Qin Hui: How to be a qualified left-rightist in China

2016-11-02 15:04:08

Source: Phoenix Review

After the Opium War, China began to open its door to the world. In this process, the debate over physical fitness once became a key option for political correctness. Today, China is still in the process of modernization transformation, and comparison between China and the West is a regular topic in discussions on transformation. What is the difference between China and the West? How do you view Western values? How to be a qualified left-rightist in China? Recently, the famous scholar Qin Hui gave his own interpretation of this. This is the third in the series. The first is "The difference between China and the West lies in problem awareness, not values", and the second is "A batch of "Bi Fu Swords" emerged in the late Qing Dynasty".

The government that regulates the least is the best government?

What should be paid attention to in the exchanges between China and the West is not the difference in values, but the awareness of issues. There are differences in problem awareness between China and the West. If they are confused, it will lead to great misunderstandings.

Problem awareness has nothing to do with values. For example, we all have values ??that advocate freedom, but when fighting for freedom, we each face different problems. In the past, Chinese people were not satisfied with their marriages. The problem was fighting for freedom from their parents. Therefore, during the May Fourth Movement, many people believed that opposing fathers and mothers represented the liberation of individuality. This was a kind of problematic consciousness. Even if the values ??are the same, different environments and states lead to differences in problem awareness.

There are two major misunderstandings in the exchanges between China and the West. One is that we use different values ??as a reason and believe that we should have values ????distinct from the West. The second is that we ignore the difference in problem awareness and regard Westerners’ problems as ours. problem.

Nowadays, many people talk about the left and the right. Some people often say that the left advocates big government. For example, the left in the West appreciates the welfare state; the right, such as liberals, likes the government to do less. There is a famous saying that the government that regulates the least is the best government.

Jefferson, the founding father of the United States, has a great influence on the current left and right in terms of thought, and both the left and the right like to quote his works. There is a long-standing debate in American intellectual history about whether Jefferson was a leftist or a rightist. It was once rumored that "the government that regulates the least is the best government" was said by Jefferson, and even the authoritative Western reference book "Encyclopedia Britannica" said so. This famous saying has influenced generations of Americans, but the source of Jefferson's saying has never been found. Later it was discovered that the first person to say this was actually John O'Sullivan, a fan of Jefferson. He often described his views as those of Jefferson. In 1837, he published an article in the American Democratic Review magazine, saying that Jefferson said that the best government is the government that does the least, and this sentence has been passed down.

As far as I know, no one in the United States has refuted this verification. But whether Jefferson said this is one thing; whether he had the idea of ??small government is another. Some people say that he has, and give an example. During the Philadelphia debate, he served as ambassador abroad and wrote many letters to the country. Some of them said that no government in Europe is a good thing, whether it is the revolutionary government established by the French Revolution or the traditional government. dynastic government. He also said that the lives of Europeans under these governments were unfortunate and inferior to those of the Indians in the United States, who were primitive peoples without a government. These words seem to indicate that Jefferson had a small government mentality. Jefferson once said that between the government and newspapers (he refers to newspapers as free public opinion), it is better to have newspapers without government, but never to have government without newspapers. This sentence is also regarded as proof that Jefferson advocated small government.

Later, some people in the United States refuted this. This refutation was all related to real politics. Those who said Jefferson advocated small government were all Republicans, and those who said Jefferson advocated big government were all Democrats. people. Regardless of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, or even the American Communist Party, they all regard Jefferson as their ancestor. The Communist Party of the United States clearly stated in the party constitution of the 1940s that the ideas of the Communist Party of the United States came from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Jefferson, and Lincoln. There are two reasons. First, in the political schools of the United States at that time, Jefferson was considered to represent the grassroots, and the Federalists who opposed him, such as Hamilton, represented the rich. This made the democrats think that Jefferson was their ancestor. Second, in the political debates in the United States at that time, Jefferson was a thoroughgoing anti-federalist. He had strong objections to the excessive power of the government, especially the central government, while the Federalists advocated strengthening federal power.

