Countries' Powers in the Balance of Democracy and Centralization

(English translation follows) 

 

这是财新网“各国权力在民主与集中的循环上升中”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。

 

 

1.民主与集中的共同考量与平衡

 

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适当位置的选择与取得平衡，它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。

 

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。

 

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。

 

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。再民主的社会最后都必须要集中，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，一些人也有意无意地认为一切坏事仅来自国王和政治制度，所以谈民主就主要谈了政治话题，而忽略了更重要的经济问题。集中有行政的集中，如政府的管理，军队,警察和法庭等；有专题的集中，如选举，公投和人民意见的汇集和采纳等；有文化的集中，如意识形态，历史和文化教育,哲学和宗教等。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较长久的发展。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。民主的权力包括选举，也同样包括公投，人民意愿或意见的表达与采纳，制约与监督，任命，依法治理与完整的人权等。一个良好的社会是把国家领导力量集中统一的意志与社会的 “百花齐放”相结合，反过来就有问题，这体现了民主集中。

 

人们谈民主与集中时，不能只谈政治而不谈经济，或只谈经济不谈政治。然而经济上的民主权力是人类改善自己生存条件而进行生产的根本权力，因此是基本的权力,基础的权力,直接的权力。这是人类社会至关重要的权力，绝不能丝毫的忽视。而政治上的民主说到底是保证经济的民主，政治为经济服务。一般人必须要为自己的生存或生活做最终的考虑，并想法改善它。生产的组织者必须要考虑生产的利润，这是他们的底线，不谈经济方面人民的民主权力是虚伪的或无知的。因此经济上的民主权力即包括每个人争取更好生存的权力，也包括创业、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；集中在经济上包括政府对生产的适当领导管理和指引，绝对必要的控制财富的集中和贫富分化等。

 

人权说到底就是人的民主权力。如只谈政治平等的权力,不谈经济平等的权力,就是不谈人生存的基本权力,这样的人权概念就失去了基础。不要为掩盖经济上的贫富差别而不谈经济上人的权力问题。应该承认贫富适当的差别，在生产条件比较艰苦的条件下，客观上这起到对一部份人所付出的有价值的劳动的鼓励，因而推动了生产的发展。但社会应不允许这差别太大，而且随生产条件的改善，这差别应逐步缩小。不应该保护通过市场机制如版权而使少数人的劳动巧妙获得超额利润。这无异于通过垄断而取得不正当的利润。这不正当就在于它可通过操控价格并以牺牲多数人应取得的劳动报酬为代价，而牺牲多数人的利益就是相对人类创造财富的总量使多数人（或通过集体）获得较少的报酬。社会只能向公平合理的方向发展。

 

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。因为一般来说，人民通常会维护人民自己的利益，而人民的利益基本永远是正确的。但，尽管正确，由于人民的利益在具体问题上会有不同，会分散。集中就要顺应人民利益的主流，从人民提出的利益中提炼出正确反映人民主流的利益而集中并形成强大的力量，这不可把自己的想象想当然地当作人民的利益。

 

强大的集中需要有相对稳定而有效的集中力量来领导，这是中国近七十年成功的宝贵经验。但稳定的集中需要广泛的民主来保证这集中持续而长久的正确，这是中国前三十年的宝贵教训，不可忘记，防止再出现文革式的错误。这民主也包括各级各种协商，集思广益。但光有协商还不够，得要伴有科学的机构设置与制度-机制来保证在正常情况下，在大事上必须进行这协商，前人的智慧已为现在的人搭建好这民主集中的机构平台，需现人来完善。一些国家这方面好的经验也值得学习。西方的议会也是一种协商，但需要稳定而有效的集中来保证这协商能长久正确的结果并高效的执行。

 

2.社会在民主集中的周而复始螺旋中上升

 

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。因而这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。这一方面极大地解放了生产关系推动了生产的发展，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，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，但基本核心没有触动。这引起马克思的批判，但他也肯定了资本对生产的巨大促进。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施行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。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，但保留了部分国有经济，依靠国有企业与民营企业两条腿走路到跑路，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。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，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。在这两种制度中，进行了这一进一退的改革。历史无论如何不应赞美过度的集中—集权（除非在战争中），但国家不能没有集中。理想的是，强大的集中与广泛的民主完美的结合。

 

