The problem of China’s rich-poor gap is both a sharp short-term issue and the most crucial issue in the long-term strategic picture; how to handle this problem is vitally important to China’s economic and political future. What needs to be addressed is the problem of the rich-poor gap, not the elimination of the rich-poor gap. The rich-poor gap cannot be eliminated, neither in theory nor in reality; all one can do is figure out how to face it. China’s rapid economic development has, to a very large extent, been driven by a huge rich-poor gap, and the paradox is this: if the poor want to become a little richer, they are forced to watch the rich become fabulously wealthy at an even faster pace. But if one were to artificially interrupt the trend toward polarization at the cost of economic growth, that would be impossible under the current political situation. For the rationale for the continued existence of the current system rests on economic growth: only stability can sustain economic development, and only support for the current regime can sustain stability, so the existence of the current regime is justified, even legitimate. Once this chain of logic is broken, it will truly provoke a desire for change among the people, because faith, theory, and other things seem unable to provide legitimacy or justification. Therefore, the problem of the rich-poor gap must be faced without sacrificing the rate of economic growth. What can be done is actually quite simple: the starting point should be the social welfare system, as well as the improvement of the legal system that makes it possible for the welfare system to be effectively implemented. Relying on ideological control and the efforts of the Propaganda Department is useless, because apart from free thought, another ticking bomb affecting political stability is the rich-poor gap. In a welfare-complete “modern” society, people who are satisfied with the status quo, afraid of change, and indifferent to politics would pose no danger even if public opinion were fully opened up and they were made to know everything. But when people have not obtained reliable, lifelong security, anxiety about the future and fantasies about another possibility make it possible for them to sympathize with change, whereas ideological control will only strengthen the backlash once control is lost. The rich-poor gap need not be abolished. If a sound welfare system guarantees that everyone has enough food and clothing, and if diversified standards of evaluation make wealth no longer so important, and if a sound rule of law enables people from different backgrounds to compete more fairly, then a society with a rich-poor gap may, in practical terms, be more worth looking forward to than communism.
2007-09-05 13:37:40 Anonymous 221.130.189.94 [reply]
Speaking as someone who is a little closer to the poor, I think most poor people actually do not oppose reform—because they have little to lose. In my hometown, many people go out to work because they have no money; several of my cousins, because our family was poor, went out to “make a living” after graduating from junior high school. And those who have no money but are unwilling to leave become loafers and thieves, snatching mobile phones on motorcycles and the like. If there is food to eat, who would become a robber?
In addition, our county had a kidnapping case these past two years, and the ransom demanded by the kidnappers was only 30,000 yuan—this amount may not seem like much to many people, but for the kidnappers where we are it was already a considerable sum. The lives of the poor are only worth 30,000 yuan, which left me utterly speechless. For that reason, I take a tolerant attitude toward crimes committed out of poverty, and have always believed that the responsibility lies with the polis rather than the individual who committed the crime.
mist
2007-09-05 15:41:19 Anonymous 124.17.16.85 [reply]
Uh, the government you’re hoping for may take action and shut down forums, blogs, message boards, and so on; remember to back up your blog.
I wonder whether it will also spill over onto Ycool…
yeziqiu
2007-09-05 16:09:16 Anonymous 61.148.45.150 [reply]
Heh heh
古雴
2007-09-05 18:53:38 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]
Maybe I expressed myself poorly. What I was saying was precisely the problem Mist mentioned: many poor people now do not oppose reform, because they have little to lose. But the poor are unorganized and powerless, though after all they remain a potential danger. So what I said was that if one wants to try to reduce this potential danger, the most important thing is to build social welfare and social security. Only when most people’s lives have a reliable foundation will they begin to resist unpredictable change.
mist
2007-09-05 19:21:29 Anonymous 124.17.16.85 [reply]
The welfare the poor enjoy is much lower than in Mao’s time—for instance, in medical care and education. Barefoot doctors are gone, temporary substitute teachers are gone, but they still do not dare go to good hospitals; the children of the poor need schooling, but there is no money… The situation is indeed improving step by step now, but the degree of improvement is still far from enough.
The poor have no organization, but if there are some people with relatively high prestige who wave a banner and call out, and promise them something, just as D made promises many years ago, then perhaps a fire will be lit that way.
You are right: “If one wants to try to reduce this potential danger, the most important thing is to build social welfare and social security. Only when most people’s lives have a reliable foundation will they begin to resist unpredictable change.” If one can live a stable life, who would rise up in rebellion?
