Countries' Powers in the Balance of Democracy and Centralization
(English translation follows)
”的浓缩版，此版载于2017/8/9 - 11日香港《信报》，并对此进行了多处重要的修改,完整成一篇。民主集中关乎几千年各国的人民与国家机器。一切都是相对的，大概只有每人都能平等享用人类创造的财富才可能是人类的终极目标，也是民主集中的终极目标。
没有资本主义专属的自由平等与民主，像经济社会的市场机制也不归资本主义专有。对人类创造的先进文化思想要传承与发扬光大。文化是人类思想的传承，没有思想的东西不是文化，文化有好有坏，文明是优秀的文化。2000多年以来在封建社会里产生的优秀思想可以传承与发扬光大，同样在资本主义社会里产生的优秀思想也可以传承与发扬光大，历史不能割断。但马克思主义最终会迈过私有制的门槛，把这些先进的思想推进得更加彻底，推进到实现每人有平等权力去享用人类共同创造并比较富裕财富的终极目标,这也是人类共同体的目标。毛泽东重大地丰富了民主的内涵，提出了民主与集中的对立统一。民主是几百年梦寐以求的目标——“人民治理（rule of the people）”，集中是统治阶层统治的工具，也是管理国家强而有力的方法。民主与集中反映了人类最基本的历史。
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阶层，即人民大众。统治阶层与人民之间的矛盾、变革与斗争的一个关键问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，即民主的初衷“人民治理”(rule of the people), 或“人民当家作主”。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的掌握着社会各种权力时，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的权力,还是统治-管理阶层掌握更多的权力。
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的力量分散，以致人民和国家力量不足。有些国家，经济上，民主不足而集中过度，往往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，出现无序竞争，恶性竞争，最后走向反面，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个人。当然一些小国有大自然给予的自然资源特殊馈赠，要单独考察。
民主与集中是统治阶层与被统治阶层的中心问题。民主与集中，统治与被统治阶层权力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。人类在为民主与集中平衡的位置而摸索与斗争，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。毛泽东早就指出：“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）。卢梭在《社会契约》里大量使用主权与人民相区别的概念，其中谈到： “如果问主权体和公民各自的权利究竟有多大， 就等于在问这两方彼此之间有多么大程度的承诺……” 和“主权体并非他物，而只是公共意志的体现，永远也不容放弃；主权是集体的主权，……...”可见集中的概念已在卢梭的主权体中体现。
总之，从理论上讲，人大与政府的分立能够时时保证人民的利益。虽然民主需要不断地完善，但由于机构设立的正确性，因而打开了充分完善的空间。而 “三权分立”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”不能随时随地保障和代表人民的利益。从理论上讲，这和“人民治理 ”的要求还有根本的差距---国家权力归什么人所有，统治阶层还是被统治阶层？由于机构上还套用了封建社会的国会议会而设置,没有明确人民所有，尽管做法上有正确的一面,但还往往还使“三权分立”不可避免的成为大利益集团权力斗争的工具。
Countries' Powers in the Balance of Democracy and Centralization
It is a condensed version of the “Countries' Powers in Rising Circulation of Democracy and Centralization”in Caixin. This version was published in “Hong Kong Economic Journey” on August 9th to 11th, 2017, and has been revised at many important points and finally appears the intact. Democracy and centralization concerns people and country’ body for thousand years. Everything is relative, maybe everyone can enjoy the wealth equally, and that is final goal for human beings and democracy and centralization as well.
There is no freedom, equality and democracy exclusively owed by the capitalism, like the market mechanism of economic society is not exclusively owned by capitalism. The advanced cultural thoughts created by human beings should be inherited and carried forward. Culture is inheritance of mankind’s thoughts and things without thoughts is not culture. There are good cultures and bad ones, the civilizations are good cultures. The outstanding thoughts generated during the feudal societies of more than 2000 years can be inherited and carried forward; same as the outstanding thoughts generated in capitalist societies can be inherited and carried forward. The history cannot be cut off. But, finally cross the private ownership, Marxism has been pushing these thoughts advanced more thoroughly, to push these thoughts to the ultimate goal realized finally that everyone has the equal right to enjoy the comparatively rich wealth that mankind has created. This is also the goal of human community. Mao Zedong significantly enriched the connotation of democracy and put forward the democracy and centralization to unify theses opposites. Democracy is "rule of the people" that has been a goal dreamed for a few hundred years. Centralization is the ruling tools of all ruling classes and also the strong and effective methods to govern countries. Democracy and centralization reflect the most basic human history.