从眼前看国有企业的效率比不过私有企业，但在稳定社会经济方面，在避免经济与金融危机方面有着不可替代的稳定作用。像一国的军队，军队平时还不进行任何生产，“纯粹是个浪费”，但对一国稳定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。在市场经济的基础上，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在效率上比不过私企，要着眼长远看，盲目发展的私企不可避免地会引来经济或金融危机，从而给社会和经济带来的巨大破坏，这实际上将私企的平均效率大幅度降低。这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。不要说绝对的私营经济不可避免地会带来财富的绝对集中和贫富的严重分化因而带来极大的不公平。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。

 

3.民主与集中的权力的分割

 

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。 

 

现在世界一些国家还没有完全摆脱国王君主制，还或多或少地保留着封建世袭制度。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)。财富集中与贫富分化到了如此的地步，一些人却还闭目塞听，粉饰太平。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。因为你不能政治上平等，而经济上有极大的不平等；不能只讲权利的平等而对财富分配结果的极大不平等视而不见。而经济上的不平等是根本的不平等，民主深刻包含了平等，因为无论政治上经济上的大事，一人一票，权力平等，这是民主的精髓。

 

4.民主与集中的精神基础

 

几千年来，中国的思想，从孔子的“仁” “即爱人”，老子的“上善若水，水善利万物….”，孟子的“义”，墨子的“兼爱”，荀子的“术礼义而情爱人”，现代毛泽东的“为人民服务”,习近平的“以人民为中心”。我们连贯起这些思想，就发现这些思想里面都提倡并饱含了对人（从一般来讲），他人（从自己来说）及人民（从现代政治来说）的关爱，就是对他人的利益与权力的尊重。

 

尊重他人的利益是民主精神的基础。民主就是讲每人都有平等的权力并得到尊重，而尊重每人的权力首先就要尊重每人的利益。这里指的是每一个公民，不论贫富和地位高低。而尊重每一个人是人性与野兽本性最后的分水岭。

 

民主的根本目的在现阶段是要使各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。对内，政治上要逐步恰当向人民倾斜，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。这是人类生存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”的工程将最终改写历史上人类和各国之间相处的方式，把各国之间主要靠相互争夺变成依靠相互合作而生存而发展，并把其变成不可动摇的趋势。贸易和投资在各国之间的自由来往，可以使各国相互之间买到绝大多数本国想要的东西。所以国际贸易与投资赖以生存的世界和平不可逆转的可以取代过去年代的战争，并为国际间合作打下坚实的基础。

 

相互争夺要依靠想建立但又绝无可能建立的军事绝对的优势，要依靠霸权；而相互合作要靠民主制度，尤其绝不能发动侵略战争。因为发动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愿，这里面丝毫没有民主而言，而表现的是集权专制与独裁霸权的作风。对外寻找敌人,以为战胜敌人自己就会强大，结果就会越找越多,把不是敌人也最后搞成敌人，自己的实力也不会增长，只会实力损伤。想靠自己经济和军事的优势和别国打交道是不能长久的，友好关系是靠真诚，而不是靠实力，不是靠拳头，只有合作才有可能自己的实力得到发展，各国实力发展也必然是不平衡的。结果检验着一切借口。不谈尊重别人的权力，不谈经济的人权是不完整的人权，它在客观上掩盖了资本通过财富高度集中对大多数民族对大多数的人民的人权在经济上在事实上无情地侵犯。尊重他人合法的权利，讲究经济上的人权，这是对人权合理化的两个基本要求。

 

本国政府以本国利益优先，是无可指责的，但这不是无限的，不能侵犯别国的利益。对一切相对或绝对弱小的民族,对外国的人民怎样处理和他们的关系,是否真心用民主的方法处理和他们的利益与关系,这彻底考验着是否真信民主，最显对民主的真诚。要是你坚信自己的主张是正义的，可经联合国用民主方法处理与他国利益和关系，不能一个国或一个利益集团国家说了算。如联合国用民主的方法不能通过自己的主张,就说明自己的主张还有问题,有待改进。用联合国来维持世界和平,不仅表现了民主的风范，而且还节省了单一国家的开支。只有这样才最符合“一国利益优先”的政策。

 