古雴
2007-09-05 19:40:25 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]
Various newly emerging religious organizations with growing influence in the countryside may perhaps be a kind of potential spark; the previous student Li was a bit too hasty in his actions, but once there is one student Li, there may be more, and more cunning, students Li…
mist
2007-09-05 19:48:09 Anonymous 211.166.9.17 [reply]
As I see it, the rise of student Li is also the polis’s responsibility, and not a small one. After all, he also grew up in this polis, received this polis’s education, and witnessed this polis’s affairs and human relationships; and when things finally came to a head later on, if the polis were then to move in and round him up, to suppress XX, that would be like what Mencius said: “to proceed and punish them is to entrap the people” (从而刑之，是网民也). Last semester, in the ethics special topic, when that case about the corrupt official came up, I answered it this way as well, and thought that he did not need to be held responsible.
Having netted one Mr. Li is already enough; I really do not want to see more people netted.
c=”http://ug.ycstatic.com/avatar/1062487×48.jpg” />
古雴
2007-09-05 20:58:19 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]
Another reason for the rise of student Li was the qigong and special powers craze that had swept China for a long time. If it weren’t for student Li making a fuss, the qigong craze might well have gone on for some more time…
Of course the polis also bears a great deal of responsibility, but the corrupt official still has to be responsible for his own actions. Since he already understood, both in theory and in practice, many of the rules and hidden rules of this society, and still chose to continue being an official, he ought to be responsible for his own risky gamble.
By the way, I heard from ZW that the GPA rankings are out. I’m 18th and you’re 19th (because it’s now calculated to four decimal places), so in the end we both got through by luck. It’s just that Ya Li is a bit depressed… What should we do…
mist
2007-09-05 21:38:19 Anonymous 221.130.189.94 [reply]
…You actually overtook me…
If I don’t beat you up, heaven’s law will not tolerate it… Report me then, and also report Ya Li; comfort her a bit.
There’s one line in there saying it’s a translation—wasn’t Ya Li translating something not long ago? See whether that can be used?
But fortunately, filling in forms now is something everyone can do, and perhaps it may also be possible to get the qualification the way Senior Brother Sui did last year.
mist
2007-09-05 21:45:46 Anonymous 221.130.189.94 [reply]
I lean more toward being an extreme scientistic believer; I do not believe at all in events that cannot be experimentally repeated many times, so with qigong, traditional Chinese medicine, and the like I take a radical position and think they ought to be abolished—of course, there is no need to abolish them if they can produce a method that is exhaustively decidable, and feasible, within a finite number of steps.
Of course the corrupt official understands the consequences of ruining his own reputation and life, but there are so many corrupt officials, and there is no sign that the polis’s anti-corruption efforts are thorough or resolute, so he will have a mentality of luck, believing that he may not necessarily be exposed.
For example, if there is a 1/1000 chance of death and a 999/1000 probability of fine clothes and fine food, then for many people that is already a sufficiently reliable arrangement.
古雴
2007-09-05 22:00:24 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]
I also saw it said that “the calculation and ranking of the professional GPA of students in the Yuanpei Experimental Class shall refer to the statistical results of the academic units in which the students are enrolled.” I don’t know whether there were Yuanpei students participating in the ranking for our year. If there are one or two more Yuanpei students counted in, and if the Yuanpei students’ scores are lower than Ya Li’s, then Ya Li would squeeze in (what’s depressing is precisely that she is just one breath short). Another way would be to separate out the Department of Religion and our direction in logic and philosophy of science, and calculate the philosophy-direction ranking separately; I don’t know whether that would be enough to rank her in.
古雴
2007-09-05 22:04:59 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]
Actually, if qigong did not try every possible means to prove itself scientific, but instead were simply developed as a form of fitness exercise, that would probably be better. India’s yoga has already found its own way to survive, and it can also be fully accepted by Western and Chinese anti-pseudoscience organizations, spreading as a legitimate activity for cultivating the self and strengthening the body. But qigong cannot do that; once its attempt to squeeze into science fails, it ends in ruin and disgrace, with no way to turn back..
mist
2007-09-05 22:16:51 Anonymous 124.17.16.85 [reply]
Are you talking about independent ranking for religion? That would make sense—because in name, religion really is a department, parallel to the philosophy department.
If you go back and check the papers, raising all the courses from last semester that could increase the GPA as much as possible may also work.
The term “science” really is not something one can use casually and haphazardly~
The popularity of qigong may be because the polis’s orientation leans too much toward seeking national pride, always hoping to find evidence that some national essence of one kind or another is world-leading; and qigong, that ancient and wonderfully mysterious thing, happens to cater precisely to this tendency.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply