Eclecticism: The Relatively Most Acceptable Choice in the Road to China's Reform

             Eclecticism: The Relatively Most Acceptable Choice in the Road to China's Reform

（from Chinese to English by Google translate）

 The Current Situation of Chinese Society and the Extremes of National Psychology and Words and Deeds 

 Disadvantages and evil consequences of extreme and "one size fits all" laws and policies: Criminal penalties for public officials, bribery of public hospital doctors and nurses, collective corruption of state-owned enterprises, compulsory withdrawal of depressed students from colleges and universities, petition system, Beijing's expulsion of "low-end population", the French Revolution  Take the Survival and Death of the CCP as an Example 

 Compromise is the best way to promote peaceful change: Take the CCP’s proposed way to end dictatorship, the so-called “white left” ideology in the West, and “restorative justice” as examples 

 The failed precedents and tragic consequences of radical extremism and perfectionism: Take the Communist Revolution, radical "political correctness", the 1989 democracy movement/June 4 incident, Hong Kong's anti-revision movement as examples 

 The pursuit of radicalism and perfection will be exploited maliciously and backlashed: Take the reforms of past dynasties, the difference between corruption and "political donations", the difference between "power" and "capital", animal protection, and evaluation of political figures as examples 

 Extremism and the pursuit of perfection often come at the cost of harming other people/groups/goals/things: the development of heavy industry in a "socialist country", the "dynamic zeroing" policy, "WikiLeaks" revealing the secrets of various countries, China's radical anti-Japanese in the early 20th century, ancient times  The Defeat of the Two Great Emperors Wang Mang and Yang Guang as an Example 

 Gu Weijun's "70% Theory", Restorative Justice, Fabianism: Eclecticism is Necessary, Valuable, and Feasible 

 Eclecticism is easily exploited and destroyed by evil people and evil forces, and uses it to infringe on the good and keeping the contract: Take the actions of Mao Zedong and the CCP, and Japan’s aggressive aggression and expansion as examples; the difficulties of eclecticism in practice in today’s Chinese reality 

    It is almost a well-known fact that today's Chinese society has extremely sharp contradictions, very complicated accumulation problems, and very little hope of transformation. Political tyranny has reached the harshest state in decades, and political reform has long since stalled. The economic downturn has become an unchangeable fact, and the degree of inequality in income distribution has reached an astonishing level. Ideologically conservative and reactionary, the public opinion environment is suffocating. Various disadvantages in China's education, medical care, elderly care, housing and other fields have not been fundamentally improved due to the abundance of material resources, but have worsened in terms of rationality and fairness. Contradictions between people and groups of different classes, regions, occupations, beliefs, and situations are becoming more intense and difficult to reconcile, the confrontation between those with vested interests and those who are frustrated is becoming more serious, and the degree of social mutual trust and awareness of public responsibility are declining. Vicious public incidents and systemic violence are on the rise. The situation of the poor, women, the disabled, and minorities is getting worse.

    Under such circumstances, where will China go in the future? Where should those who want to change the status quo in China go? The reality is that the signs are not optimistic. Some people are conquered by reality and power, choose to identify with and even praise the current system and rules, attach themselves to the system and the strongman, and become supporters and practitioners of despotism, social Darwinism, cynicism, and refined egoism.

    On the other hand, some people deny everything now, advocate violent, thorough, and uncompromising changes, defeat opponents in a zero-sum game, completely subdue or eliminate each other, and use an ideological system that represents their own values ​​and interests to completely destroy Instead, choose the most extreme and stark option on everything.

    The former goes without saying, we should not let such a bad status quo or even actively participate in it, let it continue to exist. But is the latter a good thing? It is estimated that most people do not agree with it rationally. But in fact, there are many advocates of change who advocate the latter. Just like the recent rise of the Young Maoists, they adhere to the radical Maoist line, advocating class struggle and liquidation. And among the democrats, there are also those who advocate the use of radical means for revolution, and they sneer at peaceful rational non-violence.

    This extreme value orientation exists not only in macro political issues, but also in micro social issues. When disputes or conflicts of interests arise in the process of labor, schooling, employment, providing and receiving services, people often think not of compromise, but of doing their best to harm the other party and maximizing their own interests, achieving a "total victory", or even Don't hesitate to cause the other party to die.

    This kind of political and social atmosphere is frightening. It has greatly deteriorated the social environment and interpersonal relationships, and led to the corruption of people's hearts. All parties have racked their brains to torture each other. In a zero-sum game, everyone is afraid of failure, because the loser will pay a heavy price. This will also lead to the escalation of crimes. People would rather do big evils than small evils. They would rather do bad things without any softness or hesitation. Some leeway and compassion. Anyway, no matter whether it is intentional or unintentional, and how serious the mistake is, it will not be tolerated and forgiven, and it will be punished to death by the other party. It is better to give up the bottom line and do whatever it takes, so as to maximize the benefits. Right and wrong are no longer important in themselves, and all kinds of conflicts and disputes are not based on reason to determine the winner or loser, but a contest of power, money, connections, and ingenuity. This has also caused people to guard against each other, adopt various methods to avoid being victimized, choose to follow others, run around for protection, and focus on guarding against others and harming others. Normal production and life have become secondary instead, leading to stagnation of social development. People are also putting aside reason and right and wrong more and more, only obsessed with strength and means, fear power but not morality, and become more and more utilitarian, insidious, shameless and conscientious. Such a vicious circle eventually turned into a jungle society where there is only the difference between victory and defeat, and there is no distinction between black and white, right and wrong.

