[Quora]你可以公平的比较一下中西制度的优劣吗？ [美国媒体]

Can you give a fair comparison between Western style democracy and the Chinese government model?

你可以公平的比较一下西方和中国制度的优劣吗？



This is actually a more interesting question than it appears. There is no one model of “Western Democracy”. Each country is different. If you want to get the ESSENCE of western democracy, there is no better illustration than the First Triumvirate of Rome between 60 BC to 53 BC. Julius Caesar the politician. Pompey the military leader. Crassus the richest man in Rome. Forming a backroom alliance against the rest of the Roman Senate, with leading patricians such as Cicero and Cato. This piece of history is important, not because subsequent politicians and polities are all students of history, but because the crucial elements of a democratic polity are all STILL THERE - money, power, violence, political patronage, rent-seeking, the patricians and the plebeians, and the INVISIBLE ROMAN PEOPLE.
​
这其实是一个比看以来更有趣的问题。所谓的“西方民主”其实没有一个固定的模式，它在每个国家都是不同的。如果你想要了解西方民主的真髓，没有什么比古罗马第一次三头执政时期（60BC——53BC）更好的例子了。尤里乌斯·凯撒是政治家政治，庞培是军事领袖，克拉苏则是古罗马最富有的人。这三人达成了一种秘密协议共同对抗元老院其他那些诸如西塞罗或者卡托一类的贵族派成员。这段历史很重要，不是因为后来的政治家都是他们的学生，而是因为民主政体的关键要素至今未变——金钱，权利，暴力，政治庇护，寻租，贵族与平民，还有看不见的罗马人。

（译注：寻租是指在没有从事生产的情况下，为垄断社会资源或维持垄断地位，从而得到垄断利润（亦即经济租）所从事的一种非生产性寻利活动。——摘自百度百科）

When you read through that exciting piece of history, you might be tempted to imagine yourself of being a Caesar, or a Pompey, or a Crassus. Don’t. These guys were the top patricians, and patricians were less than 5% of all Roman citizens. The other 95% were all plebeians and Proletarii. The only time these vast majority of Roman citizens showed up in history was when they rioted for lack of bread. Or being pushed to vote for either the Triumvirate or the Senate. Or dying in the ensuing civil war. That was it. That’s who you are, the ordinary voters. Go read the history, and judge for yourself how much these 95% controlled the Roman Republic.

当你阅读这段激动人心的历史时，你可能会忍不住想象自己是凯撒，庞培或克拉苏。然而并不是这样。这些人是一些顶级的贵族，而贵族不到所有罗马公民的5%，其余的95%的人都是平民与无产阶级。然而这些占大多数的罗马市民却只在因缺少面包而发生暴乱的时候才会出现。要么就是被用来给三巨头或参议院投票。或者在随后的内战中死去。这才是你，这才是你的身份，普通市民。去看看历史吧，然后判断一下这95%的人对罗马共和国有多大的控制力。

Both the UK and France are elitists, although they have very different forms of elitism. The Great Britain has always been a very stratified society. The British general election, 1784, which was made famous due to the blockbuster movie The Duchess (film), was contested between William Pitt the Younger, the son of William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, and Hester Grenville, sister of the previous Prime Minister George Grenville, and Charles James Fox, the son of Henry Fox, 1st Baron Holland, and Lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of 2nd Duke of Richmond. So basically, the voters were offered the choice of “Duke A vs. Duke B”.

英国和法国都是精英主义，尽管他们在形式上非常不同。英国是一个阶级分化很严重的社会。英国1784年大选，曾被改编成轰动一时的电影《公爵夫人》。这一届的竞争者在小威廉·皮特（查塔姆伯爵威廉·皮特，与前首相乔治·格伦维尔的妹妹海丝特·格伦维尔的儿子）与查尔斯·詹姆斯·福克斯（霍兰男爵亨利·福克斯与里士满第二公爵的女儿卡洛琳·伦诺克斯的儿子）。所以基本上，选民们只能在公爵A和公爵B之间做出选择。

This is the pattern that has continued to this day, with occasional exceptions sprinkled here and there. But the general pattern is that one gets to “join the set” either by heredity or by marriage. The separation happens rather early in life. Private, expensive, and largely aristocratic boarding schools such as Eton College admits ~ 250 students a year, when they are 13-year-old, out of UK’s 65 million population, and has so far sent 19 of the sum total of 54 British Prime Ministers to the Downing Street. Of the rest, 7 came from Harrow, and 6 came from Westminster School.

