n***c
发帖数: 7400 | 1 华大学伦理学和政治哲学教授、清华大学苏世民学者(Schwarzman Scholars)项目的讲
席教授贝淡宁(Daniel A.Bell，丹尼尔·贝尔）近日在英国《金融时报》发表署名文章
，他预计到2035年时，在中国执掌大权的仍是中国共产党，但这个执政党会改叫别的名
字。《金融时报》称贝淡宁为“中国模式”（The China Model）专家。
贝淡宁6月22日在《金融时报》发文，标题前半截乍一看很惊悚，似乎是加入了“
中国崩溃论的大合唱”，后半截却是转折。在这篇题为《对中国来说，共产党的末日就
在眼前——但只是名义上》（ For china the end of the Communist party is nigh
— but in name only）的文章中，贝淡宁认为，中国的政治体制不会崩裂，而中共即
使“消亡”也只可能是“名亡实存”。因为这个组织现在“既不共产主义也不是一个政
党”，更像一个精英统治组织。
贝淡宁认为，在组织结构和党统领国家这个意义上，中共属于“列宁主义”，但它
不具备“列宁主义”的其它一些重要特征；列宁主义式的政治动员在中国早已成为历史
，因为它也必须顺应民意，反腐之类群众运动有可能，而“大跃进”之类运动就很难。
贝淡宁认为，中国共产党也不是一个“政党”。 在过去的三十年中，中共在重新
建立类似的古代中国的精英体系：通过考试选拔政府官员，并且基于他们在基层的表现
。拥有8600万党员的中共是一个涵盖不同社会阶层的多元化组织，包括资本家，它的目
的是代表整个国家。
既然如此，坚持把自己叫做“共产党”似乎令人费解——即使党员怀疑马克思主义
，大多数学生害怕自己的马克思主义必修课程。
贝淡宁认为可能是因为现在改名时候不到。首先，这个类似精英公会的组织现在还
需要从中共历史中汲取意识形态合法性。
更重要的是提高精英统治质量和水平；党并不需要统一意识形态，只要民众认为政
治体制能 够做到择优而仕就行了，而反腐运动是强化中共合法性的必选动作，但效果
要过一段时间才能显现。
而且儒家强调尊老，对革命先烈前辈要足够尊敬。贝淡宁认为，再过几十年，老一
辈革命英雄们辞世之后，不改名的理由就会少一条。
观察者网编译自《金融时报》等
For China the end of the Communist party is nigh — but in name only
Daniel Bell
China’s economic troubles and increasingly rigid ideological controls
have led prominent China watchers to forecast the crack-up of its political
system. I share the view that the Chinese Communist party may soon be
extinct — but the extinction will be in name only.
In fact, the CCP is neither communist nor a party. Few Chinese believe
it will abolish the market economy and lead the march to higher communism.
It is “Leninist” in the sense that it is vertically organised and rules
supreme over the state apparatus but it lacks other vital features, such as
the idea that class conflict is the motor of history, a commitment to the
idea of communism at home, and support for revolutionary overthrow of
capitalist regimes abroad.
And the days of Leninist-style political mobilisation are long gone
because the party must be sensitive to public opinion. The CCP can mobilise
around causes such as its anti-corruption drive if there is already social
demand; but no longer around hare-brained schemes such as the Great Leap
Forward, which radically conflict with what people want and what most
scholars see as sensible.
Nor is the CCP a political party. In the past three decades, it has (re-
)established a meritocratic system similar to that of imperial China:
government officials are selected using exams, then promoted based on
performance on lower rungs. With 86m members, the CCP is a pluralistic
organisation that co-opts leaders of different sectors of society, including
keen capitalists, and it aims to represent the whole country.
It is puzzling that the CCP should cling to its name given widespread
antipathy in China to communism. Even party members distrust Marxism, and
most students dread their compulsory Marxism classes. The very idea of a
party that represents part of the population also has negative overtones.
Confucius criticised quarrelsome people who associate along party lines, and
surveys in China show a preference for “guardianship discourse” with
elites responsible for the good of the whole society.
So why does the CCP stick with the name? It makes sense to change it to
something — say, the Chinese Meritocratic Union — that better corresponds
with the reality of the organisation, as well as to what it aspires to be.
In informal political talk in Beijing, there is often agreement that the
name should be changed. It is also recognised that it cannot be changed now
because the organisation still draws on CCP history for its ideological
legitimacy.
Yet the past 30 years have on balance been positive; and furthermore the
CCP is increasingly looking to the long run of Chinese history for
ideological legitimacy. The more it identifies with pre-revolutionary
history, the more it can distance itself from the recent past.
The days of Leninist-style political mobilisation are long gone because the
party must be sensitive to public opinion
Most important is to improve political meritocracy. The CCP does not
need a unifying ideology, so long as people agree that the political system
does a good job of selecting public officials with superior qualities. The
pressing problem of corruption casts doubt on the question of virtue. So the
anti-corruption campaign is essential to buttressing the legitimacy of the
CCP, though we will not see results for a few years.
Another reason the name cannot be changed now owes more to Confucianism
than to communism. Revolutionary heroes who fought to establish a great
nation are still attached to the name. Filial piety is a core value in China
, and dutiful sons and daughters should not upset the elderly — especially
those who sacrificed for the country. Sometimes harmony matters more than
truth.
In a couple of decades, however, the generation of revolutionary heroes
will have sadly left this world. At that point, there will be less reason to
stick to an obsolete name that needlessly casts the ruling organisation in
a negative light.
So here is my prediction. In 2035, the CCP will still be in power but it
will not be called the CCP.
The writer is a professor at Tsinghua University and author of ‘The
China Model’ | f******t
发帖数: 19544 | | a******9
发帖数: 20431 | 3 说的有道理
nigh
【在 n***c 的大作中提到】
: 华大学伦理学和政治哲学教授、清华大学苏世民学者(Schwarzman Scholars)项目的讲
: 席教授贝淡宁(Daniel A.Bell，丹尼尔·贝尔）近日在英国《金融时报》发表署名文章
: ，他预计到2035年时，在中国执掌大权的仍是中国共产党，但这个执政党会改叫别的名
: 字。《金融时报》称贝淡宁为“中国模式”（The China Model）专家。
: 贝淡宁6月22日在《金融时报》发文，标题前半截乍一看很惊悚，似乎是加入了“
: 中国崩溃论的大合唱”，后半截却是转折。在这篇题为《对中国来说，共产党的末日就
: 在眼前——但只是名义上》（ For china the end of the Communist party is nigh
: — but in name only）的文章中，贝淡宁认为，中国的政治体制不会崩裂，而中共即
: 使“消亡”也只可能是“名亡实存”。因为这个组织现在“既不共产主义也不是一个政
: 党”，更像一个精英统治组织。
|
|
