群众，要靠平时群众的认可。同时要规定好各级人民代表大会对各级政府的制约与监督的权力，人民意见的收集，合理的要有权监督政府改进，以及对政府主要官员的任命权力等。官员的任命,要先过人大的选择，然后再经全面的平衡而任命。人大代表不得由政府官员和国企高管兼任，代表保留原等级而脱产。平时专注人民意见的收集汇总和监督政府改进。人大代表需独立发工资，而尤其不能依靠原政府机构发工资，因会有监督职能上的冲突，这是科学的设计。人民有自己选举的机会，加上适当的管理与引导，就可以保证我们社会长治久安。我们需要时间来完善民主体制,人民也需要时间来学习利用好民主制度。“文革”与贪腐产生不能不说我们制度有重大疏漏。虽然现在我们的制度利远大于弊，可利弊今后可能会发生变化，前苏联体制利弊就发生了根本的逆转而解体。另外，弊毕竟是弊，需要清醒认识，不断改善。我们需要改进战时的体制与习惯，适应和平建设的体制。

 

中国搞民营经济，在利用资本及市场经济积极作用时，提出"时间就是金钱"促进经济发展的同时，原始的但反映资本贪婪本性的弊病有不同程度的发展，重复着早期资本主义的老路。必须利用其长，避开和坚决反对其短。但不能因噎废食。因其短不是不可避免的。资本一方面有以骗取利，打了一下就走，但另一方面也有取长远发展讲究信誉，两者并存。必须严惩前者，发现一例严罚一例，惩治乱象必须用重典。那怕使之立即倾家荡产，然后扶贫，让其他人也知道骗财足够的被惩罚的代价，不能心慈手软，才是对后者的鼓励，公平，才能大树正气。全国人大必须及跟上立法，当好这个家。

 

为什么民主制度可以长久地保护人民的利益? 就在于人民(通过其代表)一旦有实权，当家作主并学会使用民主的制度（这需要时间学习，需要良好的制度保证，需要依靠先进思想的引导），人民就会长久，自动，自觉保护自己的利益，坚决反对一切不符合或损害人民利益的行为。在任何情况下顺利或不顺利,要调动和取得人民的支持。对人民有利的事,必然会得到人民的支持,而且只有得到人民的支持,才能长久不败。“人民，只有人民，才是创造世界历史的动力”。因此只有人民也才是创造反对贪腐的永恒动力。从制度上逐步保证人民自己的积极参与和权力，彻底消除贪腐再生的土壤。封建王朝也有反腐的，但坚持不过第二代，就在于没有人民积极的参与。我们不仅要打碎旧世界，还必须建立起能防止旧现象重演的崭新机制。

 

我们给我们干部规定享有比普通老百姓要高的工资住房医疗等等待遇的理由就是用高的待遇保住和吸引人才，鼓励他们在工作岗位上发挥积极性与聪明才智,体现多劳多得的精神。那也就是说把我们的干部看成和一般的人没有两样。这不能不说没有道理。因此对我们的干部的管理要比对普通的广大群众更严格，因为他们的待遇和所得比一般群众要高。他们的表现应由政绩说话，由老百姓说话。应该说我们干部高待遇制度受到前苏联很大的影响。这正是导致苏联垮台的原因之一。从公平性来讲应该说没有必要这样高。应为他们有权,他们的社会地位已比一般人高。在比一般的待遇略高后，干部的职位已可以保证吸引人才。再高的待遇就有封建的特殊化影响，体现了特权思想。它与延安时期干部待遇的精神形成对照，我们应平衡两者的要求，走出一条廉洁自律的新路。

 

我们的民主与集中要做到恰到好处，一方面不管官多大，人大与法律都有权追查各种贪腐，因为干部有权，是贿赂的重点，看来贪腐是当干部最不能容忍的问题。但反贪腐不能影响正常的集中，不失去共产党的领导。因为共产党是将我们曾经分散的人民团结起来，将中华民族凝固成一个整体，是经过历史考验与检验并领导创造了辉煌的力量。政治民主可以和可能在共产党的领导下很好地进行，因为任何民主要达到良好的目的，必须要有适当的集中。人大机构的建立就是政治民主很好的开始。我们需要持续不断地努力，需要对我们的机构进行科学合理的设计，制定科学合理的制度。但万变不离其宗，离不开在民主与集中之间做恰当平衡的选择。但无论怎么选择要做到的是代表人民而不能代替人民。

 

代表人民就是全心全意注意好人民的权力，在行动中起带头作用,在带头中起先锋引导作用，但还是要靠人民自己完成一切为自己利益的奋斗。代替人民就是不给或不注意给人民以权力，大包大揽，包办代替。国际歌唱的好: "从来就没有什么救世主，也不靠神仙皇帝。要创造人类的幸福, 全靠我们自己！”这是共产党人在代表人民的过程中所应具有的广阔胸怀。具体来讲，是否发挥和全心全意完善和注重建设好人民代表大会制度，逐步细化和加强人大对政府的决定作用。为什么要人大决定政府？就在于完善的人大能直接代表人民，而人民要当家作主。我们不仅理论这样，而且实际机制设计也要这样。政府对人民要高度负责绝对是对的，因为要完全彻底的为人民服务。但这并不意味着其权力也是无限的。要巧妙的使用人大与政府，平衡两方的权利，把人大和政府建成共产党的左右臂，合力带领人民完成我国经济和政治的发展任务。因此我们说是否建设好人大的民主机制是代表还是代替人民的重要分水岭。我们不仅能超越一切古人，而且在民主与集中上一定能超越现在的一切人。