The real confusion is that Hamilton, who is recognized as a representative of the rich, advocates big government, while Jefferson, who represents the poor, advocates small government. However, Americans now generally believe that those who sympathize with the poor should support big government and increase taxes and welfare; those who sympathize with the rich should support small government with laissez-faire, no taxes and no welfare. Jefferson was considered both a representative of the poor and an advocate of small government. This confuses Americans today. Some people say that Jefferson advocated small government, while others say that Jefferson was a natural leftist and advocated big government. These people have their own reasons for their arguments.

Americans were confused by Jefferson’s left and right factions

Someone noticed that Jefferson once mentioned in a letter: Americans are now swinging between big government and small government. It's like a pendulum, but I believe the pendulum will eventually stop in the middle.

And based on this, Jefferson was opposed to small government. He advocated a moderate government, neither too big nor too small. Others say that Jefferson advocated big government, citing the following reasons: One of Jefferson's friends, George Mason, was also his comrade-in-arms, comrade, and fellow countryman. He famously said that the best government is the one that provides the most services to the people. Although this sentence did not come from Jefferson himself, George Mason was a spokesman for the Jeffersonian faction, so his sentence represents Jefferson's advocacy of big government.

These things once confused Americans, and Roosevelt was one of them. According to the American point of view, Roosevelt was a very leftist person, and his New Deal changed the principle of non-intervention of American liberal capitalism. The United States is not a high-welfare country, but it does have some welfare benefits. These benefits mainly come from Jefferson and Kennedy, who both advocated "anti-poverty." One of the freedoms that Roosevelt advocated was the freedom to avoid want, that is, the freedom to not be poor. Some current economic liberals disagree with this statement and believe that it is okay for the government to protect voting rights and property rights, but how can the government protect you from being poor? To protect the undeserved poor, we need to engage in redistribution, which is something that economic liberals are opposed to.

There is a very strange phenomenon in American history, that is, left-wing presidents who implement welfare policies to protect vulnerable groups basically come from wealthy families, including Roosevelt and Kennedy; the most right-wing presidents in the United States are all children of ordinary people. , the most typical one is Reagan. Roosevelt had regarded Jefferson as his idol since he was a child, and often quoted Jefferson's words, because Roosevelt believed that he represented the poor and Jefferson also represented the poor. Roosevelt has a famous saying: Standing behind Jefferson are the poor and working people of the United States, and standing behind Hamilton are the industrial and commercial bosses. He said, after more than 120 years, we have seen too many Hamiltons, but can we find another Jefferson? What this means is that he wants to be Jefferson. Roosevelt's policies are considered to be those of big government. He adopted a series of economic intervention practices that some consider Keynesianism and others consider socialism. Now some people even say that Roosevelt is learning from the Soviet Union and Obama is learning from Mao Zedong.

Everyone who says this in the United States is a far-right person, and they are all trying to scold Roosevelt and Obama. No one has ever said directly that Roosevelt really imitated Stalin. But after Roosevelt came to power, he did change the laissez-faire policy of the United States. When he was elected for the second time, he said, "The United States is facing many problems now. Everyone is looking at the government, but the government has turned its back and ignored everyone (he refers to the laissez-faire Hoover government). Until now, some people still Can we tolerate fooling everyone with the nonsense that the best government is the most indifferent government?" At that time, this sentence was still recognized as being said by Jefferson, so public opinion was in an uproar. How can someone who considers himself a follower of Jefferson attack Jefferson's famous sayings like this? This put Roosevelt in a very awkward position. Roosevelt admired Jefferson because Jefferson represented the poor, but Roosevelt's way of representing the poor was to engage in redistribution and a welfare state, which was very different from Jefferson's ideas.

I can understand Jefferson. The problems faced by Jefferson at that time and those faced by Americans now are very different. At that time, Jefferson and others were engaged in the anti-British cause. They were dissatisfied with Britain for two reasons. One was that the then British king ruled North America with tyranny. They believed that the King of England had many powers that he should not have, such as taxing taxes in North America. The Boston Tea Party opposed the tea tax, but Britain taxed tea without authorization. This was a power that the British Crown should not enjoy. Second, they believed that despite heavy taxes, the British Crown did not provide the services it should provide to the people of the North American colonies. The British king monopolized the trade with the Indians for furs and other goods and made a lot of money, so they did not allow white people to harass them. The white people in the colonies were pioneers. If they wanted to open up, they would have disputes with the local Indians. They believed that the British government did not protect the white people enough and was an irresponsible government.