I.The unified measurement and balance of democracy and centralization
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 proper position between democracy and centralization and get them balanced, they all have to be measured by the unified and common concepts of democracy and centralization and historically examined by the concepts.
As we know that all countries, be Chinese or foreign ones in ancient and modern time can be divided into the ruling class and the ruled class, namely the people in accordance with the powers. The key 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，i.e. initial intention of democracy“rule of the people”, “people are the master to have final say”. The extreme end of democracy is anarchism and vicious competitions 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 absolute monarchy, 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 to live in collectives and worked by the collective labor divisions. 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 everyone. The centralization means collective rights and requires individuals to comply with unified leadership and to centralize each one’s strength to get more powerful strengths. Therefore the balance mentioned here is the one between the democracy and centralization.
In some countries, politically, democracy is insufficient and centralization is excessive, therefore the ruling classes often inevitably violate a will of the people; for some countries, democracy is excessive and centralization is insufficient, and therefore, the whole society and people may often become decentralized and therefore be very vulnerable and weak. In some countries, economically democracy is insufficient and the centralization is excessive, the economy is weak and cannot develop 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 for its democracy and centralization from both political and economic views. A good society must be a country roughly 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 a 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 them some special gifts of natural resources. And these need to be observed independently.
While talking, people cannot just talk about democratic rights while ignoring the centralized rights, because there will be no collectives, and individuals become very vulnerable and weak. In fact, that's also not the case. Whatever more democratic a society is, 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 fight against the feudal autocracy and monarchy, and someone consciously or unconsciously thought all bad things came from the kings and political systems, therefore focused democracy only on political issues，and neglected even more important economic issues. Centralization includes executives ones, such as government administrations, army, politics and laws etc.; and the special topics such as elections, referendums and collections and acceptations of the public opinions; and cultural ones such as ideology, history and cultural educations, philosophy and religion. However, people also can't just talk about centralized powers and ignore the right of democracy, because such rulers inevitably tend to violate wills of the people, and it may lead to autocracy, dictatorship even tyranny, they also can't maintain rapider economic growth at the end owing to lack of people’s positive momentum for productions, and there will be no proper positions and no happy lives for individuals. The majority could only live like slaves. Democratic rights include the elections, also includes the referendums, the expression and acceptations of the wills or opinions of people, restriction and supervision, appointments, rule of the laws and complete human rights etc. A good society is the combination of the centralized and unified will of the national leading force and the “Letting a hundred flowers blossom” in the society. Otherwise there is a problem. It reflects the democracy and centralization.
Also while talking, people can't just talk about political side without talking about the economic side, or vice versa. However, economic democratic right is concerned with production rights for human beings to improve their living conditions, thus it is the fundamental rights, basic rights, direct rights. This is vital rights of the human society and must not be ignored slightly. A political democracy is to ensure economic democracy，politics serve economy in the end. The common persons have to have their final thoughts about their survivals or lives and want to improve it. The organizers of the productions must consider their profits, which are their bottom line. Some ones without touch upon people’s democracy in the economy are false or ignorant. Therefore economic democracy includes people’s democracy for their better lives, and also includes people to initiate, to run and to develop their own businesses and investments, and as matter of fact, it is possible to do so; Centralization on the economy includes the government's proper leadership, management and guidance on productions and investments. And there are strengths and absolute needs to control wealth concentrations and differences between rich and poor at home and abroad.
Human rights are human’s democratic rights at the end. If we only talk about the rights of political equality, and do not talk about equal rights of the economy, that is we do not talk about the fundamental rights for human survivals. This concept of human rights would have no basis. As matter of fact, it is not necessary to avoid talking about the difference between rich and poor for cover-up of economic inequality. When the conditions of production are tough, the function of appropriate difference can promote the productions objectively, and therefore encourages a part of people for their worthy labors. But society should not allow this difference become too large, and with the improvement of production conditions, the income difference should be narrowed down gradually. It should not protect to cleverly make the excessive profits for minority’s labors through the market mechanism for example the copyright. It makes no difference as monopoly from which improper excessive profits are made. The impropriety is because it can manipulate and keep higher prices at the expense of the interests of majority. This expense is the fewer incomes earned by the majority (it may go through collectives) relative to wealth that human totally made. Society can only develop in the direction of equality and soundness.