   

英雄或领袖个人的集中领导，对社会的进步会产生巨大的正能量，但不能因此代替良好的民主制度,就因为个人在职与寿命在历史的长河中是短暂的,而他成为英雄、不朽的原因不仅在于解决了当时出现的矛盾与问题，而且也正在于他对正义科学合理的新制度的建立而进行的巨大努力。只有良好与科学的机制可以跨越几代领导，可以长存。不能只注意结果，不注意过程和制度，因为只有合理的过程和制度才能在今后长远的历史中，不断自动形成合理的结果。沿着人民当家作主的方向努力 就是正确的大方向。共产党对它的队伍严格管理持久的动力来自不朽的民主制度。因为只有良好的民主制度会永远而随时无微不至地要求并提醒我们要严格管理我们的队伍。巨大的金钱长期在我们每一个人的身旁，巨大的权力在我们手上，怎样抵制诱惑，不以权谋私 ？主要就是依靠民主制度。良好而科学的民主制度可以永葆不断严格的管理。但这不是一天就能做得到的，可能要靠几代人的不懈努力。同时不能忽略了集中，因为集中才会形成力量，要将民主与集中掌握的恰到好处。

 

对于外国机构中比如花旗银行，苏格兰皇家银行和德国银行等的“反贿赂与贪腐”（Anti-Bribery and Corruption--ABC) 的教育值得借鉴，因银行是贿赂的重要对象，要特别对所有职工加强教育。他们“反贿赂与贪腐”的教育活动由监管部门负责安排，每一个银行职工不管是高还是低，人人必须参加和接受教育并要考试，通过问答题,没有通过问答题的就是答卷不够80分的人不能开始工作。新参加工作的人第一堂课就是反贿赂和贪腐，并越是高级管理人员越要教育。过两三年或新任职的人员还要重新接受教育，不怕重复。教材中列出贪腐的危害，法律界限及各种贿赂的方式和抵制方式，极其细致，不是只是含糊其词的谈宏观题目。自己吃不准属于不属于贿赂的行为，就要向上一级领导及时回报。形成人人反对贿赂和人人对贪腐保持高度的警惕和抵制，人人对此要总是对此高度的认真要紧张。这是真正爱护干部爱护集体爱护人民得做法。他们的反贪腐的原则是：不管来自高管还是普通职工，一切业务活动最后都要经过独立运作的监管部门的监督和批准。做具体业务的，不能承担监管责任，负责监管的部门不能做具体业务等许多细节。高管人员插手下面具体单位负债具体项目的安排就怀疑有受贿的可能。

 

党内的民主集中与国家的民主集中是一样重要的、是根本的，不朽的。我们整个党和国家,世界各国不能没有民主也不能没有集中。只有把治国理政的重大目标定为民主与集中，才符合马恩的“为了绝大多数人”，毛泽东的“为人民服务”，共产党应在为实现人民真正当家作主——民主这宏伟而必须的目标起到先锋带头作用。因为民主的权力是解决各种问题的中心，是给“绝大多数人”带来幸福不可缺少的重要条件。完善我们的民主与集中的体制就是最大完善我们的生产关系，就是最大的解放生产力。

 

民主这众人-即人民推动人类历史的最终力量，集中这国家集合众人的力量，人类的社会决不可忽视这个层面可能发出的强大力量。我们有充分的理由可以比资产阶级更高的举起民主与集中的大旗，因为我们的目标比资产阶级更加彻底。他们致命的欠缺被认为是终极的根本的不可改变的“优点”。而我们的欠缺和我们的终极目标相抵触的因此是暂时的。中国实现了人类梦寐以求的愿望摆脱贫穷落后的面貌。它纯粹靠自己的努力，做出了四十年经济的高速发展。它没有像有些国家依靠某些战争直接或间接的帮助。中国的经济成功决不是偶然的，要加以总结，总结好这人类历史成功的经验，可供世界各国学习。虽然中国还有这样那样的缺点，但它在大局上基本准确把握了这民主与集中的分寸。我们不是单是讲民主，因那不符合人类社会发展的内在规律。尊重两方面的力量，我们可更快更顺利向更富足更公平合理的社会前进。虽然民主与集中不是国家的一切，但却是一切制度的重要组成，一刻也不能缺少。

 

 

Countries' Powers in Rising Circulation of Democracy and Centralization

——In the Balance of Democracy and Centralization

（revised in 6/2017）

 

Observing mankind history for thousand years vertically and today’s countries horizontally, be the ancient monarchies, modern nations, whether they are presidential, parliamentary and republic countries, whether capitalist or socialist systems, they all have to choose a place between democracy and centralization, they all have to be measured by the unified and common concepts of democracy and centralization and historically examined by the concepts.

 

As we may know that all countries be Chinese or foreign ones in ancient and modern times can be divided into the ruling class and the ruled class, namely the people in accordance with the powers. The central issue of the conflicts, reforms and fights between the ruling class and people is the powers of the society. When social powers are inclined to people, that is to say the people possess the more powers of society, it is democracy. The extreme end of democracy is anarchism and vicious competition in the economy, the law of jungle. And powers are inclined to the ruling class, that is to say the ruling class possesses the more powers of society, it is centralization. The extreme end of centralization is autocracies and individual dictatorship. In short, the center of the countries is the powers, and the central issue of powers is democracy and centralization. That is to say it’s people who have more powers, or the ruling class-management class, who have more powers.