People in the welfare state have no reason to be grateful to the government

It makes sense to say that Jefferson was an advocate of small government, because he was very afraid that the government would have too much power; The proponent of big government is also justified because he is afraid that the government will have too little responsibility. Both statements have appeared. For example, "the government should provide the most services to the people" is the rhetoric of big government. During the New Deal, Roosevelt had trouble interpreting Jefferson.

Roosevelt’s friend Lippmann was a well-known American political commentator. He once pointed out: "The best government is the government with the least control. This is completely true; but it is also true that the best government is the one with the least control." The government is also the government that provides the most services. "If these two sentences are taken to the extreme, it will become that the best government should be the one with the least power and the most protection of freedom, and at the same time the one with the greatest responsibility, allowing us to get the most. The most welfare government.

Financially, it should be a government that does not tax but provides high welfare. However, a government that requires horses to run and not eat grass cannot exist. It can only Choose between the two. You can choose a government with great power and great responsibilities, or a government with small power and small responsibilities, but you cannot expect a government with very small power and very large responsibilities, nor can you expect a government that does not tax to provide high welfare. This is Problems faced by Westerners now.

The government has infinite powers but infinitesimal responsibilities. It levies excessive taxes on the people and at the same time fails to provide them with any services. If faced with such a government, and simultaneously demands to limit its power, hold it accountable, and ask for more benefits, this is Contradictory? Of course it's not a contradiction.

The so-called debate between big government and small government is based on the correspondence between the government’s powers and responsibilities. Big government is a government with great power and responsibility; small government is a government with small power and responsibility. It is a contract government in which power is given by the people. We give it power so that it can assume service responsibilities for us. If you want it to take more responsibility, give it more power; if you are afraid that its power will be too great, you cannot ask it to assume too much responsibility for us. In this context, there is the argument of big government, small government, the welfare state, and laissez-faire.

But people in Jefferson's time did not face such a problem. People in Jefferson's day, and indeed people in all pre-constitutional times, including the United States and Europe, had no such awareness of the problem. What the Europeans were facing at that time was a king who naturally wanted to impose excessive taxes but was not responsible for his subjects. Although the king will do some things for his subjects, this is not called a responsibility. If the king does something for you, it is a great kindness. If he does not do it, he cannot be held accountable to the king. Therefore, welfare states are all kinds of weird, but they have one unique characteristic: in all welfare states, you will never hear people thanking the government. No Swede, including Sweden, where the government is responsible from cradle to grave, thanks the Socialist Party. Because they believe that we require the government to take responsibility for providing welfare. If it does not provide welfare, you will step down; if it does well, you will be in power. There is no need for people to thank the government.

If you want to express gratitude, it proves that there is no way to hold it accountable. If it gives you something, you have to be grateful. If it doesn’t give it to you, the government has no responsibility. The so-called lack of responsibility does not mean that it does not do things, but that it does this thing just as a hobby. Providing welfare in Sweden is not the government's hobby. There are also right-wingers in Sweden who do not want to do welfare, but they have to do it after being elected. Because this is what Swedish law stipulates. If you don't want to do it, you have to change the law. Change of law will not be passed in parliament. In a contract government, regardless of left or right, the correspondence between rights and responsibilities is only realized based on the contract.

If there is no correspondence between rights and responsibilities, the problem will be huge. What would you think if the king's power was not granted by you, and he did not do things for you, but only wanted to do things for himself, and he exacted exorbitant amounts of money just to raise three thousand beauties, build ten-mile palaces, and ten thousand hectares of forest gardens? Would you blame him for having too many benefits? Of course not. Faced with such a situation, everyone will be like Jefferson. On the one hand, they complain that the government is irresponsible and demand that the government's responsibility be strengthened, that is, to pursue a government with great responsibility; on the other hand, they want to limit the power of the government, that is, to pursue a kind of government. Small government in the sense of power. This pursuit is easy to understand, but when people change their awareness of problems, they will forget these things.