    Examples of specific manifestations abound in the reality of China. The most typical thing is the penal system. If a person has a criminal record on his back, he will be placed in another book for life, and his relatives will also be implicated. Public officials, employees of state-owned enterprises and public institutions, and students involved in criminal offenses will all be expelled. However, this system did not really prevent crimes. On the contrary, it caused people to dare not bear the price after committing crimes, and desperately escaped responsibility, which eventually led to more and greater crimes. This kind of well-organized society with vested interests loses huge interests because they are afraid of taking responsibility, forming a community of interests, and turning the actual law into "a doctor who cannot be punished by punishment." In order to maintain the stability of the regime, the rulers and law-enforcers seldom impose criminal punishment on these staff members, because they cannot bear the impact of these elites rebelling against the system. Severe punishments and harsh laws have instead become a decoration, which in turn induces the staff to become confident, and more and more people do things that should be criminally punished but are safe. This led to another law not to blame the public, and then the staff became more and more confident and became an arrogant and domineering privileged class.

   Still others have reached heinous proportions. For example, accepting kickbacks by medical personnel is a criminal offense according to the law. However, almost no one in the tertiary hospitals has illegal income such as kickbacks. According to regulations, all doctors in all major hospitals in China need to go to jail. The actual result of this is that the laws involved have become waste paper, and the regime dare not implement the law at all. As a result, there has been a strange situation where all criminals are treated and nurses are not punished and cannot be dealt with. This in turn has led to the widespread acceptance of kickbacks, which has become more and more unscrupulous, and has become an unspoken rule that everyone knows and everyone doesn't talk about. If the law can have step-by-step or retreat clauses, this kind of situation where the law does not blame the public will not happen. The same is true for medical malpractice and medical liability issues. Seemingly severe accountability ultimately makes doctors even more unwilling to admit the existence of the problem. "In the above, the patient who was caught asked for more compensation. Such bad doctors and nurses are flourishing, and honest and compassionate doctors and nurses cannot mix. In this way, the rights and interests of patients cannot be guaranteed, and doctors and nurses are even more unwilling to fix the problem and make remedies in order to evade responsibility. The patient has become a victim of this ugly but realistic logic.

   On the contrary, if the result of criminal punishment is not so serious, it will not be directly expelled and never hired, or if it is dealt with according to different circumstances and not "one size fits all", then there is no need to have so many scruples when punishing them, and the punishment can be obtained. Execution, because it will not destroy their future, and they will not resist desperately.

   The same is true for the corruption of officials and the nepotism of state-owned enterprises. Because everyone is generally involved in corruption and everyone has nepotism, it is difficult to fight corruption (or only selectively fight corruption out of power struggles), and it is impossible to cut off the network of relationships. Want to completely fight against corruption and put an end to cronyism, it is tantamount to offending everyone. Everyone is on the "thief ship", and everyone will guard the "thief ship". As a result, corruption intensifies and reform becomes more difficult. Even with democratization in the future, it is impossible to eliminate all these corrupt and crony members (even without criminal punishment, it is impossible to remove them all). In the future, only reconciliation through exemption from criminal responsibility and partial return of stolen goods can lead to reform. Although this is certainly not thorough, if one tries to achieve complete integrity and justice in one step, it will inevitably lead to resistance and backlash.

 Another example is the petition system. The central government holds local governments accountable based on the number of petitions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Then the central government did not stop it, and turned a blind eye. On the one hand, the brutal accountability, on the other hand, the persecution of petitioners is indulged, resulting in the petition system becoming a tool to aggravate the victimization of petitioners.

    Not only the petition system, many accountability mechanisms seem to be able to deter the responsible person, but instead encourage the responsible person to commit more and greater evil deeds in order to escape punishment. For example, colleges and middle schools simply remove "problem" students in order to prevent student suicide from affecting the school's reputation and assume joint and several liability, which makes students who attempt suicide even more desperate, their situation is worse, and their suicide motives are stronger. The reason for the cleanup of "low-end population" in Beijing is that some officials are unwilling to take responsibility for various accidents and public security problems caused by "low-end population", and simply expel them to save trouble.

    The same goes for rising to higher and more macroscopic levels. The CCP regime is indeed full of crimes, but there are still differences when it comes to different officials and political figures. If there is no discrimination, or if everyone is killed with a stick, and everyone is liquidated, it will only end up forcing the regime to unite with the outside world, and there will be no more enlightened people to carry out reforms. On the contrary, the enlightened faction will be flanked by the conservative faction of the regime and the people, and the regime will become more evil and lose its bottom line. Tocqueville mentioned in "The Old Regime and the Great Revolution" that the outbreak of a revolution is often not the darkest time, but the time when the regime is willing to make reforms and open social gaps. The problem is that the regime also understands this kind of truth, and the CCP understands it better than the people. They see that the common people are hard-pressed and not soft. In order not to be Louis XVI, they will go back even more crazily. the crucifixion. The complete overthrow and liquidation advocated by the radical revolutionaries is emotionally understandable, but the reality is that it will only lead to the regime’s refusal to back down and intensify the suppression, and it will be the people who suffer in the end. Moreover, the bloody revolution is likely to lead to a vicious circle of mutual hatred among the Chinese people. Even if the revolution wins, it may not bring light, but may be a new round of exploitation and slavery.

   My personal position in the past was to eradicate evil thoroughly and achieve justice with blood. But as I learn more about history, reality and human nature, and I have experienced many things, I realize that this cannot achieve justice, and will only lead to more crimes and the continuation of darkness. Bad guys are also human beings. When they do bad things, they also have emotions and desires, and they are also afraid of becoming a prisoner or even being sent to the guillotine. Therefore, in such a dangerous situation, they will do evil at all costs to keep their vested interests. From their point of view, this is helpless. If they compromise, not only will their vested interests be lost, but their basic dignity and life will also be lost, and their families may suffer.