 

So far, mankind has lived in collectives and worked by the collective labor divisions. In ancient and the most primitive times, human beings must unite and relied on combined efforts to form collective strengths and then could survive in the jungles which were full of much more powerful beasts than mankind and lived much better than any animals. And later, mankind formed different countries in order to protect the different tribal interests. With conflicts, mergers, division and wars, human beings entered the civilization. In the age of modern times of machines and electronics, through the labor divisions, human beings have worked highly efficiently and lived much better. People cannot live without the collectives, and in any of which, there are the coexistent problems of individual rights and collective rights and need to get them roughly balanced. Democracy means the individual rights and requires the equal rights for every individual. The centralization means collective rights and requires to complying with unified leadership to centralize each one’s strength to get more strengths. Therefore the balance so here said is between the democracy and centralization. Being have balanced may be lost due to changes in the conditions, especially in terms of production. When balance lost, it is necessary to get it rebalanced. When democracy and centralization has lost balance, the problems arise. 

 

In some countries, politically, the democracy is insufficient and centralization is excessive, therefore the ruling classes are often inevitably violate the will of the people; for some countries, the democracy is excessive and the centralization is insufficient, and therefore, the whole societies and people may often disperse and therefore be very weak. In some countries, economically democracy is insufficient and the centralization is excessive, the economy is weak and cannot develop strongly and comprehensively because the productions organized may often be unsuitable to production conditions at that time. For some countries, economically, democracy is excessive and centralization is insufficient, and therefore disorderly and malignant competitions appear leading to the opposite side, i.e. wealth is highly concentrated, and these seriously affect the economic free competitions. In short, a country should be examined its democracy and centralization from their both political and economical views. A good society must be a country roughly being balanced between the democracy and the centralization. And they must not be looked from its economic side alone or political side alone. The only criterion for the balance is whether the country has economic growth for a longer term and benefit to everyone. Of course, some small counties should be observed separately because the nature gives the countries some special gifts of natural resources.

 

People cannot just talk about democratic rights while ignoring the centralized rights, because there will be no collectives, and individuals become very volatile and weak. In fact, that's also not the case. Whatever a society is more democratic, it finally has to be centralized but at different levels. The society therefore shows different strengths. Countries have governments that govern societies to do different centralizations. But the former fighters for democracy emphasized the democratic side lonely to protest the feudal autocracy and monarchy. However, people also can't just talk about centralized powers and ignore the right of democracy, because such the ruler often tends to violate the will of people, and it may lead to tyranny and dictatorship, they also can't maintain rapider economic growth at the end owing to lack of people’s positive momentum for production, and there will be no proper positions and no happy lives for individuals. The majority of people could only live like slaves.

 

Democracy guarantees correctness for centralization, centralization makes democracy powerful. The collectives cannot be given up at result of the production condition improvements, also the status quo of collective rights have to be changed with the changes in production conditions 

 

By the unified standard of democracy and centralization to examine the human societies as a whole, we can find that the human societies seem to follow a unified law of upwards circulation like a spiral to follow a cycle, and develop faster and faster. The human societies started from the one which were primitive, dispersive and primitive democratic societies as we may call it, to the slavery and feudal societies to finish the evolutions to the big centralizations for the first time. This made people more powerful. But feudal autocracy and the various relationships that constrained the production impeded the development of production. Human society also has further broken through the dictatorial powers and many constrains that had nothing to do with productions and developed into the capitalist societies in the direction of democracy by a big step. Capitalism is essentially opposed to any relations that have nothing to do with money – capital, the essence that is significantly related with productions and may claim democracy and freedom almost for everything, but with the only exception that is related with the money and its private ownership that cannot be touched. These had made the production relationship free from the feudalistic fetters in a big extent, and opened the ways for free competitions and smooth operations for capitals and productions. These had greatly liberated production relationships on one hand and promoted the productions. But on the other hand, due to the excessive and uncontrolled democracies, the free competitions had reached the extent of laissez-faire. Through ruthless and fierce competitions in economies between people and relentless infringement to others’ interests, relentless merges and annex with others interests, the absolutely high centralizations of wealth were caused in the end. They also exhibited the side of greedy and primitive nature of capitalism. Although there were some improvements late on, the basic core has not been touched at all. This led to Marx's critique. But he affirmed capitalist development of production. And Lenin also opposed the country's absolute monopoly of the economy and this big centralization, put forward the “New Economic Policy”, letting both the state own and private economies develop. But because he died earlier, this policy was not carried out. Stalin tried the centralization in high degree for the states according to his understanding of Marx’s ideas and under the pressures of the war threatening. Then the human developed and tried to another kind of society in the direction of Stalin's big and high centralization. The west countries represented by Roosevelt’s “New Deal” established state enterprises one after another and partially relied on the powers of their governments i.e. centralized strengths. On the surface, it seems like the centralization of feudal society; however it rose up to a level higher. The Soviet regime is no longer passed the power inside the family like a Kingdom. It was from to controlled people’s freedoms to control the productions of the enterprises and the collective farms. Although there were some big achievements, it eventually failed and ended up with the collapse of the Soviet Union because it violated the will of the people. Deng Xiaoping learnt the lesson and deeply thought this painful event and resolutely carried out drastic reforms. On the basis of high centralization of Stalin-style, Deng greatly approached to the democracy on the economy – i.e. sufficiently allowed the people to set up their own businesses while not losing the national centralized leadership to the part of nation’s economy and the guidance, relied on the state-owned enterprises and private enterprises at the two legs, and basically well handled the relationship between democracy and centralization on the economy. So human have developed into another kind of society, Chinese-style, or China feature, seeking the unity with opposites. So far it has gotten a huge success. 