It is ridiculous to say that the Qin Shihuang era was a small government

I once told some friends in the United States that after watching the American debate on the Jefferson issue, as a Chinese, I seemed to be more powerful than an American. The reason we understand Jefferson better is not because I am influenced by American culture or because I speak English well, or because I have read more of Jefferson’s books than they have, but because our awareness of issues is closer to that of Jefferson’s time. Many Americans today cannot understand Jefferson's awareness of problems, not because their values ??are so different from Jefferson's. The reason why they cannot understand Jefferson is because they have not been under tyranny for too long and have regarded constitutionalism as a self-evident premise. They discuss these issues without discussing these premises at all. Nowadays, in the West, the standard for measuring a country's welfare is the percentage of government revenue to GDP. It is believed that a country with high taxation is a welfare state, and a country with low taxation is laissez-faire. A well-known domestic scholar said that China has become a high welfare country because China's tax level is already very high. Can this be true?

An interesting right-wing economic liberal once wrote an article in a newspaper, saying that the government in the era of Qin Shihuang was a small government. Because it does not engage in compulsory education and does not engage in publicly funded medical care, although it can behead or punish the nine tribes at will, he said that Qin Shihuang's government was a small government. It makes sense for Qin Shihuang to execute the Nine Tribes because it can reduce the danger of a big government. If a normal government wants to achieve control, it must maintain a large number of police officers, and it will become a big government. Qin Shihuang invented a way to let people supervise each other and report on each other. If you speak against the government and I don't report you, I will kill us all together. In this way, if all the people act as spies and supervise each other, the government will not need to support so many police officers, and it will achieve a small government.

Is it still a small government if you can kill people from nine tribes at will? He believes that small government is what Westerners now call a government that does not engage in welfare. According to this standard, Qin Shihuang is definitely a small government, and Sweden is definitely a big government. But which liberal would rather live in the era of Qin Shihuang than in Sweden? Presumably they didn't enjoy their stay in Sweden, but they certainly didn't think they would be happier under Qin Shihuang's rule.

Rulers often want to maximize their power and minimize their responsibilities; on the contrary, no common people do not want their rulers to have the least power and the greatest responsibility, so that they can serve the people without collecting money. The reason why constitutional governance arises is because both of these propositions are unacceptable.

The former proposition can be realized, but it should not be possible. It would require the ruler and the ruled to reach a contract, corresponding to rights and responsibilities. But ordinary people have different opinions on this. Some people like more services and are willing to give more power. Some people are afraid of the government's power and do not expect it to provide too many services, so the debate between the multi-party system and the left and right arises. . What is finally reached is a majority opinion, and powers and responsibilities are arranged accordingly.

The government’s power is not restricted. Shouldn’t it require restrictions on its power? The government is irresponsible to the people, shouldn't it be held accountable? There is no contradiction between the two. It’s not enough to ask a horse to run fast and not eat grass at the same time. But when faced with a horse that eats delicacies but is unwilling to run, we ask it to eat less and run more, so there is no problem.

The leftists of Marx’s generation also did not agree with state control

The left’s support for the welfare state is only a phenomenon of the 20th century. This was not the case in the 19th century, and it was not the case in Marx’s time. When Lenin drafted the "Party Program" of the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1895, he added a paragraph of remarks that would today be considered far-right. At that time, many people said that the Czar's government was strong enough to protect workers and suppress capitalists. Lenin wrote a passage at that time: A government with unrestricted power is the greatest disadvantage to workers' liberation. Workers' liberation cannot rely on a strong government and its bureaucracy. On the contrary, a government with unchecked power and its bureaucracy are the most dangerous enemies of workers' emancipation. The liberation of workers is our own business. We can only liberate ourselves and cannot rely on the so-called strong government.

This passage will make people think that Lenin is referring to a bourgeois government? When a bourgeois government becomes stronger, it will be detrimental to the workers, but Lenin said that this government is not a bourgeois government, but an autocratic government that the bourgeoisie must also oppose. When the bourgeoisie rises up against the autocratic government, the proletariat should join forces with the bourgeoisie. A government with unrestricted power will violate both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It is unacceptable to both the bourgeoisie and the property class. This actually falls under the so-called liberal rhetoric.