    Therefore, the more bad those in power are, the more likely they are to spend their lives happily and safely, because the people are afraid of them, and their unscrupulous means make the people have no choice but to accept them; the more humane and willing to reform and compromise, the more likely they will be overthrown or even hanged. frame because it provides a space for people to awaken and rebel. This is so ironic but very realistic.

    Being an emotional and rational human being shouldn't push things in this direction. We can only return goodwill to those in power who are willing to reform, compromise, and dialogue, forgive the crimes they have to do because of the system and reality, abandon the former hatred caused by different positions and interests, and target the most stubborn diehards. Only in this way can more and more people in power stand on the side of the people and realize democratic transition at the least cost. Even those who are willing to reform have blood debts and are also exploiters and oppressors. Of course, this is not completely fair and just, but it is the least bad choice. It can make the light come many years earlier, save millions or even tens of millions of lives, and reduce or even avoid dictatorship for hundreds of millions of people. damage. (Actually, regardless of the bad influence caused by polarized thoughts and means, such thoughts and behaviors are wrong in themselves. If you repay a small grievance with a big grievance, why should you repay a big grievance? If you lose in a zero-sum game, you will end up miserable. If you win, you will Okay? Then I became the perpetrator again, and the dragon slayer became a dragon, and was stared at by the abyss when he gazed into the abyss. The perpetrator who became the winner in this zero-sum game and unscrupulous is more worthy of condemnation, because victory is based on opposing On the basis of the tragic injury caused by others.)

    Many people in the country ridicule the "white left" in the West, thinking that they are "Mother whores", innocent and naive, tolerant and tolerant of bad people, without a sense of right and wrong and justice. But in fact, the opposite is true. The so-called "white leftists" are generally people who adhere to principles, understand right from wrong, good from evil, uphold the truth and seek the truth, sympathize with the weak and all kinds of victims, stand up firmly when necessary, and are willing to pay real money. It's just that while insisting on these things, they don't agree with using violence to control violence and using evil to control evil. They know that doing so seems straightforward and can sometimes solve problems efficiently, but it will definitely breed more hatred and plant even greater disasters. As a result, the more vulnerable end up being the victims.

    For example, if a criminal man is cruelly treated to uphold justice, there is a 90% probability that he will pass on the hatred and injury to his wife and children, classmates, colleagues, or even strangers, and then the wife and children will pass on the hatred and injury to others or even small animals. And the transmission of harm in various indirect ways will eventually affect the stability and harmony of the entire society. Those who did justice and the victims of that man's crimes did well, but those who were more vulnerable paid a greater price for it. As for the punishment of every link and every person in the crime transmission chain, such as domestic violence and animal cruelty, it is actually unrealistic. Criminals have a hundred ways to cover up their crimes and escape punishment. As for which link the victim does not transfer the damage, he chooses to bear it or has to bear it by himself (just like a baby, an old man, a small animal), isn't that actually a more sad thing?

     Bad people or people who are bad in certain things also have dignity and emotion. Simple and brutal retaliation and punishment will only make them feel more at ease and reconcile when they do bad things, and they will be more cunning and vicious when they do evil in the future, instead of reforming their past and rehabilitating their conscience. wake up. This ends up harming good people. Pushing the bad guys to nowhere seems to have a deterrent effect, but in reality, it generally makes them more free to do evil, and the remaining bottom line and conscience are no longer wanted, and they go all the way to the dark. They will also choose to refuse to admit more after committing a crime, leaving victims more wronged and unable to get justice. Some people engaged in social movements in Taiwan summed up their experience in defending the rights of vulnerable groups in reality and said, "The deeper the injury, the harder it is to admit; the bigger the mistake, the harder it is to change. This is a fact that people engaged in reform movements must accept." Moreover, in a zero-sum game, one of the two parties to the conflict must fail completely and pay a heavy price. Is the powerful party with power, money and connections willing to fail willingly? When faced with the danger of family ruin, they cannot lose to the weak even if they violate morality. In a zero-sum game, the stronger side will never back down, and the weak must be the ones who will be harmed. Although it is wrong for bad guys and strongmen to do so, objective facts are also in line with human nature and laws.

     Comparing your heart with your heart, if everyone who reads this article (you) commits the heinous crimes of killing, stealing, robbing and raping, would you be willing to accept the punishment calmly? For example, if you kill someone, are you willing to accept the death penalty? Even saying that you are only sentenced to ten years in prison, or that you have a finger cut off, this is far less than the crime of depriving others of their lives, but are you willing to bear it? Except for a very few people who are very cold-blooded, or kill people out of hatred, and are willing to bear this kind of punishment, the vast majority of people should do everything possible to avoid punishment.

    "White Left" considers the long-term, overall problems and the interests of all parties, does not add new resentment to the existing hatred, takes the principle of stopping and preventing crime rather than revanchism, and avoids the food chain transmission of the weak and the strong. The least cost and the fastest time to move towards civilization and progress (even if a greater price is paid from certain stages and perspectives), is also most conducive to safeguarding the rights of the weak. Those who are willing to reciprocate grievances, and a society where grievances retaliate against grievances, will fall into an environment of intrigue and darkness for a long time, and those who uphold justice who use evil to counter evil are also one of the members that cause this evil result. Of course, if the majority of a certain society is this kind of people who use evil to control evil and bully the weak and fear the strong, and a few are "white leftists", then it is indeed the "white leftists" who suffer the most and pay the most pain, because they are paying for the evil of all parties, Various perpetrators pick up the pieces, both those of the oppressors and those of the oppressed. They used their sacrifices to reduce hatred, bring love and hope to a cruel society, and allow human society to continue instead of killing each other or turning into a hell full of hatred and forests maintained by violence and fear.