 

Europe is struggling in the financial and economic crisis and in the tide of refugees made by them; the United States seems to try to survive by relying on Trump's anti-tradition. Chinese society is now back by one step from Stalin’s high centralization, developing democracy i.e. the people have the rights to set up their own businesses, and moved forward by one step as well from capitalism, meaning it did not fully accept capitalist privatization, a system lack control of democracy. China still keeps the part of the centralization on the economy, keeping the collective powers of state-owned enterprises. In the two kinds of systems, China has made the adjustments by the one step forward and one step backward. 

 

The State-own Enterprises(SOE) established in Western countries have become negative things under the extreme opinions of the private ownership. From the point of views of short term, SOE is lower efficient than the private sector. However, that has played an irreplaceable role to stable the social economies, in preventing from economic crisis. The west is now suffering from no effective description to cure the current economic and financial crisis. It is a good idea to develop state-owned enterprises and promote big social productions. Don't pay attention to the low efficiency of SOE comparing with the private sectors for short term lonely, we need view the interests for the longer term, need see the damages brought by the economic crisis, which actually and greatly decreased the average efficiency of the private sectors by blind development of. That is to say, the social economy needs get properly close to the centralization i.e. the state’s powers. In fact, Roosevelt had already taken this approach since the great depression in 1930s, and played huge roles for Americas to rapidly get over the great depression in 1930s. The world did not end there. But SOE was abandoned in the demand stimulation in the economic recovery in Europe in the post-world War II. Now the west is facing such a choice again. China has such the courage to take a step backward; will the West have the courage to take a step forward?

 

The above mentioned is the inherent laws and the principles of democracy and centralization which the histories of the countries and the powers have showed to us through the historical development. That is enough for us to get known both at economic and political sides comprehensively.   

 

Democracy and centralization are the central problem for the ruling and ruled classes, and its breaking point becomes very crucial. And there is the different points for balance or the different breaking point at different period of time. We think in the long run, the society will be more democratic in politics and it will be more centralized in the economy

 

“Politics will be more democratic” means each one will have more rights to speak. Each person's opinion will be automatically collected. The officials unserviceable or unable to do things for the people can be changed at any time. Such it will eventually shape “a kind of vivid and vigorous situation”. The economy will be more centralized. That does not mean an unrealistic one. Economy and politics will be separated and run independently. When heavy and dangerous works will be done by machines and robots, each person can meet their needs at any time, the competitions among the people for money will fade away; private ownership will die, and people will then just work for their senses of accomplishments. On the basis of the Internets and the Internet of Things (IOT), the central plans will no longer be the blind things in some individual minds, which are much blinder than the market. The central plans are precisely adjusted according to the realities and its changes to the maximum degrees at any time required. When the destruction of market blindness is greater than the benefit of the its precise adjustment of resource allocation, and when most of people no longer have to worry about the economies, economy will work like a giant and special machine operated and maintained by a unified department responsible. Of course, this idea has to be realized under certain conditions and step by step.

 

Democracy and centralization of any nation should include both the economic and political systems. However economic democracy is the right of production and investment for every people in order to improve their living conditions for themselves. So it is the fundamental, basic and direct rights. This is the crucial right for human society and cannot be a bit neglected. This economic democratic right includes whether everyone has the legal right to initiate, manage and develop their own businesses and can make his own investments, and has the possibilities to exercise these rights in fact. Politically, democratic right refers to the selection of their leaders, people representatives and congressmen, referendums, the expressions, collections and adoptions of people's opinions, checks and supervisions, the appointments of officials, etc.

 

The human beings have been groping and struggling for the balance place between democracy and centralization. And countries have been looking for different places for the balance between democracy and centralization. For the balance of democracy and centralization, powers in a country are inclined to be more democratic or to be more centralized. In a certain range, we can't judge the system of a country is good or bad purely from this alone. The key issue is the balance location chosen to make the balance which should be in conformity with the lives and productive conditions of the people of the country, in conformity with the level of people's ideological awareness.