Not only Lenin, but also Marx and other people in their ideological discourse criticized laissez-faire economic ideas. For example, Marx was critical of Adam Smith, but he was basically positive about Adam Smith's historical significance. British classical political economy represented by Adam Smith is one of the three sources of Marxism, which is also what the textbooks say. To the leftists of Marx's generation, any idea of ??state regulation was worse than laissez-faire. In the 17th century, Quesnay, who advocated laissez-faire, was highly praised by Marx. On the contrary, the mercantilists who advocated state regulation were scolded by Marx.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, classical liberalism represented by Adam Smith was something Marx was willing to criticize and inherit. Those who opposed Adam Smith and advocated state control, such as List, are now highly praised by some leftists in China. They belong to the so-called historicist school. Marx and Engels had nothing good to say about the historical school. Many people now recognize that the ancestor of the welfare state is Bismarck, but when he implemented welfare, the German left was opposed to it, and those who supported Bismarck were rightists who were even more right than the liberals. But also in Germany, during the Weimar Republic, the left became in favor of increasing welfare, while the right opposed it. Welfare states are all based on democratic states. In the autocratic era before democratic states, the issues of welfare states and laissez-faire were pseudo-issues, because at that time there was basically neither welfare nor freedom.

If we can use a coordinate system to divide the power and responsibility of the government, we will see that there are actually two types of contemporary Western governments. One is that the government has greater power and less responsibility. A relatively large government implements high taxes and high welfare economically. This kind of government is a leftist government, a social democratic government. The other is a government with small power and small responsibilities, which provides the most freedom but does not give too many benefits. This kind of government is a classical liberal government. These two kinds of governments are a choice faced by Westerners now or in the 20th century. This kind of choice is left and right, but it also has a unique feature, that is, the correspondence between power and responsibility.

Apart from these two possibilities, are there any other possibilities? For example, there is little power but great responsibility. Westerners were not satisfied with the status quo, so they began to pursue such a kind of government. Like Greece, let's call it a leftist country because it collects very few taxes. Call it a rightist country because it has a lot of benefits. Of course, this problem is also advancing with the times. It did not exist before. It has become serious after globalization.

How to be a left-rightist in China

If you want to support a certain faction in China today, is it possible? If you are a leftist and advocate big government, you need to make it clear whether you advocate a responsible government or a big government. This issue doesn’t need to be raised in the West, but it must be raised in China. In Poland, the advocate of a responsible government is Solidarity (Polish workers' organization). Solidarity holds the government accountable all day long - why can't we buy milk? Why is there not enough heating? All these must be settled with the government. Not holding people accountable but extending their power is another way of being a leftist who thinks the government should tax more.

There are two ways to be a rightist. For example, you can ask for restrictions on government power, you can't arrest people at will, you can't tax taxes whenever you want, etc. During the financial crisis in the West in 2008, some media published an article by seven scholars blaming the Western welfare state, saying that the current problems in the West were all caused by the welfare state. These people are leftists, but it is strange for leftists to say this. People on the right think it is natural to say this, because this is what the right in the West talks about.

But if Western rightists can say this, can Chinese rightists say this? Of course it won't work to have a leftist as the director of taxation who collects more taxes, and then use a rightist as the director of civil affairs who doesn't care about anything and saves all the money to serve the government.

I do not advocate making the government responsible for welfare from cradle to grave, but if government power is all-encompassing, we should be accountable to the government from cradle to grave. This is justifiable and does not affect freedom. doctrinal stance. On the other hand, if I were a leftist, I would be willing to raise taxes under modern political conditions, because only high taxes can provide high welfare. But if I were in the era of Qin Shihuang, and I was a leftist, should I endorse its exorbitant taxation? Isn’t it commonplace for the left to oppose the arbitrary expropriation of autocrats? How could opposing arbitrary taxation go against the left’s position? On this issue, what really causes us to misunderstand is not what values ????are, or even whether we are too left or too right, but that our awareness of the problem has a big misunderstanding, and this problem exists not only in China, but also in the West. .

Democratic systems are more likely to produce deficits

Question: How can we minimize the power of the government and maximize the welfare of the people?

Qin Hui: It’s impossible to want the horse to run and not eat grass at the same time. But as a kind of negotiation price, this kind of appeal is necessary. When the government wants to shirk responsibility and expand its power, it must step up and emphasize the opposite. The government advocates excessive taxation, but if it doesn't do anything for you, you have to point it out tit for tat. Even a penny of taxes you levy is illegal, and I can ask you for welfare from the cradle to the grave. In the process of mentioning it, the government's hateful ideas cannot be realized, nor can your unrealistic ideas. In the end, everyone will sign a contract and negotiate a result-how much grass does the horse eat? How much walking?