    In addition, the Western light punishment system and restorative justice, which have been criticized by Chinese people, and the establishment of a good prison environment are also based on the same logic and reason. Although China's harsh laws and horrific prison environment can deter crimes to a certain extent, in most cases it will only lead to criminals who have to use ten times and a hundred times the means to evade punishment due to various reasons, let alone voluntarily admit crimes in order to maintain To be honest, one after another "resisted strictness to go home for the New Year", private affairs prevailed, and judicial administrators in power became more and more eager to curry favor with bribes. In order to maintain stability, the regime does not dare to imprison all those who should be imprisoned in reality. On the contrary, it is very "tolerant" in law enforcement. After being punished, they become an anti-establishment force that endangers the regime's rule and stability. However, the only people who are imprisoned are relatively powerless and unlucky people who are relatively powerless and unlucky. A very small number of people are the punching bag and victims of society for the majority of people. Law enforcement is lax. Fundamentally speaking, this also violates the principles of fairness and justice and equality before the law (only the losers go to prison, and the winners do more crimes but are safe), violate human rights (criminals are also human beings), and punishment is only a tool for maintaining stability.

    However, the light punishment system in the West is conducive to criminals being brave enough to take responsibility, and it is also conducive to all parties, including criminals, to tell and analyze the truth, and then improve the reality, promote social reform and harmony and mutual understanding between people, so that victims can feel relieved and perpetrators Being punished is also convincing, and ultimately reduces social hostility and harm to the disadvantaged. Moreover, light punishment does not mean no punishment. Punishment can still have a deterrent effect, but it does not make people do everything possible to avoid punishment. In addition, for those who commit the most heinous crimes, refuse to admit, and refuse to repent, they will also be sentenced to long-term imprisonment or even life imprisonment. This will instead allow the worst relatives to receive relatively more severe punishments, and restrain the perpetrators from crossing the bottom line.

    The pursuit of absolute justice, the use of brutality against brutality, or just the use of revolutionary justice to carry out violence against counter-revolutionaries, the momentary pleasure or just lip service, in fact does not help the country and society to turn to democracy and justice, nor does it give the country as a whole. The people bring civilization and progress. Satisfying one's momentary sense of justice, regardless of the chain reaction it brings, is an act without morality and sense of responsibility. But this does not mean making peace and abandoning principles. Just like the "white left" described above, to be more determined to oppose, fight against evil and injustice, to have a more persistent pursuit of the truth, to have more sincere sympathy and help for the weak, and to stand firm when you stand up bravely. If the strong is stronger, the harder will be harder, and we must actively unite all forces that can be united. It is necessary to transform those pent-up hatred and resentment tendencies into the determination and courage to uphold human rights and promote humanity.

    Moreover, if you are too radical and emphasize perfection and thoroughness, there will often be the consequences of "too much to go too far". Typical examples are the socialist and communist revolutions and constructions that took place around the world in the 20th century. Compared with the hierarchical oppression of feudal society and the barbaric cruelty of capitalist society, socialism and communism are beautiful ideas for the equality and happiness of mankind, and they are indeed worth pursuing. However, in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, and even Cambodia, various great tragedies occurred in order to establish a socialist society and realize the ideal of communism. Overemphasis on the purity of the revolution has led to the continuous occurrence of counter-revolutionaries, the obsession with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has made national construction bound by dogmatism, and economic policies that ignore realistic conditions and objective laws have led to famines and industrial edema, advocating uncompromising The class struggle in China has killed millions of lives. Although these tragedies have specific reasons such as power struggles and interest competitions, they are also related to at least nominally pursuing the fundamental goals of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory.

    The controversy over "political correctness" in Western countries in recent years also reflects the reality that radicalism and the pursuit of perfection will be backlashed. "Political correctness" is the product of developed countries that have experienced various historical hardships and gained a lot of experience and lessons, and developed into today's highly civilized society. Various specific "political correctness" rules such as against discrimination and ridicule of minorities/women/disabled/transgender/victims of crime or disasters, against promoting hatred and dissatisfaction with specific groups, against denying the historical treatment of black people in the United States The oppression, massacre and slavery of the Indians, the recognition of the real existence of climate change/the correct scientific conclusion of evolution in the professional field, etc. These "political correctness" are necessary both emotionally and rationally, and are conducive to protecting vulnerable groups, reducing hatred, social harmony, and scientific development. However, some radical leftists and establishment figures overemphasized "political correctness", and were met with a backlash from those who hate "political correctness". Even though some people recognized "political correctness" at the beginning, under the repeated emphasis and discipline, coupled with the influence of disputes between people in reality and the factors of evil human nature, they gradually hated "political correctness", intentionally published or Privately endorse views that are the opposite of "political correctness." One of the reasons why Trump was elected president of the United States was that he ignored "political correctness" and made discriminatory and hate speech at will, which aroused the resonance and support of those who hate "political correctness".