这种模式一直延续到今天，虽然偶尔也会有一些例外，不过一般来说，进入上流社会只能通过遗传或婚姻。这种差距在生命的早期就发生了，私立的，昂贵的贵族寄宿学校，如伊顿公学，每年从英国的6500万人口中招收250名13岁的学生，至今已培养出54位英国首相到唐宁街，（首相中）另外还有7名来自哈罗，6名来自威斯敏斯特学校。



France, due to the French Revolution and the ensuing age of Napoleon, made a serious effort to get rid of hereditary privileges and build a republic based on Liberté, égalité, fraternité. One of the things that Napoleon did was to establish a set of Grandes écoles with competitive exams to educate the brightest of the whole population. People usually have to go through 2-year specialized cramming schools to get into one of these Grandes Ecoles. école nationale d'administration, for example, admits only 80 students a year, out of a total population of ~ 65 million people - and almost all top French politicians come from this one school, including Mr. Macron, Mr. Holland, and Mr. Chrac. 7 out of the last 10 French Presidents are from ENA. Elite French Schools Block the Poor's Path to Power; Although the French is more into intellectual elitism vs. class elitism, nonetheless, the share of ENA students with working class background is abysmally small - something like 2%.

对于法国法国，由于法国大革命以及随后的拿破仑时代，法国认真努力地摆脱世袭特权，并建立一个以自由，平等，博爱为基础的共和政体。拿破仑所做的一件事就是建立了一批需要通过严格的考试才能入读的“大学校”，以选拔和培养那些最优秀的人。人们要在专门的学校经过两年的填鸭式学习才能进入这些“大学校”。例如，法国国家行政学院（ENA）承认每年只从法国的6500万人口中招收80人，而几乎所有法国的顶尖政治家都来自这所学校。包括马克龙，霍兰与Chrac。在过去的10位法国总统中，有七位来自ENA。法国的精英学校阻碍了穷人的权力之路。尽管法国人相较于阶级精英主义更倾向于智力精英主义，但是拥有工人阶级背景的ENA学生却非常少，只有2%。

（译注：大学校（法语：grande école ）或称高等教育学院，是法国对通过入学考试（concours)来录取学生的高等院校的总称，中文有时也译为专业学院。学生高中毕业后，选择进入预备班复读2年，之后参加各个高等教育学院的入学考试。——摘自百度百科）

So if you subscribe to the stereotype of the UK being run by noble, rich, idiots, and the French by smart, arrogant, assholes, well, there’s actually quite a bit of truth in it. LOL! In Rome, you get to choose between patrician Julius Caesar and patrician Gnaeus Pompey. In UK you get to choose between Duke A and Duke B. In France you get to choose between ENA graduate A and ENA graduate B. These are all examples of well-functioning Democracy where the people are pretty happy about the arrangement.

所以，如果你认同英国官员都是贵族，富翁和白痴而法国官员都是些聪明，自大又令人讨厌的人的刻板印象，嘛，虽然事实上就是如此233！在罗马，你只能在贵族朱利叶斯·凯撒和贵族和贵族格努斯·庞培之间做出选择。在英国你只能在公爵A和公爵B之间做出选择。在法国你只能在ENA毕业生A和ENA毕业生B之间做出选择。这些都是运行良好的民主国家的例子，人们对这种安排非常满意。

You see, underneath the hood of various forms of “democracy” is a highly stratified society, the legacy of past strong feudal aristocracy. Actually, not only in UK and France, but even small countries like the Nordic countries are highly stratified.

你看，在各种形式的“民主”的背后，是一个高度分层的社会，是过去强大的封建贵族的遗产。事实上，不仅在英国和法国，就连那些像北欧国家一样的小国都是高度分层的。

So in almost all “western democracies”, the interest of the privileged and the wealthy are never in play in these competitive elections. Their interest is secured first, before the voting, and then the voters are thrown into the voting battle, pitching one part of the poor against another part of the poor. I would consider the French variety to be a step up over the Anglo kind, simply because hereditary privileges, seeking justification, almost always end up with some ethno-racial-eugenics garbage. And you know what that led to 70 years ago.