从积极面来讲，适度的集中好处是社会能很好的团结，“团结就是力量”。 少数人牺牲一些自己的愿望和财富，而服从大多数人的愿望，满足大多数人的利益，这样才能汇集成力量，这是积极面集中的精神基础。但从消极面来说，“真理向前一步就是谬论”，过度的集中可能形成专制独裁。积极与消极的集中不是绝对的，要看社会的客观条件。适当强调一些集中并非都是坏事，对一个社会来讲，要看经济是否得到较长期的发展并惠及每一个人，否则就有过度的问题。

 

良好而强大的集中可保证一国经济与军事等的强大，可保证短期内聚集足够的力量，对内对外进行长期大的投资项目，可保证社会经济的稳定并有力量纠错，可保证在国内外有力量有义务控制财富的过度集中和控制贫富差别在一定合理的范围内，并逐步缩小。但如果相反，当权力过度向统治阶层集中，当财富向绝对的少数人集中时，就表现了政治上或经济上的集权和少数人的独裁。这在无形中在事实上剥夺了那众多的中产阶层创业与发展的可能。这不仅绝对不公平，而且严重减少社会总体生产和投资的决策，动能与活跃程度，严重损害市场的自由竞争，因而使国家经济往往会长期停滞不前或发展缓慢和贫富差别过大。这在经济上表现了比垄断还厉害的专制与独裁。活跃的生产，在市场条件下无论如何需要足够的自由竞争，而自由竞争需要足够的中产阶层。生产经理制远不足以代替财富所有人的决策。

 

5.财富的集中与生产的总体动能

 

我们认为社会总体生产动能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，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，当财富集中和贫富差别逐步加大时，社会总的生产投资的动能会得到提高。但当社会财富集中到一定程度后，扩大到顶点时，社会总体生产与投资的积极性与动能不升反降，而且财富越集中，社会总体生产积极性与动能下跌的越快。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的迹象。像洛克菲勒、摩根、微软，苹果，脸书，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-主要是中产阶级生产与投资的资本和发展可能，完全剥夺了他们的机会和决定权，使99%的人掌握的财富还不如1%的人多，这怎么能通过自由竞争而使国家经济具有较活跃的程度呢?

 

我们知道民主所追求的根本精神是每人权力的平等，而经济平等毫无疑问是最关键的平等。在这最关键的问题上，试图否定它们是虚伪的和无知的，是对巨大的贫富差别一种无情的漠视。他们不能表现丝毫的民主与平等，他们怎么能奢谈什么民主和平等呢？怎么能谈为了人民呢？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。这样的政治民主由于长期不能带来经济的发展也绝不能给该国人民带来愉快。

 

不能只是简单和表面单看分配权力上是否平等，而不管这权力能产生分配结果的如此巨大的不平等。实际所得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很大的进步，但这离真正的平等还相差很远。

  `

人类最先进的思想从本质来说应更讲究民主。应该承认资本主义比封建主义将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，造成财富分配结果的极大不平等和财富的高度集中。这些结果在一段时间内，给生产提供了巨大的动力，但另一方面也积累起了人类的不平等。显然，这远不是彻底民主所指的真正平等。我们不能不观察这种金钱关系。当我们一旦观察这金钱关系时就发现了问题。

 

经济上的平等也就是指拥有财富的平等，决不是仅停留在可能拥有财富的权力上平等。换句话说民主最终目的是每个人都能得到大致平等而丰富的财富。财富包括各种生活与生产的资料等。每个人有了财富实际拥有的全面平等就不可能没有政治上的平等，而有了政治上的一定平等与民主并不意味着财富享有的平等与民主。当然有了政治上彻底的平等与民主就必然意味着财富享有的平等。如连财富都能平等享用，还有什么权力不能平等享用呢？反过来说，财富所有的不平等就意味着政治上的不平等和不民主。财富是人类改善自己生存条件的中心和最基本的诉求。这种人与人在财富上的巨大的差距并仍在不断加剧就是远离民主。在财富所有上的如此大的不平等，难道不是人类社会最大的不平等和不民主吗？所以要实现真正的民主就要付出代价，要付出自己的努力和财富，并使财富逐步达到大致的平等。搞民主从来不是不需用各种代价。这种注重分配结果的大致平等，我们认为这是统治者是否能真正代表人民的最终标准。

 

6.个人的努力与财富高度集中

 