    And in some specific conflicts, aggressiveness and thoroughness can easily be backlashed. For example, the 1989 democracy movement had achieved great results, and the CCP has made a huge compromise that is unimaginable today. At that time, not only the CCP General Secretary Zhao Ziyang and others supported democratization, Deng Xiaoping and others were not strongly opposed to democracy (Deng’s political stance was similar to that of Hungary’s Kadar Janos, he was an enlightened and pragmatist), or It is said that Deng has been hesitating between moving towards democracy and maintaining autocracy, trying to find a compromise solution that requires partial democracy while maintaining the rule of the CCP. Where history will go depends on the changes of the times, especially the game in reality. At that time, both domestic public opinion (all walks of life overwhelmingly supported the democracy movement) and the international situation (the third wave of democratization ushered in a climax, the United States and the Soviet Union both supported China's democratization, and democratic forces in Europe, Asia, and even Latin America and Africa supported China's democracy movement), all were very favorable to China. democratic forces. If the protests in Tiananmen Square end peacefully, young students and people from all walks of life participate in political activities and civil movements extensively, and put into practice the consensus reached on China’s political democratization, China is very likely to achieve a democratic transition like the Soviet Union and Eastern States later (even if the government and the people The cooperation is effective, and the outcome of the transformation of the Soviet Union and most Eastern European countries is better). However, due to the toughness of a small number of radicals, they did not reach a compromise and withdraw in time, which gave the CCP hardliners an excuse, and Deng Xiaoping also fell to the side of supporting the suppression. In the end, the egg hit a stone, and China's later historical destiny was rewritten from "hope" to "" dark".

  (It is worth mentioning that when the June 4th crackdown happened, under the mediation of Liu Xiaobo and other "Four Gentlemen of the Square", a temporary compromise was reached, and the students left the venue in exchange for stopping the crackdown. This is of course justifiable and commendable from the perspective of protecting lives and humanitarianism. But this also proves the fragility of the hard-line forces in essence and the cowardice behind their high-profile words. They are tough on the one hand, but they have not considered what to do if they are really violently suppressed, whether they dare to sacrifice when things come to an end, and the value of how to sacrifice If there is no compromise after the crackdown, the students, workers, and citizens will fight hard, and these people are inextricably linked with all levels of the CCP, including the highest level. Death and disability, parents and even all relatives and friends are "pulled into the water". After paying the price of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries, it may really make the regime scruples, fear, and soften its hands, stop the suppression and even arrest or flee overseas. Even if it is tough The continued suppression of the faction is also very likely to cause splits and mutinies within the ruling group (at least those who have children, relatives and friends who died in the suppression will not be cold-blooded and selfish), such as Romania. Successful, at that time and in the future, billions of Chinese people have lifted their shackles to gain rights and dignity, and let future generations remember their heroism and feats to inspire them to forge ahead and defend democracy. It is also a worthy death. But the situation of the June 4th incident is that after the suppression has occurred And the life-and-death juncture that has not been expanded, the forces including the hardliners and extremists have become terrified, retreated, and given up "wiping the people's eyes with blood", choosing to preserve their strength, wait and see the changes in the situation, and even run away directly instead of being tough In the end, it created a turning point. As a result, it paid the price of hundreds to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of people in prison, which also led to the premature collapse of democratization. Basic human nature, I personally have a similar experience. But objectively speaking, this kind of toughness beforehand and extreme refusal to compromise. In a real confrontation, all previous efforts will be lost at the touch of a touch, losing lives and losing previous gains. This is the worst result of the struggle. Instead, insist on peace from the beginning The rational and non-violent Indian "non-violent non-cooperation" movement, the participants faced the sticks and guns of the British colonists, were brutally beaten and even killed their colleagues, and did not shrink back and were discouraged. They fought unyieldingly and finally won (of course this is also because The level of civilization of the opponents is different, and the victory of the movement also has multiple factors and not just "civil non-cooperation"))

    Hong Kong’s anti-extradition law movement is also similar, not to mention whether some of its appeals are reasonable, only in terms of means and effects, the original large-scale peaceful demonstrations have forced the Hong Kong government to make concessions and terminate the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance", which has achieved more than the previous "Occupy Central". The actual results also let the Hong Kong government and even Beijing see the support and strength of Hong Kong citizens. If we stop here, or continue the peaceful and protracted struggle later, we can completely win the parliamentary elections and other political games (the results of the 2019 Hong Kong District Council elections have verified this point), and expand further based on such public opinion and action. large political space. However, the anti-amendment movement has gradually evolved into violent acts of vandalism, looting, and burning, including indiscriminate attacks on mainland people/pro-establishment people and Chinese-funded/pro-establishment enterprises and shops, and it is not individual but very common. This makes the CCP And the Hong Kong government has an excuse for suppression. Moreover, from the perspective of the CCP and the Hong Kong government, it is impossible to choose to let the large-scale violence go unchecked and compromise, otherwise it will lose its authority and lead to more violence. For the CCP, there is also the concern that the mainland will follow suit. In this way, the regime only has the option of repression, and the moderates in the central government and the Hong Kong government are not easy to stop. The central government and the Hong Kong government, who were forced to retreat, decided to calm down the situation and take the opportunity to eradicate the democratic forces, so violent machines and various public power methods were fully launched, peaceful demonstrations and violent activities were suppressed together, and various political parties and civic organizations were uprooted. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and academic freedom have all been destroyed, and there is no room for democratic forces or other anti-establishment forces to operate in Hong Kong. (As for some people saying that even if there is no resistance, the Xi Jinping regime will destroy Hong Kong democrats and local factions and other forces. This may indeed happen, but it may not necessarily happen. Even if there is suppression, it is unlikely to do everything like it is now. , try not to give the other party an excuse to attack)

    (However, neither the 1989 pro-democracy movement nor the anti-amendment movement was too radical and did not "take it as soon as it is good", neither is the main reason for the failure, nor is it the only reason. Of course, it is still the suppression of the ruling group. And if Compromise does not necessarily lead to compromise from the other party. The CCP can also take advantage of the compromise, especially the termination of the movement and the redispersion of the people, to take advantage of the situation to suppress the non-government forces that have already become popular and pose a threat to the regime, and it is easier to break them one by one.” The failure of Occupy Central can be seen as an example of peaceful assembly and dispersal that did not achieve the best results. Although it also had some impact, as far as the two most important demands of "true universal suffrage" and "double universal suffrage" were not met, Obviously a failure.