 

In the recent one or two thousand years, a general trend of human’s societies are from the highly centralized and enclosed dictatorship and autocracy to the opening and democratic countries step by step. Countries around the world are merging together. With the rapid development of modern science and technology and communication and transportation, this has pushed us to develop rapider into the integration in globalization politically and economically. Mao Zedong pointed out early in his speech “On the Correctly Handling Contradictions Inside People”: “Inside people, you cannot have no freedom, also you cannot have no discipline; you cannot have no democracy, also you cannot have no centralization. This unification of democracy and centralization, the unification of the freedom and discipline, is our system of democracy and centralization”. We should not understand narrowly Mao’s meanings of the democracy and the centralization, thinking it just refers to the one in the meetings inside a party to discuss and collect the opinions. Mao Zedong said that "democracy belongs to the concept of superstructure and belongs to the realm of politics. That is to say, ultimately, it serves the economic foundation". And with his speaking “within the people”, it demonstrates the democracy Mao Zedong saw as the one to serve the whole national economy, and not to serve one party alone. He raised nothing but the case inside the party as an example only to illustrate. In other words, Mao Zedong spoke the democracy and centralization for the entire country. China's constitution stipulates “The State institutions need to apply with the principle of democracy and centralization accordingly” in article 3. The entire country needs to apply with democracy and centralization

 

Now many countries in the world have not completely got rid of the monarchy, the kingship. Some countries retain the positions and powers of Kings more or less, retain the powers passed on from father to son, the feudal hereditary systems. This is political problems, but more serious problem is that “the richest persons of the top 1% of the global population have wealth more than the sum of that of the remaining 99% of the population. And inequality of income and distribution, unbalance in development space is worrying.” (Xi Jinping's speech in 2017 Davos Forum). The gap of wealth distribution between the poor and the rich is so much big, that is by no means the result and absolutely not results and goals both pursued by a democratic society. This phenomenon eloquently demonstrated such system has fundamental flaws because the inequality in economy is fundamental problem. The democracy includes the concept of equality. Political democracy does not necessarily mean that the society can naturally gain economic growth. Political democracy long failed to bring about economic growth represents the societies have become too loose and weak due to the excessive democracy. For example, the democracy in the early time of City-State of Athens in Greece was beaten by the autocracy of Macedonia.

 

The primary purpose of the democracy is to make nation’s economy develop faster and longer and can benefit everyone, who can live more happy and free. Political powers internally should be gradually inclined to the people appropriately, and the people can become the masters of the country. Externally, the democratic powers will be used to strive for international peace and cooperation, to prevent aggressive wars, to develop the international economies, to build a common community of human beings with full efforts. This is the only right path of the peaceful development for human beings. It concerns the future fate of the peace and war for mankind. The “One Belt And One Road” project will eventually finish the unshakable trend that will be changed to and rewritten the historical way which nations get along with each others, turning fights that humans relies on with each other to mutual cooperation which nations relies on and to develop. The fights with each other need the military forces and hegemony, and the cooperation needs democracy. Especially, aggressive wars should not be launched in any case because that conflicts with human civilization and democracy. Whatever the excuses are used, launching aggression war, it either seizes the natural resources of others or express its own wills by force only. It has no democracy in it at all. But it only exposes the natures of autocracy and dictatorship, unless the United Nations decide military forces by democratic ways. 

 

Civilization of the modern capitalism have many improvements when comparing the primitive and savage capitalism. By nature it may claim freedoms and equalities in most cases with only exception of the personal owned money and wealth, may claim everyone’s democracy limited to wealth privately owned. By nature, it should want the peace so that to maintain free competitions for smooth operation and free competitions and free hires for capitals and productions for profits. It has done so at home. The exports of goods and capitals (not including robbery) can help the globalization and is available to all countries in the world. Capitalism could have extended the internal policies to their foreign affairs, but what we can see is mainly not democracies, which are exhibited through negotiations and dialogues, and are consistently advocated by capitalism. However we can only see the military violence, which is undemocratic at all. They are but feudal autarchies and dictatorships and the behaviors of the tyrant. How good the excuses are used, that cannot cover the bloody facts. Those developed countries in feudal imperialism have launched aggression wars everywhere in the world, express their wills and solve problems with forces. They have their military advantage and no spare to use that. They forget the civilizations and have extended the primitive and savage nature of capitalism to infringe other’s interests as happened a hundred years ago. Even for the human rights, it said to be "human rights greater than sovereignty", therefore others’ rights have been wantonly trampled, without any respect for the interests of other countries and for the outcome of democratic elections. And respects of other people and others’ rights are the only watershed between reasonable part of the human right and the nature of a beast. Now, the only characteristic of imperialism is the exports of military forces as the name. The only reason for those developed countries with the title of the feudal imperialism is because their foreign policies with the strong characteristics of feudal autocracy and dictatorship, and mixed with extreme national egoism. The only way that they can get rid of the titles of feudalism and primitive and savage capitalism and to return to the civilized nature of modern capitalism is that they have to abandon their foreign policies of military forces and interventions. They have shown the sufficient performances in Libya, Syria, Iraq and former Yugoslavia. Along with decay and decline in national strengths in some developed countries, they can no longer solve problems in the world by force with the military advantage. But the United States can continue to resolve or plan to resolve problems with forces.

 

At current stage, the advantage of the proper centralization can make the society be well united and therefore more powerful, and be able and obliged to control the gap between the rich and the poor in certain rang, and narrow it down at home or abroad. But when powers excessively concentrate to the ruling class, especially centralized in the hands of a few people, on the economic side, it being often the extreme minority holds the extremely large wealth, which includes capitals. When it happens, this is not only absolutely unfair, but because a very few people hold a large quantities of wealth and therefore they retain the rights to make decisions for productions and investments. These will give what serious the negative impacts on the free competitions of societies, on the enthusiasms and activities for productions and investments. Because active productions require free economic competitions in any way, and free competitions require a certain amount of middle classes. When extreme large quantities of wealth concentrated in the hands of an extremely few people, this virtually deprived of the possibilities of the middle classes to initiate their own businesses in fact. Therefore it inevitably causes the stagnation for the nation’s economy for a longer term and too large gaps between the rich and the poor. This only refers to the economical absolutism and dictatorship, which is severer than monopoly. Production manager system is not enough by far to replace the decisions made by the wealth owners. Politically, the oligarchy of regimes will go along the roads against the will of the people. The rulers either oppress their own people at home, or promote their national citizens are special outstanding, at the same time belittle people of other nations. By doing so, they prepare the aggressive wars and hegemonies for robbing of others’ natural resources and realization of their ideologies by force. So there is no democracy in it at all.