理论上讲，个人创业和努力的成果归属个人是天经地义的，因每个人都有追求幸福的权力。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，但你用了别人就不能再用。因此社会就有权力和十分有必要对一部分超级富裕人的收入加以限制。社会应对人们在脑力和体力的积极贡献加以适当鼓励并以此为限。而这一鼓励随人们劳动条件的改善而必然缩小，超出这一适当的鼓励，即为社会对极少部分人的劳动支付了超额报酬，其不再具有鼓励作用。我们承认差别，因要对人们的积极努力加以鼓励，但我们又不该承认过大的差别，因这对社会有严重的伤害，必须加以控制。正是社会对一小部分人支付了超额报酬，才形成超额巨富，才形成99%人的财富还没有1%人的多的结果。这绝对不公，而且人类社会的各种人为灾难与争斗说到底皆生于此。经济问题是最基本的问题。

 

失去任何控制就会出现人与人之间的过度竞争和对别人利益的严重伤害。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，最后走向财富极端高度的集中，经济上的垄断与专制。我们知道较多聚集于欧美日的超级巨富都有超常的巨大私人财富，拥有人类创造的绝大多数的财富，像比尔·盖茨，巴菲特，贝索斯，高纳，扎克伯格，埃卢，埃里森，查尔斯·科赫，戴维·科赫，布隆伯格，还有那些藏而不露的超级富豪等等拥有的财富要远远大于本国普通人民的财富。任何一种完善的民主制度不应允许由于过度竞争而使人与人之间的财富有如此大的差距。因此，从人类的整个历史来看，那些超常的财富可以称作不义之财。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。

 

7.人大与政府的分立优于“三权分立”

 

从政治与经济汇总来看，中国近四十年来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、无人能否认的快速而长期的经济增长，使多数人摆脱了贫穷。民营经济的发展并实际上得到了发展就是很好的经济民主，，它为中国经济快速发展立下了巨大的功劳。迈出这一步需要足够的勇气。但中国仍保有足够的国有经济，这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。但是中国在政治上的民主还有不足，因此付出了“文革”与官员较大面积的贪腐的代价和社会的各种问题,须保持不断的积极而适当的改革。

 

中国在朝鲜战争刚一结束，就迅速转入和平体制，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“三权分立”就在于人大的分立是以最大的受益人为依据对权力进行分割，按社会基本划分为统治阶层与被统治阶层--人民，而明确把治国的权力给人民；它也符合民主的初衷“人民治理”, 由人民按最符合本国国情并经过历史考验的选举方法组织成专业机构---政府去管理国家。世界各国选举方式不同，其中中国由全国人大选举主席,美国由党派间接选举总统,二者都基本适合当前的客观条件。俄国直接选举总统等等。它们分别从本国情况出发，都或多或少有不完善的地方需要改进。比如在中国，地方上人民代表的当选常常受一部分地方官员的影响，要杜绝，按宪法要求每一个候选人，而非个别人的要求。在美国，基层候选人的提名靠个人募捐的原因十分荒谬,说个人捐钱是表达个人的意愿,按照这逻辑，那贿赂也是表达贿赂人的愿望,可以合法化了,金钱影响十分明显。要靠政府出资一视同仁才公平，杜绝个人募捐。俄国直接选举，理论公平,但人口众多，人民觉悟和掌握信息有限，不可避免受地方各种利益集团影响。

 

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。

 

8.民主与集中不是一切，但却是决定一切制度重要关键

 

民主与集中对各国都是至关重要的、根本的和不朽的,世界各国不能没有民主，也不能没有集中。治国理政的根本目标说到底就是随生产力的提高而不断找准民主与集中的恰当位置并找准平衡，这是最大完善生产关系，是最大的解放生产力。

 

民主这众人-即人民推动人类历史前进的伟大力量，集中这国家汇集众人的力量，人类的社会决不可忽视这两个层面发出的强大力量。民主与集中的大旗应由谁扛起？看谁目标更彻底，更符合民主与集中。中国实现了人类梦寐以求的愿望摆脱贫穷落后的面貌,更坚定而稳步地迈向广泛而真正的民主，强大而适合的集中目标。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。各国只有尊重民主与集中这两方面的力量，才可能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，但却是决定一切制度的重要关键，一刻也不能缺少。

 

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.   

 

 

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.