   If the 1989 pro-democracy movement "closes as soon as it is good", there will be certain results, but it may not be able to fundamentally change the one-party dictatorship, and the limited freedom and rights may be withdrawn by conservatives at any time. The people do not resist but submit to it, and the dictator who bullies the weak and fears the hard may intensify. Just like in the past thirty years or so, the Chinese people have generally been politically apathetic and have little resistance, but even so, the stability maintenance system has been strengthened since the later period of Hu and Wen, and Xi Jinping has made most of the people "quiet and peaceful". Therefore, "the tree wants to be quiet but the wind does not stop", when the democratic forces are the strongest, the morale is the highest, and the mobilization and participation are the most extensive, if you do not go all out but deflate yourself, it is also unlikely to have good results. If it does that, even if the CCP makes some compromises for a short time, it will not give up its dictatorship. Afterwards, due to changes in the internal and external environment and political struggles, the conservatives will gain the upper hand, and then become more totalitarian and divided to suppress the democratic movement. The people unable to gather will be defeated one by one , democracy is nowhere in sight. Today's history books and comments may say that "the 1989 democracy movement failed to push forward and persevered to the end, but instead compromised and gave in, thus missing the good opportunity for China's complete democratization, and laying the foundation for the later XXX conservatives to come to power to re-strengthen autocracy and oppress the people." .

   During the anti-amendment movement and in the years before and after, Xi Jinping increasingly strengthened totalitarianism, and it was difficult to tolerate Hong Kong, a special zone controlled by the CCP, as a maverick, criticizing him and the CCP regime. Therefore, Hong Kong people may be "boiled frogs" if they do not resist fiercely. The oppression and constriction of the world is likely to be the current result in the end. It is hard to imagine that Xi Jinping and other dignitaries, who are extremely retrograde in mainland China, can tolerate Hong Kong’s annual political party to commemorate June 4th, as well as various daily political activities and media speeches that openly oppose him and the CCP.

   In short, historical changes are affected by many variables, and a change in one of the variables may not necessarily lead to a certain result or not. If this variable changes, other variables will also be directly and indirectly changed. After one variable is changed, it is entirely possible to lead to the same bad or even worse result as when it remains unchanged. Compromise is necessary, but the failure of the movement cannot be blamed on the actions of the protesters who did not compromise)

    The excessive pursuit of radicalness and perfection can also be exploited by those who hinder change. Just like from ancient times to the present, after the central government implements some policies that benefit the people, lower-level bureaucrats try to resist for fear of damage to their vested interests. They dare not oppose it publicly, but they can make good policies produce bad ones by implementing the policies to the extreme. Consequences, arouse strong resentment from all parties, in order to achieve the purpose of its boycott policy. Regardless of the various reforms in ancient times (such as the Wang Anshi Reform, the Reform Movement of 1898), or the various reforms and rectifications today (medical reform, educational reform, fiscal and taxation reform), relevant vested interests often deliberately promote the implementation of policies to extremes in order to force the upper echelons to back down Even the abolition of policies (of course there are some extreme measures that are not for this purpose, such as Shandong's "100 days without children", Beijing's expulsion of "low-end population", and the current high-intensity prevention and control of the new crown, it is not that the lower levels deliberately forced the upper levels to stop Instead, it is deliberately exerting efforts to flatter upwards and rectify the people to show official authority and power in order to obtain benefits).

   Too much emphasis on perfection will also confuse the difference in the degree of good or bad things, the difference in the amount of gains and losses, and systems, policies, ideas, events that are not perfect but have obvious differences in degrees, and each has its own shortcomings but some are obviously "effective". "Soldiers with shortcomings" and some individuals or groups of "flies" are all evaluated as "bad, bad, and evil" and think that "the world is as black as crows." For example, "political donations" that are regulated and supervised under a democratic system are equated with corruption under autocratic rule; The restrictions on speech are comparable to the strict control of public opinion under totalitarianism.

      These positions seem to be jealous of evil and do not rub the sand in their eyes (of course, some are intentionally bad), but they will inevitably lead to "no fish when the water is clear, and no one when people observe", which weakens the enthusiasm and support for the relatively good side. Intensity, let the relatively worse, worse, and worse escape the relatively greater condemnation and punishment that they deserve, hinder limited but valuable progress, and also make further reform and progress lose the foundation and stage. Just like Chinese people often denounce the evils of capital/capitalists, but rarely mention the fact that capital is gentler than power and capitalists are kinder than bureaucrats, which leads to the neglect or downplay of the more vigilant evil of power. Similarly, those who criticize the ills of reform and opening up also cover up the darker and more hopeless historical facts of the Mao era. There are also those who oppose animal protection, always criticizing those who love cats and dogs, why don’t they love chickens, ducks, fish, pigs and cattle (if they love these, they will ask why they don’t protect mice, flies, mosquitoes, even bacteria and viruses), in order to deconstruct The value and necessity of protecting some animals deliberately uses rigid and one-sided logic (rather than a complete system of reasoning), obliterating the compromise efforts made by animal lovers based on reality.