因此，在几乎所有的西方民主国家中，特权阶层和富人的利益在这些竞争性选举中从未被讨论。他们的利益在投票之前首先得到保障，然后选民被投入到投票的战斗中，让一部分穷人与另一部分穷人进行斗争。我不认为法国的多样性是对盎格鲁文化圈的一种提升，因为那只是在为世袭特权寻找理由，而且几乎总是因为一些在种族优生学下诞生的垃圾而结束。你知道是什么导致了70年前(那场二战)。

I won’t comment too much on Germany and the US. Suffice to say that the German Basic Law was totally re-written after WWII, mostly for the benefit of OTHER COUNTRIES, and not for Germany. The lessons learned from WWII was that “For Germany to have a strong central government is BAD NEWS for everybody else!” So the solution was to have strong, highly independent states (L?nder) and relatively weak federal government. Most Germans agree with this, and the general consensus is that “I can sleep better at night when the federal government fails at everything they do, and the federal army can’t shoot straight!” The success of Germany is mostly the success of the 16 landers, and not the Federal Government.

我不会过多评论德国和美国。我只想说，二战后，德国的基本法被完全改写了，而且主要是为了其他国家的利益，而不是为了德国。各国从二战中吸取的教训是“让德国拥有一个强大的中央政府对其他国家来说都是不利的”，因此，解决方案是建立一个强大的、高度独立的国家和相对弱小的联邦政府。大多数德国人都同意这一点，他们有一个普遍的共识“当联邦政府在他们所做的每一件事上都失败却不能开枪时，我可以睡得更好。”德国的成功主要是其16个州的成功，而不是联邦政府的成功。

The US, right now, is waist-deep in the “banana republic” territory. We have one former president’s wife competing with another former president’s brother, and both were defeated by a reality-TV host cum real-estate tycoon, who proceeded to install his daughter and son-in-law into important government positions. Why do these guys always want to keep all the goodies within the family, and why do they not have the NEED to recruit some other billionaires or generals who can pull their own weight for the team, is incomprehensible to me. In case you haven’t noticed - even the supposed head of the Russian Oligarchy, Mr. Putin, does not put his unqualified family members into key government positions. The “democratically-elected” head-of-state who does this sort of things, I know of only two. One is Mr. Kim Jong-un of North Korea. The other is Mr. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

目前，美国在政治上与“香蕉共和国”(中，南美洲发展中国家)是半斤八两的。我们有一位前总统的妻子与另一位前总统的兄弟竞争，两人都被一位真人秀节目主持人兼房地产大亨击败，后者开始将女儿和女婿安置在重要的政府职位上。为什么这些家伙总是想把所有的好东西留在家里，为什么他们不招募一些其他的亿万富翁或将军这种可以为政府出力的人。这对我来说是难以理解的。也许你没有注意到，即使是被认为是俄罗斯寡头政治领袖的普京，也不会把他不合格的家庭成员放在重要的政府职位上。“民主选举”产生的国家元首做这类事情，我只知道两个。一个是朝鲜的金正恩，另一个是津巴布韦的罗伯特·穆加贝先生。

The Chinese government is an entirely different entity. The strong emperors of the past 2,000 years won the battle over the troublesome aristocratic clans, by leveraging the raw talent of the poor masses. The foundation of the Chinese polity, the stability and the growth of the nation, is vitally dependent on how effectively the central government can extract talent and dedication from the poor masses. This was the origin of the Imperial examination, specifically designed to transfer power from the selfish, troublesome, and ambitious aristocrats to poor, smart, and loyal scholars. The top level imperial examination was traditionally held in the Great Hall of the Forbidden City, chaired by the emperor himself, and those passed the final exam were granted the name of “the pupil of the emperor”. This was how China eliminated aristocracy as a class 2,000 years ago. Not exchange one crop of aristocrats for another crop of aristocrats, but fundamentally eliminate the raison d’être for the existence of such a class of people. Napoleon tried to do the same thing, 2000 years later, and backed off because of his own, and his family’s imperial ambitions…

中国政府是一个完全不同的体制。在过去两千年里，强大的皇帝通过利用贫苦大众的才能，赢得了与棘手的贵族之间的战斗。中国政治的基础，国家的稳定和发展，都取决于中央政府如何有效地从贫困群众中汲取人才和贡献。这是科举考试的起源，专门用来将权力从自私、棘手、野心勃勃的贵族转移到贫穷、聪明和忠诚的学者手中。最高等级的科举考试传统上是在紫禁城的大礼堂举行的，由皇帝亲自主持，通过殿试的人被授予“状元”的名字。这就是2000年前中国消灭贵族阶级的方式。不是把一茬贵族换成另一茬贵族，而是从根本上消除了这样一类人的存在理由。2000年以后，拿破仑也曾试图做同样的事情，但由于他自己和他家族的帝国野心，他放弃了。