Democracy guarantees the correctness of centralization, while the centralization makes democracy powerful. The collectives cannot be given up at result of the production condition improved, also the status quo of collective rights have to be changed with the improvements in production conditions. Because generally speaking, the people usually can safeguard their own interests, and the interests of the people are basically always right. But, although correct, the interests of the people will be different in terms of specific problems and decentralized, centralization should follow the mainstream of the interests of people, extract the rights to reflect the interests of the people and to form powerful forces through the centralizations. It should not consider self imaginations as the interest of people as granted.
Strong centralization requires relatively stable and effective centralized force to lead the country. This is a valuable experience of success of China's for past 70 years. But a steady centralization requires extensive democracy to ensure the sustained and long correctness of the centralization, which is a valuable lesson of the first three decades of China, it should never forget it and so that prevent to repeat the mistake of the Cultural Revolution. This democracy also includes various consultations at all levels, brainstorming. But only consultations are not enough, it must has scientific institutions and systems - mechanisms together to ensure that under normal circumstances, consultations must be carried out. The wisdom of predecessors had set up those platforms, it now needs improvements. Some countries’ good experiences concerned are worth learning. The parliament is also consultations, but it requires a steady and effective centralization to ensure these consultations to have correct results and effective implementation for a longer time.
II.Human Society in a upward spiraling cycle of democracy and centralization
By the unified standard of democracy and centralization to observe 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 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 human societies more powerful. But the feudal autocracy and the various relationships constrained and impeded the production development. Human society has further broken through the dictatorial powers and many constrains that had nothing to do with production and developed into the capitalist societies in the direction of democracy by a big step. By nature, capitalism is opposed to any relations that have nothing to do with money – capital and that restrained productions. It may claim democracy and freedom almost for everything, but with the only exception related with the money and its private ownership that cannot be touched. Therefore it 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 relations and promoted the productions on one hand. But on the other hand, due to the excessive and uncontrolled democracies, the free competitions had reached the extent of laissez-faire. Through ruthless, fierce and free as so-called competitions in economies between people and relentless infringement to others’ interests, relentless merges and gobbled up with others’ interests, the absolutely high concentrations of wealth were caused in the end. They also demonstrated the side of greedy, uncultured 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 capitalism made the big development of production. And Lenin was opposed against the country's absolute monopoly of the economy and against the big centralization and put forwards 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 a high degree for the states according to his understanding of Marx’s ideas and under the threatening pressures of the war II. 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 seemed like the centralization of feudal society; however it rose up to a level higher. The power of the Soviet regime was no longer passed inside the family like a Kingdom. It also controlled from people’s freedoms to 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 wills 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 keeping the centralized leadership, the guidance and managements for the part of nation’s economy, relied on the state-owned enterprises and private enterprises using two legs to walk till run, 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 obtained a huge success. It has developed the democracy i.e. the people have the rights to set up their own businesses, and while it did not fully accept capitalist privatization, a democracy lack of control. China still keeps the part of the centralization on the economy, keeping the collective powers of state-owned enterprises. In the two systems, it has done the reforms by one step backwards while keeping one step forward.
History should not praise excessive centralization -- autocracy (unless it is in war) after all, but a country cannot be without centralization. Ideally, a strong centralization should be perfectly combined with a widespread democracy.
From the point of views of short term, the efficiency of state-owned enterprises (SOE) is less than that of private enterprises, but it has an irreplaceable role in stabilizing social economy avoiding economic and financial crisis. Like a country's army, it does not make any production at peaceful time as "a pure waste", but it has an irreplaceable role to play in a country's stability. The west is now suffering from no good prescription to cure the current economic and financial crisis. On the basis of market economy, SOEs may be considered to develop social mass productions and can be a good prescription. Don't only look at the lower efficiency of the SOEs than the private sector for shorter term, however, but look to the longer term, a blind development of private enterprises will inevitably cause economic or financial crisis, which brings the economic havocs to the societies, and therefore actually has made the average efficiency of the private sector greatly lower. This means that the social economy should properly align with SOE. Roosevelt already took this approach since the great depression of the 1930s. This has played huge roles in America's rapid escape from the great depression of the 1930s. Let alone to say that the absolute private economy inevitably leads to the absolute concentration of wealth and the serious polarization of the rich and the poor. But in the wake of the economic recovery in the post-world War II in Europe, SOEs were phased out. Now it faces the choice again.
