【上】为何中国要比其他所有国家都要高效？ [美国媒体]

Why is the Chinese government so much more effective than any other government?

【上】为何中国要比其他所有国家都要高效？




Robin Daverman, World travelerupxed Jun 19, 2017
Why do you think the Chinese government is so much more effective than any other government?
There’s no trick to it. The reason is actually super mundane, so mundane that there’s a sense of inevitability to it. Because they made a boatload of mistakes, and then they corrected them, and then they keep making mistakes and correcting them.
The day we are entertained with the spectacle of the White House Staff meeting, Donald Trump just held the weirdest Cabinet meeting ever with President Trump starting the meeting with “I’m so great, I’m the greatest in history”, and ending with his cabinet members all going “you are so great, you are the greatest in history”, is the day the Chinese government publicly pushed the Party and Government Administrative Rules down to the grass root level, with the REQUIREMENT that if you are the team leader, any team leader, you speak the LAST. 人民日报金台锐评：领导该什么时候发言--观点--人民网 The title being “when leaders speak first, there are a hundred cons and not a single pro”. Because the whole point of having a meeting is to have all the input and have the discussion out in the open, and when leaders speak first and set the tone, you tend to have the form of democracy without the substance of democracy.
The juxtaposition can’t be more ironic. Please remind me - which one of these two is the “beacon of democracy”, again?
Americans elect a king while the Chinese have always practiced republicanism on the top level for like a thousand years. The cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president in the US, while all politburo members are elected independently and top level decisions are consensus-driven in China. Most other countries are still at the stage where national level policy decisions are made “because it sounds good”, while China has long transitioned to data-driven decision-making, where to the maximum extent possible, public policies are tried at various “trial spots”, results analyzed and policies finessed, before national-level decisions are made. Understanding Trial Spots The Chinese don’t make any less mistakes than other people. They just set up a system where mistakes are made early, impact is localized, and bad ideas fail fast,Exactly the same way we do clinical trials and start-ups in the Silicon Valley.
The question really should be, why are so many other governments so utterly resistant to a bit of common sense. The policy discussion is still dominated by yellers and yammers calling each other names, and opportunists trying to make other people pay for their own benefit, while in China all political leaders are trained to personally conduct in-depth investigations, formulate a range of solutions, and try them out methodically. Is it rocket science to understand that elevating bullsh*ting to an art form doesn’t really solve any problems? Why would somebody who has never had to build consensus in his entire life, upon being voted into office, suddenly knows how to do it everyday? Because he’s “anointed by God”?? Even Richard II of England knew to play nice for like ten years after his rebuke by Lord Appellant back in the 14th century, and then you take a look at today’s Anglo leaders who positively refuse to give a sh*t no matter what, you start to wonder if we are going back to hairless monkeys! I wish someone is brave enough to tell the Anglos: dude, you are covered in blue fur, and you are still calling other people monsters!

​Robin Daverman  世界旅行者
就事论事。原因事实上相当的世俗，世俗到无法避免的程度。因为他们犯了一堆的错误，然后纠正错误，然后继续犯错，再继续纠正。
某天我们遇到这样一场白宫公务会议，特朗普举行了一场最为奇怪的内阁会议。会议一开场，特朗普总统就说：“我多么的伟大，我是有史以来最伟大的”，然而在会议结束的时候对他的内阁成员们说：“你们多么的伟大，你们是有史以来最伟大的”。
同一天，中国政府公布了政党和征服管理规章并下发到基层，这份规章要求：如果你是团队领导，无论任何团队的领导，你都要最后一个说话。它的标题是《当领导先行发话，就会有上百个反对声音而无一个赞成》。

因为开会的所有要点就在于把所有观点归纳起来，然后公开讨论，但当领导人优先发言并定了调子，你就会倾向于有皿主之形而无皿主之实了。
将这两件事情放在一起，真的非常讽刺。这提醒这我 – 其中哪个才是“皿主的灯塔”？

当美国人选了一个国王的时候，中国人一直都在高层践行共和主义已经有大约1000年了。在美国，内阁成员为取悦总统而服务。与此同时在中国，所有决策机构成员都是独立选举出来的，而高层的讨论也是以共识为导向的。
绝大多数国家的国家水平的政治决策都处于“因为听起来不错”的水平，而中国则拥有日期为导向的长期决策传统（译注：意即五年规划这类）。
在做国家层级的决定之前，尽最大可能的、多点试验、结果分析、政策策略选择。