The Imperial Examination is a ladder for social mobility. It’s under attack from Day One, as those who obtained privilege would try everything to keep it for himself and for his family. Historically, whenever the system became corrupted by the ruling elites, the end of the dynasty came near. So the Chinese emperors tended to react EXTREMELY HARSHLY when corruption in the Imperial Examination was discovered, treating it as the worst kind of treason.

科举是社会流动性的阶梯。它从第一天起就受到了攻击，因为那些获得特权的人会想尽一切办法为自己和家人保留这种特权。从历史上看，当统治精英们腐化堕落的时候，王朝的末日就来临了。因此，中国皇帝在科举中发现腐败时，往往会做出非常激烈的反应，将其视为最恶劣的叛国罪。

The CCP, with its “communism with Chinese characteristics” ideology, with its strongly pro-poor history, is even more invested in strengthening this “ladder to power”. Being able to choose between Duke A and Duke B is NOT ENOUGH to obtain active commitment from the giant population. The ordinary people are smarter than you think. There’s not enough upside there, in what’s left after the elites take their fill, for the ordinary Joe to give a sh*t. But being able to be the Duke yourself, with a no-risk, no-cost, public ladder right in front of you, is infinitely more motivating. And since the rest of the society gets much more out of you when you are on this quest, you are strongly encouraged to give it a try.

中国的“中国特色社会主义”的意识形态，有着强烈的亲贫历史，甚至更多地倾向于加强这一“通向权力的阶梯”。在公爵A和公爵B之间做出选择的做法是无法获得数目庞大的中国人民的支持的。普通人比你想象的要聪明。他们没有足够的优势，在精英们把他们的工作抢走之后，他们只能去吃屎。但是，他们有自己成为公爵的可能。如果你面前面前有一条无风险、无成本的公共阶梯，这会让你更有动力。并且当你走上这条路时，你还可以为社会带来许多好处，如此一来你会得到更强烈的鼓励去尝试。

Today this ladder is MASSIVE. Pretty much the top 5% of all students in colleges, plus exceptional people from all walks of life, would be recruited into the CCP. It takes 2 to 3 years of dedicated effort but it’s quite do-able. That’s 80 million out of 1.3 billion people. Of these, 7 million would take the exam to enter government services. After 5 years of work and training, 1 million would become local officials in 40,000 localities. of which 600,000 eventually rise to county-level officials, of which 40,000 eventually rise to department-level officials, of which 400 eventually rise to be provincial governors and equivalent positions in the central government, of which ~ 60 get to the top, national level leadership. Xi Jinping is one of these 60 people. Everyone must go through this pipe to reach the top. If you don’t start at the bottom, you are not allowed to reach the top. The ones who started their career in the poorest places tended to go the furthest, because the “Trump Card” in Chinese politics, like the emperors before your time, is your ability to extract talent and motivated commitment the poor masses, and leverage that to hit the KPIs.

今天这个梯子是巨大的。几乎所有大学里前5%的学生，加上来自各行各业的优秀人才，都将被招入中国。这需要2到3年的努力学习，但这是很值得的。13亿人口中有8千万党员，其中700万人参加公务员考试。经过5年的工作和培训，100万人将成为4万个村落的村官。其中有60万人最终升到县级官员，其中4万人最终升到部级官员，其中400人最终升为省级官员，在中央政府中工作，其中60人晋升至国家一级领导。习近平是这60人中的一员。每个人都必须穿过这条管道到达顶部。如果你不从底部开始，你就不能到达顶部。那些在最穷的地方开始职业生涯的人往往走得最远，因为中国政治中的“王牌”，就像前文中提到的皇帝一样，是提取人才的能力，是对贫穷群众的承诺，并利用这一力量来提高KPI。

Nobody above the provincial level has a family member in equal or higher positions. None. The same way Usain Bolt’s brother and sister do not share his running talent, and Lionel Messi’s brothers and sister are not top soccer players as he is. Neither are these people concentrated in a few schools. Of the 32 provincial governors holding PhDs, only 3 came from Beijing University. Family and education connection is a sign of PATRONAGE, not fair competition. Biological traits are the most genetically inheritable, and yet, you look through the roster of Olympic medalists, and there are very few family connections among the winners. That should tell you something about this “we have good genes” bullshit!