III. The division of democracy and centralization
Democracy and concentration are the central issues of the ruling class and the ruled class, and the divisions of powers between them i.e. democracy and centralization further as ruling and ruled classes is the key issue. For a country, different periods have different equilibrium points or division points. Human beings have being groping and struggling for them and the positions as well, and countries seek a different balance between them. In the balance, one country can be more democratic or more centralization, in a certain range, we can't judge the system of the country is good or bad alone with these, the key issue is they have to conform to the people's life and production conditions of the country, be suitable for people's ideological consciousness. Mao Zedong had pointed out long time ago that "inside of the people, there can be no freedom or no discipline, no democracy and no centralization as well. This unity of democracy and centralization, the unity of freedom and discipline, are our system of democracy and centralization." Rousseau in the “social contract” extensively mentioned the concept of sovereignty and the people. He said: “If ask how big on earth the rights of the sovereign body and the citizens each have? It is equal to ask how much extent of the promises they both committed to the each other .......” And “Sovereignty is really not something else, but an embodiment of the public volitions, it has been never allowed to give up; Sovereignty is a collective sovereignty......” As seen, the concept of centralization is already reflected in Rousseau’s “sovereignty body”.
Now many countries in the world have not completely got rid of the monarchy, the kingship. This is political problems, but more serious problem is that “the richest persons of 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 huge, that some ones still pretend out of touch with this reality, still whitewash them. This is neither the goal pursued by democracy nor result of democracy absolutely by any sense. This phenomenon eloquently demonstrated such system has fundamental flaws. You can’t be equal politically but not be equal in great deal economically. You can’t only talk about equality in right, but turn blind eyes to the huge inequality in outcomes of wealth distribution. And economic inequality is fundamental inequality. Democracy profoundly contains the equality. For any bigger matters, one person has one vote, being very equal in rights. This is the essence of democracy.
IV. The foundation of sprites of democracy and centralization
For thousands of years, China's thoughts include Confucius's “Benevolence” is “lover of others”, Laozi's “The best is like water, water is good for all things....” Mencius’s “ Righteousness”, Mozi's “Universal love”, Xunzi's “Follow the etiquette and love others in affection”; in modern times, Mao Zedong’s “Serve people”, Xi Jinping’s “People as the centre”. When connecting these thoughts together, we will find all of these thoughts have advocated the responsibility for the human (as general), others (from oneself ) and people (from modern politics). That is respect of the interests and rights of all others.
And respect for others’ interests is the foundation of democratic spirit. Democracy means respect (precondition of equality) of each one's rights, as respect of each person's right starts with respect of each one's interests. Here it refers to every ordinary people, no matter rich and poor, high and low in positions. This is a last watershed between the human nature and the nature of beasts.
The primary purpose of the democracy is to develop national economy faster and longer and can benefit everyone who can live more happy and free at the end. Internally, political powers should gradually incline enough to the people who rule as masters. Externally, the democratic powers will be used to maintain international peace and cooperation, to prevent aggressive wars, to keep the international economical growth. This is the only right path for the peace for human beings. It direct concerns the future fate of the peace and war for mankind.
The “One Belt and One Road” project will eventually accomplish the unshakable trend and will change and rewrite the historical ways in which human beings get along with each others, and turn fights and wars that among countries to mutual cooperation which countries rely on and develop. Free trades and investments among the countries can give a lot of chances to each one to buy and get the most things that any country wants from each other. So now the world peace which international trades and investments most rely on may irreversibly replace the wars of old time. This also builds firm foundations for the international cooperation.