 

We think that the coordinate diagram between the overall initiatives of production and the level of wealth centralization is roughly like the shape of a normal distribution. That is to say in general, when the level of wealth concentration itself and including the difference between the poor and the rich are gradually increasing, and when the current production conditions are relatively tough, the labor intensity for makes works unhappy to every worker, the total enthusiasm and initiatives for productions and investments of the societies will be increasing. But after the levels of the social wealth concentration expands to a certain degree, and they are expanded to the top, the overall enthusiasm and initiatives for the social productions and investments will fall and not rise on the contrary. After the top, the more the wealth is centralized, the more the total enthusiasm and initiatives of societies are falling fast. We can see the signs of this phenomenon from Europe, America and Japan. In these countries, because the extreme minority conglomerates possess an extremely large quantity of wealth, their economies have been slow down or stopped for a longer term and showed this extreme undemocratic on their economies. The consortiums like the Rockefeller, Morgan, the First Citigroup, Dupont and Boston, Yasuda, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sumitomo, Rothschild Family, Onassis Family and so on control the parts of their economies that have exceeded their governments in many countries in fact. It is not to say these consortiums are not positive in productions and investments, but said that through the completely free and cruel competitions without basic control, they deprived of most of the capitals and their expansion abilities from the great number of the middle classes, such these consortiums have completely deprived of the opportunities for investment and production from those majority, the meddle classes. At result, the total wealth of 99% population is even less than that of rest 1% population. How can it make possible for national economies active enough in the free competitions? When we think about Mr. Trump, US President, who gathered huge amounts of wealth, like other consortiums, he has so much pledged that they want the democracy and equality. And freedom is like the oxygen and the air. Can we believe his pledges？As we all know that the fundamental spirit of democracy is equality in powers, and economical equality is most crucial, is the topics they do not want people to talk about at most. Then we can ask that are they willing to give away a half of their wealth they have gathered for huge amounts to the poor? It can really prove the genuineness they have for democracy and for the people. We do not aim at Trump himself but talk about the matters. Since they can't show any democracy and equality in this critical and core economic issue, how they can talk much about democracy and equality. How can he talk about everything for the people?

 

Who dares to say that capitalism can do the same democracy and equality about money, wealth and private ownership as that in other areas? The equality the capitalism often talks about is merely the equal right of the wealth distribution, rather than the roughly equal amounts of wealth distributed to everyone. This is like a group of people scrambling for a certain amount of wealth. It appears very equal to anyone for whatever will belong to him if he can get it. Of course the big, strong people will be able to get more, and the little ones can get less even nothing. Under so-called “the principle of equal distribution right”, it will end up with great inequality. Of course, production is different from the scrambling and it’s necessary to reward the diligent labors, but it needs to keep the inequality within a certain range that certainly should prevent from wealth centralized extremely as above-mentioned. This is but an example of the relations between equality and inequality. The key point we want to underline is not just a matter of so-called a simple and superficial equality of distribution right regardless of the huge inequality of results distributed. The equality of the distribution results is the true implication and idea of equality mankind has long pursued. Of course, the equality of the distribution right is better than the feudal hierarchy, but it is still far from the true equality. When the human production conditions are improved and arrive at certain extent, meaning people can use average intensity of labors to achieve enough working results, the unequal results of distributions are highlighted. This equality of distribution right alone should not be safeguarded as an eternal thought. Do not treat the essence of thought as waste or vice versa by prejudice.

 

The most advanced thoughts of mankind should stress on more democracy by nature. It should recognize that the capitalism push democracy forward by a big step and built a better foundation, but stayed in front of the wealth private ownership, which then caused great inequality in wealth distribution results and high wealth concentration. Obviously, they are far from the true and thorough equality and democracy. The historical task is to push the democracy and the equality forward on this foundation. It does not only stress on the democracy and equality in the same right of distribution but also on the approximate equal results distributed, which is final criterion to judge from the rulings who can represent the people or not as we think. The final requirement of the human common community is also the equal right which can satisfy everyone’s needs via interest distributions. When the classes that can really represent people are in office, the centralization will have more positive meanings, otherwise it is often used to oppress and bully people. 

 

The slogan of “reward hard works and punish laziness” is generally not suitable in most cases，because generally speaking the most entrepreneurs work about same hard. Right, the rules of the competitions are completely same and equal, but the opportunities are different, congenital conditions are different. So it brings different results by far, needless to say those people who have no capital at all. So you need different rules and policies to control, offset and remedy a part of those differences so that to control the inequalities of wealth distribution in certain rang. I think it should be“reward hard works, encourage publics, to ensure fair and free competitions.” The west countries all have their ornate overcoats, but that doesn't change the real money relationship. After stripping off their gorgeous overcoats, we can see “besides these naked relationships of interests between persons, besides callous relations in “deals in cash”, there is no any other contact” (Marx and Engels). We can't observe these relationships of interests. When we observe them, we immediately find the problems.