省级以上的人都没有一个家庭成员处于同等或更高的地位。一个也没有。就像博尔特的哥哥和妹妹不分享他的跑步天赋一样，梅西的兄弟姐妹也不是顶级足球运动员。这些人也不是集中在几所学校。在拥有博士学位的32名省长中，只有3名来自北京大学。家庭和教育的联系是腐败的标志，而不是公平竞争。天赋是遗传上最可继承的，然而，你可以看看奥运会奖牌获得者的名单，赢家之间的家庭联系很少。那意味着“我们有好基因”之类的精英主义理论就是一句废话!

The ESSENCE of the Chinese polity is in fact massive participation by the people. The reason that the Chinese government is effective in what they do, is precisely because of this massive participation. Not just check on a box on a piece of paper, or shoot off some rant on the internet, but actually work hard to make things happen according to the government plan. The only reason that the Chinese government can hit their Five-year plans of China, is because the Chinese people work to make it happen. Or else what do you think caused these things to happen according to the Plan? Like “I’m just sitting here, looking into my crystal ball, and good stuff just falls from the sky for me!” Really? LOL! No. you obviously have to be able to get a lot of people, working for the same goal, to have this kind of stuff happen. This is a totally different level of engagement from other countries. And the reason that China is organized this way - is because they really need it! It takes a tremendous amount of collective effort to turn one of the biggest, poorest country on earth a mere 70 years ago, to the biggest economic power globally by PPP today! China needs the kind of organization that can move the whole country at incredible speed.

中国政体的本质实际上是人民的大量参与。中国政府之所以有效，正是因为这一巨大的参与。不仅仅是在一张纸上检查一个盒子（指选举），或者在网上发泄一通（指言论自由），而是要努力让事情按照政府的计划进行。中国政府之所以能够实现他们的五年计划，唯一的原因是中国人民努力让这一目标成为现实。你认为是什么导致了这些事情按照计划发生？难道是“我坐在这里，看着我的水晶球，然后好东西就从天上掉下来给我!”这样的吗？哈哈!不！很明显，你必须能让很多人，为同一个目标工作，才能让这种事情发生。这种政府与普通人民的联系的紧密程度与其他国家完全不在一个水平。中国之所以有这样的组织，是因为他们真的需要它!70年前，世界上最大的、最贫穷的国家之一，通过购买力平价来实现全球最大的经济力量，这需要付出巨大的集体努力。中国需要那种能够以令人难以置信的速度移动整个国家的组织。

In the US, every time the police presence weakens, due to a natural disaster, riot and looting immediately occurs. Why would a rational person destroy his own neighborhood where he himself grew up, and his family lives? Well, the only logical explanation is that he does not feel it’s his people, his neighborhood. He has no stake in the whole thing. In China, every time there’s a natural disaster, massive number of ordinary people will rush in, with emergency supplies and the blood bank overflowing within 3 days.

在美国，每当警察因为处理自然灾害而人手不足时，就会发生骚乱和抢劫。为什么一个理性的人会毁掉他自己成长的社区和他的家庭?唯一合乎逻辑的解释是，他不觉得这是他的家人，他的邻居。他跟这件事没有关系。在中国，每当发生自然灾害时，都会有大量的普通人献出力量，紧急供应物资和血库在3天内就会爆满。

The Chinese system is not for everybody, because clearly you have to “pay in” into the system, and sometimes even pay ahead, which is something people only do when they have profound trust in the system. Most “Western Democracy” is sold as you getting something for nothing. Like you don’t have to do a thing, just choose the biggest assh*le on your side, who will then fight for your interest and win free stuff for you. “Bring home the bacon”. That’s attractive to me in a really illogical way. But one thing is certain - it’s not really up to me to decide. The safer assumption is that given the history, culture, and experience, whatever political system different people choose to organize themselves, it’s PROBABLY the only system, the most suitable system, and the least painful system, for these specific groups of people.