The fights with each other need hegemony and the absolute advantages of military force wanted however absolutely unable to realize. And the cooperation needs democratic systems. Especially, offensive wars should not be launched in any case. Whatever excuses are used, offensive wars, either seizing for the natural resources of others or expressing one’s own wills, totally conflict with human civilization and democracy. There is no slight of democracy in it, but only shows an authoritarian and dictatorial style. Looking for the enemy, Imagine after defeating the enemy, oneself would become more powerful, as matter of fact, the result is the more you try to find, the more enemy there will be, and the one’s own strength will not grow, but damaged. Imagine, relying on the one’s own economic and military advantages to deal with other countries will not be going long, friend relationship relies on the sincerity, not on the strength, not on the fist, only cooperation is right way for one’s own possibly to become stronger , the strength of all countries will not develop in balance. The final results test any excuses. Talking neither about respect of others’ right nor about economic human rights is totally incomplete human rights at all. It will, at least objectively, attempt to cover up the capitals relentless infringe the other’ rights on the economy at result of the huge wealth concentration. To respect others legal rights and to care about economic human rights are two more requests to rationalize current concept of human rights.
It is unimpeachable for any national government to give priority to its own, but this is not unlimited and cannot infringe on the interests of other countries. To all nations which are relatively or absolutely weak, to people of foreign countries, how to deal with the interests and the relations with them in democratic approaches, it can most thoroughly test whether one truly believes democracy and show most sincerity one has to trust democracy. If you believe that your claim is just, you can deal with the problems of interests and relations with other countries through the United Nations by democratic ways, not a country or a group of countries with same interests will have final say. If the United Nations cannot pass your own claims, it illustrates your claims have to be improved. The use of the United Nations to maintain world peace has not only demonstrated one’s manner for democracy, but also save the costs of a single country. Only this way is most in line with the policy of the “interests of one country's first”.
On the positive side, the benefits of proper centralization can unite whole society, “union is strength”. A minority gives up some of their wishes and wealth in case of need and submits to their wishes of majority and satisfies the interests of majority, so the society can collect strength from each body and become much more powerful, which is the spiritual foundation of the positive side of centralization. But from negative side, “A truth with one step forward will become a fallacy”, excessive centralization forms autocracy. Positive and negative centralization is not absolute; it depends on the objective conditions of society. It is not always a bad thing to emphasize some centralization. For a society, it looks whether a society can get longer-term economic development and benefit everyone; otherwise there will be problems of excessiveness.
Good and powerful centralization can ensure a country's economic and military powerful, can ensure to gather enough strength in the short term to invest long-time and big projects at home and abroad, can guarantee stabilities of social economy and strengths to correct economic errors, guarantee the powers to obligate controlling of the excessive wealth concentration and difference between rich and poor in a reasonable scope both at home and abroad, and gradually narrows it down. But on the contrary, if the powers too much concentrate in the ruling class, if the wealth absolutely concentrates to minority, it will show the autocracy and minority dictatorship politically or economically. This has invisibly or virtually deprived the possibilities of initiation and development of productions and investments of the middle class. This is not only absolutely unfair, but also significantly reduce the social overall decision-makings, relative momentum and activities for productions and investments, seriously damages free market competitions, so the national economy tends to a longer-term stagnation or slow development and the difference between rich and poor will become big. This shows autocracy and dictatorship economically which is much severer than monopoly. Under market conditions, active productions require sufficient free competitions, and free competitions need sufficient middle class. The system of production management is far from enough to replace the decision makings of wealth owners.
V. Wealth concentration and total production momentum
We think that the coordinate diagram between the overall initiatives and momentum of production and the level of wealth concentration is roughly like the shape of a normal distribution. That is to say in general, when the current production conditions are relatively tough, the labor intensity makes most workers unhappy in works, when the levels of wealth concentration including the difference between the poor and the rich are gradually increasing, the total momentum 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 expand to the top, the overall momentums and initiatives for the productions and investments will fall and not rise instead. After the top, the more the wealth is centralized, the more the total momentums and initiatives of societies are falling fast. We can see the signs of this phenomenon from Europe, USA and Japan. In these countries, the economies have been slow down or stopped for a long term and showed the extreme undemocratic in their economies because the extreme a few conglomerates possess an extremely large quantity of wealth. The consortiums like the Rockefeller, Morgan, the Software, the Apple, the Facebook, First Citigroup, Dupont and Boston, and Yasuda, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sumitomo, Rothschild Family, Onassis Family and so on deprived of most of their capitals，the expansion abilities，the opportunities and rights of decision-makings for production and investment from majority, mainly the meddle classes through the completely free and cruel competitions without basic control. 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?