《理解何为多点试验》---来自维基
中国人所犯的错误不比其他人少。他们只是建立了一个早点犯错的制度，让影响局限于当地（而非全国），让糟糕的主意更快的失败。这跟我们做临床试验和硅谷的新兴公司极其相似。

真正应该问的问题是，为何那么多别的zf如此抗拒哪怕一丁点的共识？政治讨论一直都以喊叫和哭诉所主导，而投机分子试图让别人为他们自己的利益买账。在中国，所有的政治领导人都受过训练，亲自进行深入调查，制定一系列解决方案，并有条不紊地进行。

把狗屎提升到艺术层次并不能真正解决任何问题，要理解这点很难吗？为什么有些人就是一辈子都没有凝聚过共识？就算是英格兰理查德二世在被教廷指责之后也知道要在10年里做得好点。然而瞧瞧今天的英国领导人，他们毫无理由的积极拒绝任何事物，你会好奇我们是否倒退成了无毛的猴子！我希望有人能有足够勇气去告诉英国人：伙计，你自己都披着蓝色的皮毛，你却还一直叫别人是怪物！

Usama AhmadJun 15, 2017 · 38 upvotes
““when leaders speak first, there are a hundred cons and not a single pro”. Because the whole point of having a meeting is to have all the input and have the discussion out in the open”
I know this was an answer on Chinese and US politics and leadership but i just learned an important life lesson for my personal use as well.

“当领导先行发话，就会有上百个反对声音而无一个赞成。” 因为开会的所有要点就在于把所有观点归纳起来，然后公开讨论，但当领导人优先发言并定了调子，你就会倾向于有皿主之形而无皿主之实了。

我知道这是一个关于中美政策和领导人的答案，但我个人也同样学到了一个重要的人生经验。

Gabriel ChanJun 15, 2017 · 16 upvotes including Robin Daverman and Usama Ahmad
Sometimes, the leader doesn't say anything at the meeting. Smart people listen more than talk, and when they do talk, every word has immense weight.

有时候，领导人在会议上一句话都不会说。聪明的人听得比说的多，当他们说话的时候，每一个词都是很有重量的。

Srikant SekharJun 15, 2017 · 11 upvotes
This particular “tip” comes in the Mahabharata as well: when the Pandavas are to come to a verdict on a case, Yudhishthira asks the youngest to speak first, next the second youngest, and gives his verdict after Bhima has given his assessment.

这点跟摩呵婆罗多（一译《玛哈帕腊达》，与《罗摩衍那》并称为印度两大史诗）差不多：当Pandavas准备给某件事下结论的时候，Yudhishthira就会要求年轻人先发言，然后等 Bhima 给出他的评估之后，给出他的结论。

Peng Yuan-Xiu, studies Russian (2022)Answered Dec 11
Here I would like to offer my perspective for the question, there are many dimensions and factors together contributing to it.Highly Concentrated Tradition of Power due to our tradition since 2000 years ago. Before Chin/Qin Dynasty — which is the first united sovereign in Chinese history, it defined so many things for later dynasties, the ancient China is a federated states — vassal states, the nominal monarch is called the Son of Heaven Zhou, however, because of the disparity of ethos, race, clan, culture, language and writing system, and of the reason that each state has right to possess its own army, to levy taxation, to appoint officials, to promulgate its laws and acts. Thus actually, there are separated kingdoms. However, after the Qin Shi-Huang the first Emperor of Qin Dynasty, also the first Emperor of so called China, he promulgated a series of laws and regulations, in order to consolidate his regime.Abrogate other writing system, and adopt an uniqueness. This measure should be considered as the most important corner stone of founding the later Han ethnicity and later China, and of casting the cultural core. Because of Chinese territory is vast, there are many languages/dialects — according to western standards, in some ways, we can call them languages politically, people can’t always communicate and understand to each other — even many times emissaries often need translators, it’s difficult to imagine for Chinese today , therefore, once a virtual language and a virtual system over all differences and dialects established, at least, people can communicate to each other through writing and the official language. As a result, it quickly became the base of culture, escalated the economy, augmented its regime and cohesion force. At this point, the proto-Han ethnicity was created.Thanks to the Cultural Revolution, it has a good side despite there are more bad sides. When the new China was established in 1949, there power was not concentrated into CCP’s hands, since there were existing feudal clans — their paws creeps into every households, sinister gangs and strong religious force. It seems a disk-drive was effected by many viruses, we can’t treat it with regular cures except the shock-treatment. After Mao, there are no any leaders who have such charisma and boldness can make such risk decision. The good side of the Culture Revolution is to re-formate the effected hard-drive, wiped all old influences out and cast a new society — yes, we lost a lot of things, that is the cost.Virtues of Agricultural Civilization. The central virtue of an agricultural civilization is to obtain its needs from cooperation rather a plunder economy which obtain needs by invasions and wars. Therefore, people have to work hard and cooperate with each other — since each one has its own niche in such society.
Back to the question, because of these prerequisites, the China is almost same political structure as 2000 years ago, but it’s very efficient. The decisions can go to every corner from central government.
Peng Yuan-Xiu