中国的制度并不适用于所有人，因为很明显，你必须在系统中“付出”，有时甚至是提前支付，这是人们在对系统有深刻的信任时才会做的事情。大多数的“西方民主”都是在你免费得到一些东西之后被出售的。就像你不需要做什么事情，只要选择你身边最大的混蛋，他们就会为你的利益而战，为你赢得免费的东西，“心想事成”。这对我来说是很不符合逻辑的。但有一件事是确定的——这种成功不是由我通过努力获得的。更安全的假设是，考虑到历史、文化和经验，不同的人会选择不同的政治制度组织自己，这对他们的独特的国情而言可能是唯一的，最合适的，最不痛苦的系统。

Paul Byi
1.Ideology:
a.The West is a democracy-leaders are chosen based on votes.
b.China is a meritocracy-leaders are chosen based on merit. A political newbie like Donald Trump would never be president in China; instead, all senior officials are usually boring old men.
2.Business:
a.West: The businesses control the government (via lobbying). This makes many Western nations more like an oligarchy than a democracy.
b.China: The government controls the businesses (state capitalism).
3.Strategic Sectors:
a.West: Most companies in strategic sectors are private.
b.China: All companies in strategic sectors are SOEs. Elsewhere, private companies are common.
4.Media:
a.West: Media has bias and lies, but at least it has freedom of speech.
b.China: Media has bias and censorship, but at least it does not lie.
5.Propaganda:
a.West: Media and politicians say what you want to hear.
b.China: Media and politicians say what they want you to hear.

1.意识形态:
a.西方是民主国家的领导人，他们是根据选票来选择的。
b.中国是一个以功绩为基础的精英领袖。像唐纳德?特朗普这样的政治新手永远不会成为中国的总统;相反，所有的高级官员通常都是乏味的老人。

2.业务:
a.西方:企业控制政府(通过游说)。这使得许多西方国家更像是一个寡头政权，而不是一个民主国家。
b.中国:政府控制企业(国家资本主义)。

3.战略部门:
a．西方:大多数战略性行业的公司都是私营的。
b.中国:战略领域的所有公司都是国有企业。在其他领域，私人公司很常见。

4.媒体:
a.西方:媒体有偏见和谎言，但至少它有言论自由。
b.中国:媒体有偏见和审查，但至少它没有说谎。

5.宣传:
a.西方:媒体和政治家说你想听的。
b.中国:媒体和政治家说他们想让你听到的。

6.Infrastructure:
a.West: Demand and usefulness for infrastructure must be calculated beforehand.
b.China:“Build it and they will come.”
7.Judicial System Bias:
a.West: More bias favoring the rich, big business, whites, and females.
b.China: Pro-government bias. And prosecutors are more risk-averse, only taking cases they are confident in, resulting in a 99% conviction rate. (Japan and South Korea are similar.)
8.Intellectual Property:
a.West: “Everyone respect it!”
b.China: “Steal what? Also, your company might have to share key technology with us to do business here.”
9.Genome Editing:
a.West: “I’m not too sure about this. It seems dangerous and we shouldn’t ‘play god’ to offend religion and mess with nature.”
b.China: “Wow, this is amazing! Its a whole new industry! Imagine the science and money behind this! Let’s subsidize it!”
10.Property Rights:
a.West: “No, its fine. We won’t build this freeway or bridge on your land if you don’t want us to.” (Unless its eminent domain.)
b.China: “Sorry, but you must relocate. We must build it for the greater good. Don’t worry, we’ll compensate you.”

6.基础设施:
a.西方:必须事先计算基础设施的需求和有用性。
b.中国:“建造它，它们就会来。”

7.司法系统偏差:
a.西方:更偏向于富人、大企业、白人和女性。
b.中国:更偏向政府。而检察官则更倾向于规避风险，只在他们有把握的情况下进行起诉，结果是99%的定罪率。(日本和韩国与之相似。)

8.知识产权:
a.西方:“每个人都尊重它!”
b.中国:“偷什么?你的公司可能需要和我们分享关键技术才能在这里做生意。

9.基因组编辑:
a.韦斯特:“我不太确定。这似乎很危险，我们不应该“扮演上帝”来冒犯宗教和破坏自然。”
b.中国:“哇，太神奇了!”这是一个全新的产业!想象一下这背后的科学和金钱!补贴吧!”