We all know basic spirit that democracy pursues is equal right for everyone. However economic equality is the most basic equality without any doubt. Trying to deny it is false and ignorant and ruthlessly neglects the huge deference between the rich and poor. Many politician and the rich cannot show any democracy and equality in this critical and the core issue, how can they talk about democracy and equality? How can they talk about everything they do for the people? Political democracy does not necessarily mean economic development naturally. And the political democracy that does not bring economic development in the longer term represents the political democracy is a bit too much excessive that has made the society disorderly and weak. So political democracy cannot bring any happiness to the people of the country in the end because it cannot bring about economic development in a longer term.
It can't judge the rights of wealth distribution are equal or not purely and apparently according to the rights, disregard of so huge inequality in outcomes of distribution that the rights produced. The equality of actual outcome is the fundamental one, and is the real meaning of dream of equality that human long-term in pursuit for. Of course, the equality of distribution rights has the great improvements from the wealth distributions of the feudal hierarchy, but they are still far from the real equality.
The most advanced human thought should be more democratic by nature. It should admit the capitalist pushed democracy forward with big steps and laid a better foundation than feudalism, but capitalism has stopped in front of the private property. This caused the high inequality in the outcomes of wealth distribution. In earlier period of time, these unequal outcomes provided a great impetus for productions on one hand, but it also produced and accumulated human inequality on the other hand. Obviously, this is far from the real equality that a complete democracy means. We cannot but observe this relationship of money-capitals. When we look at this monetary relationship, we found the problem.
Economic equality also means to the equality of wealth possession, not just the equal rights of possible wealth possessed. In other words, the ultimate goal of democracy is to let everyone get roughly equal and opulent wealth. Wealth includes all kinds of resources for livings and productions. It is impossible for people to have the full equality of wealth owned but without political equality. However certain degree of political equality and democracy does not necessarily mean equal and also democratic possession of wealth. Of course, a complete political equality and democracy will inevitably mean the equal possession of wealth. If even wealth can be enjoyed equally, what other powers cannot be enjoyed equally? To see this from opposite side, wealth inequality will mean political inequality and undemocracy. Wealth is the central and most basic necessities and demand for human beings to improve their living conditions. This huge wealth gap and still growing on, it is getting farer and farer from democracy. Is the huge wealth gap the greatest inequality and undemocracy in human society? So to realize the true democracy, it has to pay for costs, the costs of your own efforts and wealth from some rich people, and gradually makes roughly equal in wealth. Democracy has never come without costs. We think this kind of emphasis on the equal outcomes of wealth distribution is the ultimate criterion for the test whether the ruler can truly represent the people or not.
VI Society’s encouragement and limits of the income of people
In theory, it is God’s truth that the results achieved by individuals should belong to the individuals, and everyone has the rights in pursuit of happiness. But the resources used by the individuals in productions are public resources, which mean everyone can use them and when you use them, other people can no longer use them. So societies have the rights and very much need to limit parts of income of the super rich people. Societies should properly encourage the active contributions of people mentally and physically but limit these encouragements. These encouragements will be shrinking inevitably with the improvements of working conditions. Beyond the appropriate encouragements, it is in fact t that societies have overpaid for minority labors. In these cases, they are no longer the encouragements. We acknowledge the differences of incomes among people because we should encourage the efforts of part of people, but we should not admit this difference that has become too large because it has serious harms to societies and whole people. We must look for the proper ways to control them. It is our societies that have made the over-payments to the minority to bring about those super rich people, and therefore that 1% population’s wealth more than that of 99% population. It is absolutely unfair. All kinds of man-made disasters and fights among human societies are consequent from this unfair at the end. Economic problem is most basic problem.
Without any control, it will lead to excessive competitions among people and serious harms to others' interests. And absolute individualism inevitably leads to these relentless competitions, inevitably leads to law of the jungle, and finally leads to the extreme concentrations of wealth, economic monopoly and despotism. We know more gathered in Europe and the USA and Japan, the super rich people have extraordinary huge private wealth that human have made. For example Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Amancio Ortega, Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim Helu &family, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch, Michael Bloomberg and so on and those who are hidden. The super-rich have wealth far greater than ordinary people. Any kind of perfect democracy should not allow it due to the excessive competitions. The extraordinary wealth can be called as unjust wealth when considering throughout human history. Thus the countries with such a large wealth gap cannot be called sound democratic countries at all.
VII. The separation of the People's Congress superior to the "Tripartite Separation of Powers
From the point of political and economic views at aggregates, China's position in the past 40 years on the balance of democracy and centralization is 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 deny them. That lifted most people out of poverty. The development of the private sector now is a good practice of economic democracy, which also is actually possible. The private sector has made the huge contribution for high economic development of China’. However, China still has kept enough State own economy. This has not only kept economy steady but also kept the social total wealth out of hands of minority. But political democracy in China is not enough, so China paid prices of “Culture Revolution” and officials relatively widespread corruptions and other social problems. It needs actively and continually proper improvements.
As soon as the Korean War was over, China soon has switched to peaceful administration and established People Congress at different levels in 1954 and finished the construction of democratic institutions. The separation of the People's Congress and government is greatly superior to the “Tripartite Separation of Powers” (TSP) because Powers are separated in beneficiary of the most large group of people, this specifically allows the more powers of the rule for people as needed according to the intention to set up of the People’s Congress and the basic division of the society, i.e. the ruled class and ruling class. It also just conforms to the original meaning of democracy i.e. “rule of the people”, let people use their election methods according to the conditions of their own country and tested through the history to organize a professional institution - government to run the country. There are different ways of elections in the world. China elects President (chairman) in the National People's Congress; the USA elects President indirectly by parties, Elections of both China and USA are basically suitable for current objective conditions. Russia directly elect a president and so on. They all have imperfect shortcomings more or less to improve. In China, for example, the elections of local people's representatives are often influenced by local officials, and it is needed to eradicate. And the candidates are required by the constitution and not by individuals. In the USA, the reason for individual donations allowed for candidates to nominate from local is absurd, says individual donations are an expression of the will of the individual, if follow this logic, everyone uses bribery is also expression of bribery wishes, then it could be legalized. Money influence is very obvious. It is fair to put an end to individual donations instead to use the governments to make payments for elections with same treatments to everyone. The direct election in Russia theoretically is fair, but the population is vast, the people's consciousness and the information obtained both is quite limited, it cannot avoid to be affected by the local various interest groups.
Theoretically, the separation of the People Congress and the government can always guarantee the interests of the people. Although the system of democracy needs to be improved continuously, the correctness of the setting up of People’s Congress opens full space to improve. The powers of “Tripartite Separation of Powers” are purely separated according to their functions. Although they can supervise and restrict powers used, sometimes can also reflect the will of the people, certain reasonable details are worth learning, generally speaking, the TSP cannot guarantee and represent the interests of the people anytime and anywhere although the politician said it can. In theory, there is still a distance fundamentally between the TSP and the requirements of the “rule of the people” as democracy – firstly it needs to answer who owns the country’s powers to rule, the ruling class or the ruled class? Because the Parliament and Congress simply follow the ways of feudal society to setup and no clear specification that people should have the powers, even though there are right things to do, and it often inevitably use the TSP as the tools of power struggles among the groups of great interests.
VIII. Democracy and centralization are not all, but it is the key to all systems
Democracy and centralization are vital, fundamental and immortal to all countries. And the world cannot leave democracy and centralization at all. As the most basic and the way to rule, the essential goal of the governance and the administration of a country are to try to continually look for the proper positions and balance between democracy and centralization. This is the biggest improvement of production relations and therefore the biggest libration of productivity.
Democracy - the great power that people have to push history forward, and centralization – the great power that a country use to centralize everyone’s strength can emanate powerful forces. The human society can never be neglected. Who should continue to lift up the banners of democratic and centralization? It depends on who has more completed goal and more conforms to democracy and centralization. China has achieved the dream of mankind to shake off poverty and backwardness with firm and steady steps towards the final goal of abroad and complete democracy and strong and proper centralization. It has made the rapid development of the economy for forty years on its own. It is not direct or indirect helped by certain wars as some countries did. China's economic success is by no means accidental. Only by respecting the power of democracy and centralization as well, the world can move faster and more smoothly towards richer, more equal and sound societies. Although democracy and concentration are not all things to countries, it is an important key to all systems without a moment to leave them.