 

In theory, it is God’s truth that the results achieved by individuals should belong to the individuals, and individuals have the rights in pursuit of happiness. But the resources used by the individual’s productions are public resources, which mean everyone can use them and when you use them, other people can no longer use them. And all things have the thresholds or a certain extent. Beyond them and without necessary controls, there will be excessive competitions between peoples. And an absolute individualism inevitably leads to the cruel and uncontrollable competitions. It inevitably leads to the practice of the law of jungles, finally leads to extreme concentrations of wealth and to the kind of economic monopoly and autocracy. Should we tolerate such a big difference between rich and poor? Can we tolerate such a big difference in possession of wealth? Any sound democratic system should not allow the wealth gap between people is too large because of the excessive competitions should have a system to control it in a certain range in conformity with to the labor intensify and gradually narrow it down. Talking what equality? Such big wealth gap, is it not the biggest inequalities? Therefore, countries with such large wealth gaps cannot be called sound democratic society. With such huge gaps, they are economical authoritarian societies in fact. Xi Jingping has pointed out this extreme concentration of wealth. 

 

The Gini coefficient and wages relative and absolute situations reflect the historical cross section of the difference between rich and poor, that means it only reflect periodical situations, usually one year only, but lacking historically accumulative results of the wealth difference. It is also only reflects the relative difference, lacking the absolute value which plays the important role. The more developing countries such as the ones in Latin America, southern parts of Africa's, the more the Gini Coefficients are higher, and the countries such as the ones in Europe, the United States and Japan with the large quantities of wealth and the most high concentration of wealth have the lower Gini Coefficients on the contrary. It appears their societies even fairer. But this is absolutely not the case. Is that proved enough by what Xi Jingping pointed out regarding the gaps of wealth possession? Due to the various historical reasons, Countries such as the ones in Europe, the United States and Japan possess the most of the wealth mankind made, any tiny difference on the wealth possessed means huge differences in wealth they physically held. It's like to compare the case of one dollar and $10 with the case of one million dollars and $10 million. The relative ratio is the same i.e. one tenth, but there's a huge difference in the amount of wealth really possessed. Comparing the wealth possessed by Europe, the United States, Japan and Africa are more like comparing ants with elephants in weightlifting. Because they are not in the same grade of amount, so they cannot make a simple comparison. The conclusions in the relative comparison cannot be simply used in practice. Big consortiums in Europe, the United States and Japan do not earn wages at all, but their incomes from their investments and productions occupied the absolutely big weights in the whole society. The difference between the rich and the poor and the situations reflected by this coefficient and wages are obviously unfair, at least incomplete and its function has a big discount. The all figures cannot reflect the shocking truth that Xi Jinping pointed out in Davos World Forum in 2017, i.e. the wealth of the top 1% of the global population has more than that of the rest of 99% population. The mankind wealth has been so much concentrated and we are still trying to whitewash the circumstances and complain the poorer and developing countries. The consortiums like the Rockefeller, Morgan, the First Citigroup, Dupont and Boston, and Yasuda, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sumitomo, and Rothschild Family, Onassis Family and so on, all possess the large quantities of wealth. But if we only observe the relative figures of Gini Coefficient and wages, we cannot get to understand the gap problem. The Coefficient and wage figures are actually hiding the gap problem. These consortiums have far more powers than their governments in economies in many countries. We need to create new coefficient to precisely reflect the historical accumulative results, need reflect the effects of the absolute values of the incomes and wealth. This is very important as we need real figures for how much quantities of wealth concentrated and how much levels that the wealth has been concentrated since the human history and to whom the wealth have been concentrated. We need uncover them in depth. We believe that a society should not only want to see the difference between rich and poor for a period as Gini Coefficient and wages reflect, but also the difference of the absolute amounts of wealth concentrated and its total cumulative amounts. They are much more important to see the difference and inequality.（we will discuss it separately）. 

 

The above mentioned is about good social system, which should be the standard for a democratic society. A society short of this standard will be unable to call it as a good democratic society. We should see political side and more important the economical side as well. Because the development of economies and the improvement of the living conditions for everyone should be given the priority. It is also because that with the improvement of people's living conditions, people sooner or later will require to improve their political situations naturally. It should not intervene from the outside, or like Chinese saying “pulling up seedlings to help them grow”. Otherwise the things often go to the contrary. They are the universal phenomenon that the history of the powers and systems of all countries over the world has revealed to us.

 

From the point of views of political and economic sides at aggregates, China's position on the balance of democracy and centralization is a good and balanced. So it can have been producing the rapid and long-term economic growth, which is so much outstanding in the world, and no one can march them, no one can deny them. The development of the private sector now is a good practice of economic democracy. The individuals legally are allowed to freely set up their own businesses, which also is actually possible. The existence of the state-owned economy in all respects is not only to guarantee the economy steady, but also makes the overall wealth of the society not be concentrated in the hands of the extreme minority. Although at a time the gaps between rich and poor appeared a little bigger, and there are still this or that kinds of faults. After decades of economic development, China has enough strength to correct the gaps. This is the current works for poverty alleviation. But our efforts in the political democracy are not enough, so we paid the prices of “Great Cultural Revolution” and widespread corruptions. The lessons were profound. These are not responsibilities of one or two persons alone. These problems must be solved and can only be solved by a democratic system.