    In addition to evaluating events, when evaluating historical figures, it is also not advisable to equate people with faults or crimes, but with obvious differences in degree, as criticism. For example, although Chiang Kai-shek, Deng Xiaoping, Park Chung-hee and others were dictatorships and killed innocent people, they also achieved certain economic and social achievements. If you compare them with Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and other villainous figures, they are all called cruel dictators. achievements. Such a way of evaluating characters regardless of the degree of righteousness and evil is obviously not conducive to objectively and comprehensively reflecting complex historical facts, making accurate judgments based on differences, and treating historical figures differently in the necessary way.

    Also, under the effect of "extreme things must be reversed", after the pursuit of perfectionism fails, it is easy for the former pursuers to completely lose confidence and become cynics and recluses, unwilling to even participate in improvement, making the reality farther away from the ideal up. After the failure of the Cultural Revolution and the 1986 Student Movement and the 1989 Democracy Movement, Chinese intellectuals and the general public, who were originally passionate about politics, generally chose to stay away from politics and became refined egoists. From the 1990s to the present, the popularity of "farewell to the revolution" and "make a fortune in silence" is the product of the failure of radical appeals and the disillusionment of corresponding political ideals. These are of course what those who hinder change and all kinds of treacherous and evil people want to see and actively promote.

    Also, extreme and complete seem to be "perfect", but they are only "perfect" and victory for some specific goals and groups, but for the whole society and more diverse people, it is damage and failure, and often It will also backfire on the goal itself that is trying to achieve at any cost. Because pursuing the perfection of a certain goal and emphasizing the full realization of the self-interests of certain groups is almost always at the expense of harming other goals and crowding out the interests of others.

   Just like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and other countries once concentrated their efforts on the development of heavy industry, they occupied and consumed the resources needed in other fields, hindered the normal production and operation of light industry and service industry, and made farmers become "blood transfusions" and "victims". ", resulting in deformed economic structure, and unable to meet the needs of the people for light industrial products, agricultural products and various services in daily life, which became an important reason for the final economic collapse and system necrosis;

   Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, various "gift projects" and "one size fits all" law enforcement have been carried out by various departments and localities for political achievements and even to cater to the preferences of the leaders. They have also achieved certain goals and caused greater damage to people's livelihood; The "dynamic clearing" policy of urbanization and isolation as the main means has indeed curbed the spread of the new crown virus, but it has greatly infringed on personal freedom and undermined economic development, causing tangible and intangible losses far exceeding the harm of the new crown itself;

   Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and other "extreme information liberals" have disclosed almost all known secret behaviors and advocated the complete transparency of state regimes and politics, which is of course beneficial to the world Understand the darkness of politics in the United States and other countries in the world, and the invasion of citizens' privacy by the combination of state power and big data, but extreme information freedom will inevitably affect anti-terrorism and national security, damage international political operations and diplomatic relations among countries, and bring various negative effects. and in turn serve as an excuse to curb freedom of information;

    In China after the Revolution of 1911, "National Salvation and Enlightenment" surged like a storm, and Chinese people generally regard resisting foreign invasion and colonization by foreign powers and pursuing democracy and prosperity internally as firm and unshakable goals. This is of course correct in theory, but excessive nationalist tendencies, such as blindly boycotting foreign goods, harassing foreigners in China (of course, many of them counterattack in self-defense), and putting forward very strong xenophobic slogans have led to the relationship between China and foreign powers, especially Japan. deterioration. Facing Japan, which was close to China and powerful, the Chinese people adopted a radical anti-Japan attitude and forced the national government to be tough on Japan. The radical nationalism of China, which was in a weak position, stimulated the more extreme Japanese nationalism and militarism, which made the two nations unable to coexist peacefully and accelerated Japan's invasion of China. subsequent impact and destruction.

   Of course, it is fundamentally the fault and crime of the Japanese side, but if there was a compromise at that time, the people of the country "kept their strengths and bide their time" instead of fighting against imperialism and Japan with great fanfare, and emphasized self-improvement instead of "being humble and respectful", perhaps there would be no such thing as China in the future. A series of disasters, the historical process is also different, and the Sino-Japanese relationship will not be as highly deformed as it is today (if you only look at the Sino-Japanese government-civilian relationship and mutual influence before the "9.18 Incident" and even the "8.13 Incident", Japan is actually There is still a lot of kindness to China, especially the Han people, such as boosting the anti-Manchurian democratic revolution and spreading Western modern civilization as an "intermediary". But after Japan invaded China, especially after the Nanjing Massacre, everything was irreversible. Even if diplomatic relations were restored, it would become a This is an extremely unhealthy and deformed relationship. Japan’s promotion and support of the CCP’s dictatorship has increasingly destroyed the true friendship between China and Japan. Expelling the Japanese did not make China strong and prosperous, but intensified the conflict between China and Japan; and after the reform and opening up, China fully introduced Japanese goods and invited Japanese to work and live in China, which in essence declared the failure and futility of the struggle a hundred years ago , both backbone and benefits are lost (on the contrary, as in South Korea, if you do not resist first but strengthen yourself, and then become independent and "individual" after self-improvement, you will actually develop the national economy and safeguard the interests of national members);

  In history, there are also many feudal emperors who made great achievements and did not hesitate to pursue certain goals, such as Wang Mang who forced comprehensive political and social changes, and Yang Guang who was keen on building huge projects and conquering foreign countries. Some of their goals may have good intentions and functions. It also has a positive meaning, but for this reason, regardless of the limitations of the actual conditions and at the cost of the political economy and the people's livelihood, as a result, there are frequent civil upheavals and rebellion. Their ending also reflects the excessive pursuit of narrow goals and self-interest, and the emphasis on "perfection", which will also attract counterattacks from other people whose interests have been damaged. Some imperfect states are no longer possible.