There is a very interesting phenomenon in the history of constitutional government in democratic countries. Whenever constitutional government is achieved without violent revolution, or even when violent revolution is caused by change, the initial entry point is financial issues - the issues that lead to change. All are deficits. What is a deficit? It means that the government cannot collect the money it collects, or it cannot collect what it thinks it should receive, and some expenses cannot be ignored. In this case, the first step for the government will be true financial disclosure and budget transparency. Many people now say that one way to achieve a peaceful transition is to start with the budget. Starting from the budget, we need to allow the elected people to show their accounts. If he has infinite money but is unwilling to spend it on the public, will he be willing to show his account books? Even if it is shown, there must be two accounts, and the one shown is fake.

Under what circumstances is the government willing to disclose its account books? Only when the government wants to collect money but cannot collect it, and the people force it to keep spending, and the deficit is unbearable, the government will show everyone the account books: I only collected so much money, have mercy on me, or give me less Do something, or charge less. So we started bargaining, and there are two possibilities. One is that the bargaining is successful, and the powers and responsibilities are aligned. The government's power is recognized by the people and can be pursued by the people; the other is that the bargaining fails, so there is Congress and Struggle of Kings. At that time, the constitutional government of Britain and France was established because of fiscal deficits. If there were no fiscal deficits, the king would not need to convene parliament. The king convened a parliament not because he had a sense of democracy, but because he had no money to spend and the deficit was too large for him to bear, so he wanted to discuss it with taxpayers.

With the exception of East Germany, which was influenced by West German factors, the first countries to undergo changes in Eastern Europe, such as Poland and Hungary, both have the largest deficits among Eastern European countries. The converse is also true, democratic systems are more likely to run deficits - Buchanan and others have also said this. This is easy to understand. Their government collects money from the people, but the people don't like to pay. Instead, they force the government to spend more, which makes it easy for the government to run a deficit.

So although what you said cannot be done, we must do it, because bargaining is what must be done to move towards modern politics. Of course, it is originally impossible for the Greeks to neither pay taxes nor provide welfare, but they can eat Europe. If this continues, Europe will be eaten up. In the end, it will not work. This is a problem faced by a country's democratic system. question. A country's democratic system originally only solved the country's problems, but in the context of globalization, a country's financial problems often go beyond the scope of the country, because it can be overdrawn on a global scale and play games that were previously impossible for one country. , it seems that it can be played. In this case, the requirements for the Greeks must be reversed. The government cannot be held accountable too much, nor can the government's powers be restricted too much. The government should be allowed to collect more taxes. Do less welfare because they are already in debt. But if we say it this way here, we will have no conscience. Under the conditions of different problem awareness, the demands are different.

Question: If society helps the government assume its responsibilities and thus has some restrictions on its power, is this transformation mechanism feasible?

Qin Hui: I just think this approach is unworkable, because no one is willing to give up the power that does not bear responsibility. To limit its power, we can only ask its responsibility. When this responsibility When it becomes too big to bear, it will be willing to limit its power. Just like the Polish ruling party back then, Solidarity put so many demands on it that it could not meet, so it had no choice but to hold a roundtable conference and give up some of its power. If people starve to death without holding Poland's rulers accountable, can Poland change?

So whether it is power restriction or accountability, it should be gradual. For example, before the Sun Zhigang incident, people could be arrested at will. After the Sun Zhigang incident, such things have become less common. This is to limit the power of the government, and we can continue to go forward. On the one hand, power is gradually restricted, and on the other hand, accountability is gradually increased.

You just said that the people should bear responsibility for the government. Why? We do charity not to shirk responsibility from the government, but because we believe that we have the right to participate in public welfare. The reason for setting up schools for migrant workers is that we have the right to provide education, but it does not mean that the government should not provide compulsory education for migrant workers. The two can be carried out at the same time. Now the situation is reversed. The threshold for the government to provide education for migrant workers is very high. Migrant workers must meet various conditions before the government assumes its obligations to them. As the same saying goes, when power is unrestrained, we cannot shirk responsibility for it; when responsibility cannot be investigated, we cannot expand power.