 

At the end of the Qing Dynasty, Taiping Movement, the Uprising of the peasant was with features of religion and guilds. The Uprising army was loyal to death to one person, Shi Dakai. The result was that the uprising army was really defeated by the River Dadu and all dead in the end. But the Communist Party had a democratic system at that time. And one leader became incompetent, then other was elected as leader, and the Communists were alive at the end. So Mao Zedong was a leader elected by democracy. In war periods for 28 years for the independence and the liberation, coupled with the period of Korean War, with a total of more than 30 years in the wars, it needed wartime system with high efficiency, and any supervision and check by different institutions were not necessary. The Party, the Government and the Army were essentially a trinity and represented everything. But when the Korean War was just over, the Communist party leading the whole country quickly switched into the peaceful administration. In order to make the people as the masters of the country, the National People's Congresses and its branches at various levels were established in1954. It completed buildings of the democratic organization.

 

The separation of the people's congress and the government administration is greatly superior to the western "Tripartite Separation of Powers" as the former is separated in accordance with and in beneficiary of the greatest group i.e. people. Therefore, in theory, the system can guarantee the interests of the people at all times. And in "Tripartite Separation of Powers", powers are separated purely in accordance with the functions of powers. Although it can supervise and restrict powers, sometimes it can also reflect the will of the people to a certain extent, the reasonable details are also worth learning, general speaking, “Tripartite Separation of Powers” cannot guarantee the representation of the interests of the people at all times. And it often becomes a tool of the power struggles for the big interest groups. Only at time of election, voters can select a president among the candidates, only whom the big interest group has been chosen. And also because the candidates can only be nominated by personal financing activities and donations and not at the expanse of government, so it gives the green light to the great interest groups to control election in money. 

 

In the process of fighting against corruptions, the experiences of foreign organizations are worth learning. Some foreign institutions such as Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank stress "Anti Bribery and Corruption" ( ABC) education very much. Because the bank is an important object of Bribery, so banks especially underline the education for ABC to all employees. Their all educational arrangements for ABC are responsible by the Department of Compliance –a regulatory authorities inside banks. Every employee of a bank either high or low must takes part of and receive the education. All employees have to take the examination and pass through the Questions and Answers for ABC. Those failed Question and Answers i.e. receiving less than 80 points can't start their works. The first lessons for new employees are the programs of “The Anti-Bribery and Corruption”, and the higher official are, the more they will be educated. Those who have been working in offices for two or three years or take new appointments will have to take reeducations, no matter whether they are repeated. The teaching books illustrate the dangers of bribery and corruptions and the ways bribery often takes and the ways how people resist against bribery, which is extremely detailed, not just a vague context of macro-topics. If you are not sure of the activities you are facing whether they belong to bribery or not, report these to your superior leaders in time. So that everyone is against bribery and corruption and keeps high vigilance and resistance against bribery and corruption. Everyone has to takes very serious attitude at all times. This cares about the officials, cares about the collectives, cares about the people indeed. Their principles of Anti-Bribery and Corruption are: all business activities whatever they come from high officials or ordinary employees have to go through the Compliance, an independent regulatory department for the supervision for the approvals at the end. Those doing specific businesses can take neither work nor responsibility for supervision. Those doing supervising works cannot do specific business and etc and so on very detailed. The high officials involving in arrangement for a specific companies for the specific business are often suspected of possibility to take bribes.

 

The system of democracy and centralization inside the party and inside countries is equally important, fundamental and immortal. The party, the whole China and the all countries of the world cannot have neither democracy and nor centralization. Only we aim our major goal to governing the state and the administration at system of democracy and centralization, it can make us conform it to Marx and Engels’ “for the vast majority of people” and Mao Zedong's “Serve the People”. The party must play a vanguard role in realization of the grand and must goal like: the people become real masters for our country – democracy. Because the democratic right is the center of all kinds of problems that have to be solved. It is an important condition that brings happiness to the “vast majority”. Perfecting the system of democracy and centralization is the greatest improvement in the production relations and it will be the greatest liberation for productivity in China. 

 

The democracy is the ultimate power of the vast majority -people to push the history of mankind; centralization is the powers gathered together by the state for the whole country. The human society must not ignore these two great powers from two different levels. We have good reasons to say we may raise the banner of democracy and centralization even higher than the capitalists, because our goal is more thorough than the capitalists. Their fatal deficiency is said to be ultimate, fundamental and unchangeable “merit”. Our deficiency is conflicting to our ultimate goal, and therefore temporary. China has realized the long-cherished desire of human beings, achieving the high-speed economic growth for about 40 years purely by its own efforts without any direct or indirect helps of wars like some other countries. China's economic success is by no means occasional. It is necessary to sum up for the successful experience for human history, and which can be learned by the whole world. Although China has these or those shortcomings, generally speaking, China has basically handled the crucial relationships between democracy and centralization precisely. We are not talking about democracy alone, because that is not in consistence with the inherent law of human development. Respect these two forces, we can forward even faster and even more smoothly towards an even more equal and fair society. Although democracy and centralization is not everything for the country, it is an important part for all systems, and we cannot work without it for a moment.