    "When the moon is full, it will lose, and when the water is full, it will overflow" is a wise saying that has been passed down for thousands of years, but later generations still make the same mistakes again and again, which is heartbreaking.

    Gu Weijun, a well-known diplomat in the Republic of China, once summed up the experience and lessons of diplomatic negotiations and put forward a "70% theory". Gu Weijun believes that in order to strive for one's own interests as much as possible in diplomatic negotiations, if the other party is required to agree to one's demands 100%, even if one's own demands are justified, the negotiation is almost impossible to succeed. Similarly, if the other party wants to meet its requirements 100%, it is obviously difficult for one's own side to agree. Therefore, if you want to negotiate successfully, you have to compromise with each other and seek a compromise solution. In a compromise, you can strive for more benefits for your own side. If the most neutral result is 50%: 50%, then if one's own side can strive for 70%, although not 100% meets the ideal goal, it is obviously a great success.

     Gu Weijun's point of view is very reasonable. Of course, diplomacy does not only rely on negotiations, but also factors such as strength, force, objective conditions, and foreign aid. But no matter what the situation is, appropriate compromises are necessary and beneficial, and conducive to peaceful and relatively smooth results.

    This is true not only in diplomacy, but in all fields. Therefore, for many practical problems, we should seek a compromise solution. For example, when it comes to illegal crimes, financial compensation should be strengthened instead of criminal punishment, and the focus should be on making up for the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators; for all kinds of injustice and darkness, we will not insist on severely punishing the responsible perpetrators, but we must insist on pursuing the truth, Transparency, freedom of speech and freedom of the press to reduce resistance and maximize opportunities to recognize, value and improve problems; involve labor relations and fair distribution, neither "exploitation is justified" nor proletarian revolution and big pot rice, but adopt Fabianism and Social democracy, reconcile class contradictions in a non-violent way, take into account both capital and labor, efficiency and fairness, public and private; when it comes to disputes between the strong and the weak, neither "you are weak and you are right" infinitely sympathize with the weak, nor Ignore the impact of the different conditions and backgrounds of the two parties on the game ability and discourse power of the two parties, and consider the long-term and joint issues while discussing the facts.

    Eclecticism is easier said than done. This requires that both parties or even multiple parties concerned are willing to show goodwill, be honest and sincere, have sympathy and empathy, not be provoked and provoked, be reasonable about right and wrong, argue hard while willing to surrender important interests, patience and willpower. Especially when only one party is willing to make a compromise and the other is not, the psychological test for the one who is willing to make a compromise can be called cruel.

   If a party with malice and no spirit of contract uses the "compromise" of the good party to accumulate strength when it is at a disadvantage, and completely deprives the benefits of the good party when it is superior, and infringes on the latter unscrupulously, then "compromise" On the contrary, it has become an opportunity for the wicked to become powerful and a preparation for doing evil (the behavior of the CCP regime during the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party to the process of gaining power is an example. However, the North Korean Kim regime was able to breathe and continue under the "sunshine policy". Dictatorship and tyranny are also a precedent worthy of reflection). The reason why Lu Xun said "Fairplay should slow down" and advocated "beating the dog in the water" against the evil forces is out of this consideration.

   Mao Zedong said, "Peace is sought through struggle, and peace exists; peace is sought through compromise, and peace perishes." The victory of the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the forced annexation of the U.S. military on the Korean peninsula, and the ability to recklessly do evil in mainland China (after Mao Zedong and the CCP completely controlled mainland China, they did not "compromise" and almost completely wiped out all kinds of opposition forces, including large-scale massacres and man-made famine). The Japanese invasion of China was also aggressive and pressing at every step. The Nationalist Government had already made a series of concessions in the Northeast/Manchuria, Rehe, Shanghai, and North China, but it still could not satisfy the ambitions of the Japanese invaders, and a full-scale invasion of China broke out. war and the Pacific War. In the end, Japan was forced to surrender under the attack of the coalition forces of the United States, China, Britain, the Netherlands and other countries. These two examples show that in the face of insidious, vicious, and ruthless opponents, compromise and compromise will not lead to peace and coexistence, but will be exploited by them to deepen their encroachment and annexation.

   Also, what exactly is a "compromise" and where is the boundary of "medium"? There are many difficulties in specific operation. Eclecticism requires the perpetrators and the society to make greater compensation to the victims, all walks of life have a stronger demand for exploring and revealing the truth (and there are conditions in the system and environment to realize this kind of truth-telling), public opinion must Being more moral and compassionate is enough to rationally make up for the debt to the victim and the public order and good customs of the entire society for not severely punishing the perpetrator. Also, in a society that is too cruel, highly competitive, and has a harsh social environment, it is difficult for eclecticism to survive, because the reality is zero-sum life and death. When the soft persimmon is even cornered (even the bad guys will use the eclecticists and eclectic ideas to make progress and try to benefit from it), whoever makes a dead hand will take advantage. But in fact, such a bad society also needs eclecticism the most, and people are more eager to end the zero-sum game.

    Maybe what I said is also a kind of wishful thinking, and it is difficult to achieve a compromise in reality. Human nature has a tendency to benefit oneself at the expense of others, and the winner takes all, which is difficult to change and overcome. I myself have always been a refusal to compromise, a radical, eager to bring down the wicked (and still do to a certain extent, both emotionally and physically). But eclecticism is indeed the "least bad choice" under the balance of reason and law. Although it is not as in line with human nature and reality as "the east wind prevails over the west wind", it has more conscience and morality than the latter. Eclecticism is not pure fairness or complete justice, but at least it does not encourage the evil of human nature and does not add cruelty and helplessness to this ugly and dark world.