我会从我个人的角度来回答问题，中国政府高效是因为众多因素共同造成的。
1.高度中央集权的传统，2000年来都是如此。在秦朝之前，中国第一任统一的君主，就为后来的朝代定下了大量的事物/规矩。古代中国是一个联邦国家：附庸国、名义上的周天子。然而，因为社会思潮、宗族、种族、文化、语言、书面语的不同，也因为所有国家都有权拥有成立自己的军队，征税、委任官员，颁布法律的权力。因此事实上，他们都是独立的王国。尽管如此，在秦始皇——这位秦朝第一任皇帝、也是中国第一任皇帝的他，公布了一系列的法律法规，来巩固强化他的政权。

“废除别的书面语，只采用其中一个。这些做法被视为汉族、中国、以及核心文化形成的最重要的基石。因为中国领地非常广阔，这里有大量的语言/方言 --- 某种意义上依照西方的标准来看，这就是语言（而非方言），人们一直无法相互沟通和相互理解 --- 即使是来使都需要翻译，这在今天的中国是很难想象的事情。因此，一旦一个虚拟的语言和一个虚拟的制度能覆盖所有各不相同的语言或方言，至少人们能通过书写和官方语言来进行交通沟通了。结果就是，其经济增强，政权扩张，以文化为基础的内部向心力的增强。这个时候，最初的汉族人形成了。”

2.感谢文化大革名。相比于那些糟糕得多的选择，这个是不错的选择了。当新中国于1949年成立的时候，实权并不集中在CCP的手中，这里存在着封建主义宗族势力，他们的爪子伸进了每一个家庭之中，还有黑帮和强大的宗教势力。这就像是带有众多病毒的驱动硬盘一般，我们无法通过定期治疗来对待这些弊端，除了休克疗法别无选择。自毛之后，再没有哪个领导人有这么的魅力和胆魄，可以做出如此冒险的决策。文化大革名的好处在于重整受到影响的硬盘，擦除老旧的影响力并铸造一个新的社会 – 是的，我们丢掉了太多的东西了，这就是代价。

3.农业文明的优点。一个农业文明的最大优点就是通过合作而非抢夺/入侵/战争，来得到它所需要的东西。因此，人们必须努力工作并相互合作 --- 自从每个人在这个社会都有了自己的位置之后。
回到这个标题的问题上来，因为这些先决条件，中国跟过去2000年里的政治结构几乎一模一样，但依旧高效。中央政府的决定可以遍布中国的各个角落。

某某 张
Just now
I wonder why this comment just had such poor upvote.

我很好奇为何这条评论的点赞数少得可怜。（译注：这是译者自己的评论，私以为他说得很好。）

Richard O'Connell, lives in China (2007-present)Answered Jun 9, 2017
Media control is the number one reason China is more succesful than other governments.
In the west, we already know that media control is a necessity for governments to win elections and successfully govern.
Tony Blair for example knew he needed the Murdoch press on side and gave hisCommunications Director Alistair Campbell more power than most of his cabinet.
The next most succesful politician in the UK was David Cameron. His previous Job? PR Guy.
Let’s look at more recent success - Donald Trump. TV celebrity turned Twitter power user who leveraged up and coming right wing press and new media to demolish his opponents. And who was anointed his de facto number two immediately after the win. Why of course Steve Bannon, right wing website owner.
Jeremy Corbyn’s recent election gains for the British Labour party. His and his team’s grasp of Social Media to give a positive message (through grass roots Labour organization Momentum) led to the biggest upset since, well, Brexit a few months back.
But here’s the problem. The media have so much control but all they really want is to sell more papers and increase ad revenues, whether it’s Facebook, Fox News or The Guardian. It’s in their interest to hype up and sensationalize. Even Facebook’s algorithm will more likely show you stories that have controversial reactions.
What does this mean for the effectiveness of governments in the west? Well, what’s popular becomes more important than what’s actually important. Whoever causes more outrage against their opponents will stand a greater chance to win.
Most voters aren’t actually that far away form each other politically, but the media makes them think they are and drives them apart. Slightly right leaning voters might be cast as racists and left leaning voters are deemed terrorists’ best buddies. The media in the west creates divisiveness and keeps people focussed on outrage-of-the-day rather than the strategic long term actions that are really needed to improve people’s lives.
The situation in China is the state has immensely more (but not complete) control of the media. The west used to have this luxury when all governments needed to manage were a couple of news shows a day on TV and a handful of influential newspapers, all with convenient, easy-to-plan-for print and broadcast times.
There are certain no no’s journalists in China and social media users should shy away from. Don’t go asking for revolutions, don’t attempt to humiliate the top leaders, don’t sensationalize, don’t hype up issues between people who speak different languages or have different colour skin.
These rules may seem strict but it allows the government, almost unchallenged, to focus on their agenda, and most pressing needs from society - lifting people out of poverty, protecting the environment, rational defence policies, racial harmony, advancing science, technology, global economic development to name just a few. No unpredictable media pressure allows stable political cycles of 10 years and planning decades ahead. That’s what countries really need and the Chinese people are lucky to have such a system.
Who would you rather be running your country anyway? A media tycoon who’s goal is primarily profit? Or a politician who spent 30+ years giving service to their country who demonstrated again and again throughout their career they were able to obxtively improve the lives of the population they worked for?
I know who I would.