10.产权:
a.西方:“不，没关系。如果你不愿意，我们不会在你的土地上建高速公路或桥。”(除非有它的征用权。)
b.中国:“对不起，你必须搬家。我们必须为更大的利益而建造它。别担心，我们会补偿你的。”

11.Planning:
a.West: Politicians only care about the next election.
b.China: Politicians have loooooooooooong term plans.
12.Decision-makers:
a.West: The people are always right. Give them power (democracy).
b.China: The experts are always right. Give them power (meritocracy).
13.Decision-making:
a.West: “Let’s debate. YOUR opinion matters.”
b.China: “Let’s produce results. Efficiency matters. No time to debate.”
14.Foreign Policy:
a.West: “You MUST adopt our ideology.” (Unless you’re a GCC state with lots of oil.)
b.China: “We don’t discriminate based on ideology, let’s just trade.”
15.Neo-Imperialism:
a.West: “OMG, Chinese infrastructure loans in developing nations is neo-imperialism!”
b.China: “OMG, the West interfering with developing nations’ internal affairs and invading them is neo-imperialism!”
16.International Law:
a.West: “We follow it best, so we are never the bad guys! Everyone needs to be more like us!”
b.China: “Not fair! These laws are rigged, it has pro-Western bias! Don’t you dare impose it on us!”
17.Resentment:
a.West: “Everyone else’s culture, religion, ideology, morals, work ethics, etc. is inferior. Keep them out of our borders and don’t let their nation surpass us!”
b.China: “The West and Japan has bullied us for too long. Don’t let it happen again!”
18.Finger-pointing:
a.West: “You are so evil because you aren’t democratic!”
b.China: “You are so evil because you keep interfering with my internal affairs!”
Western media “Shit-chain” (#4). For the Chinese version, just delete ‘Corporations’

11.规划:
a.西方:政治家只关心下一次选举。
b.中国:政客们有很多长期的计划。

12.决策者:
a.西方:人民总是对的。给他们权力(民主)。
b.中国:专家总是对的。给他们权力(精英)。

13.决策:
a.西方:“让我们辩论。你的意见很重要。”
b.中国:“让我们产生结果。效率很重要。没有时间去争论。”

14。外交政策:
a.西方:“你必须采用我们的意识形态。(除非你是一个拥有大量石油的海湾合作委员会成员国。)
b.中国:“我们不以意识形态为基础，我们只做生意。”

15.新帝国主义:
a.西方:OMG，中国在发展中国家的基础设施贷款是新帝国主义!
b.中国:OMG，西方干涉发展中国家的内政是新帝国主义!

16。国际法律:
a.西方:我们追求最好，所以我们从来不是坏人!”每个人都需要像我们学习!
b.中国:不公平!这些法律被操纵了，它有亲西方的偏见!你不能把它强加给我们!

17.怨恨:
a.西方:“外族的文化、宗教、意识形态、道德、职业道德等都是劣等的。”让他们远离我们，不要让他们的国家超过我们!
b.中国:“西方和日本欺负我们太久了。不要让这种事再次发生!”

18.指责:
a.西方:“你不民主所以你是邪恶的!”
b.中国:“你干涉我内政所以你是邪恶的!”
西方媒体“屎物链”。对于中文版，只需删除“Corporations”

Anqi Zhang
The definition of freedom in Chinese ordinary people
Freedom is divided into three stages:
The first stage is market freedom：going to market to buy what you want to buy, want to eat chicken duck fish，just buy, want to eat vegetables and seafood just buy。
The second stage is the supermarket freedom, go to the supermarket and buy whatever you want to buy。
The third stage of online shopping freedom, shopping cart can clear empty if you want。
The summary：when you don't have freedom to choose what you want to eat , don't talk about it.

自由在中国老百姓中的定义。
自由分为三个阶段:
第一阶段是自由市场:去市场购买你想买的东西,想吃鸡鸭鱼,就买,要吃蔬菜和海鲜就买。
第二阶段是超市的自由，去超市买你想买的东西。
第三阶段的网上购物自由，只要你想你就可以清空购物车。
总结:当你连想吃什么买什么的自由都没有时,不要谈论它。

Daniel Su, former Sales Representative (2014-2016)
It is a complex question. China is heading to western style democracy, but need time. Western world took hundreds years to build democracy today, while new China is only a baby, borned in 1949.

这是一个复杂的问题。中国正走向西式民主，但需要时间。西方世界花了几百年的时间来建立民主，而新中国只是一个婴儿，在1949年出生。