（译注：该条评论点赞数最高，达1000多条，远超其他评论。）

Richard O'Connell 
对媒体的控制是中国比其他国家zf更成功的首要原因。
在西方，我们已经知道，对媒体的控制是zf赢得选举和成功治理的必要条件。
例如，托尼布莱尔就知道他需要默多克的媒体，并让他的公关主管阿利斯特坎贝尔比他的大多数内阁成员更有权力。

在英国，下一个最成功的政治家是戴维•卡梅伦（David Cameron）。他以前的工作嘛，公关人（PR Guy）。
让我们来看看最近成功的——唐纳德特朗普（Donald Trump）。电视名人变成了Twitter的实权用户，他利用右翼媒体、新媒体来驳倒他的对手。为什么必然是斯蒂夫班农（Steve Bannon），因为他是右翼网站的所有者，在获胜后，他被指定为二号人物。

杰里米科尔宾（Jeremy Corbyn）最近为英国工党赢得大选。他和他的团队对社交媒体的掌握，展示了一个积极的信息（借助于草根劳工组织的势头），这导致了几个月前英国退欧以来，最大的不满。
但问题就在这里。媒体拥有如此多的控制权，但他们真正想要的只是卖出更多的报纸，增加广告收入，无论是Facebook、福克斯新闻还是卫报，炒作符合他们的利益。就连Facebook的算法也更有可能向你展示有争议的故事。

这对西方政府的效率意味着什么？受欢迎的东西比真正重要的东西更重要。
无论是谁，只要让舆论对他们的对手有更多的愤怒，都将有更大的机会赢得胜利。
大多数选民的政治观念事实上并不是那么遥远，但媒体让他们以为自己是，并把他们分开。略微右翼的选民可能会被认为是种族主义者，而左翼选民则被认为是恐怖分子最好的伙伴。西方的媒体制造了分歧，让人们把注意力集中在一天的愤怒上，而不是为了改善人们的生活而需要的战略长期行动上。

中国的情况则是极大的扩张了对媒体的控制（但也不是完全控制）。在西方过去常常有这样一种奢侈，当所有zf都需要管理的时候，三三两两的电视媒体就会开播、少数有影响力的报纸，也会展开讨论（来体现它们对zf的影响力）。
在中国这对新闻记者来说，毫无疑问是禁忌。而社会媒体用户也需要回避这些事情。不要要求改革，不要试图羞辱高层领导人，不要搬弄是非，也不要夸大说不同语言或肤色不同的人之间的问题。

这些规则可能看起来很严格，但它允许政府，几乎不受挑战，把重点放在他们的议程和社会上最迫切的需求上 - 让人们摆脱贫困，保护环境，合理的国防政策，种族和谐，推进科学，技术，全球经济发展等等。
没有不可预测的媒体压力，允许10年的稳定的政治周期，并计划未来几十年。这是国家真正需要的，中国人民很幸运拥有这样一个系统。

不管怎样，你更愿意谁来管理你的国家呢？
是一个主要为了利润的媒体大亨？
亦或者是一个花了30年时间为国家提供服务的、其整个职业生涯中一再证明他们能够客观地改善人们的工作和生活的政治家？
我知道我会选谁。