最近，中國社會科學院公佈了一份調查報告，指出中國的城鄉收入差距全世界第一。城鄉收入差距大約是三點幾倍。另外的幾個國內研究機構指出，這是一份太保守的估計了，實際應該是五到六倍。
無論如何，世界第一是肯定了。農村人被剝削也是肯定了。造成這種不正常狀況的原因是什麼呢？國內的專家們不敢說，或者是顧左右而言他。言論不自由，政治壓力是主要的原因。這不能怪他們。
可以找出來的原因很多。但是根本的原因有兩條：一個是農村基層的腐敗；另一個就是所謂的中國模式需要保持廉價勞動力。由這兩個原因又派生出其它許多的原因。可以說是有意地製造出了城鄉貧富差距。
農村基層幹部的腐敗，可以說是古往今來登峰造極。我記得在監獄裏的時候，和一個看押我的犯人聊天。我問他：你們家鄉種的大蔥很有名，你自己的三畝地如果種一畝大蔥，你也不至於窮得娶不上媳婦去強姦幼女呀。
他輕蔑的笑着說：你們這些書生懂什麼？我種大蔥還是種黃金都沒用，最後還是只夠吃飯。我忙問為什麼，就是交公糧，即使是苛捐雜稅也是有數的。他更笑了：什麼有數的，要不說你們書生什麼也不懂呢。我聽了就更不懂了。他解釋說：你說說中央有多少種政策吧。有一種政策就有一種苛捐雜稅。中央也沒說收多少，怎麼收， 那還不是大隊幹部說了算。
我一聽嚇了一跳，這還不把農民逼反了。他說不會：幹部們一般不會把人逼反了，否則他們自己就成了造反的第一個對象。所以他們給每家算的帳不一樣。根據你收入的多少，肯定讓你有飯吃，餓不死也撐不着。人家的帳算得精着呢，讓你恨得牙痒痒但算算造反還是划不來。這就叫水平。所以俗話說得太對了，尤其是現在，「人不得外財不富；馬不吃夜草不肥」。我們這種人想娶媳婦就只能靠外財了。
零零碎碎說了些閒話之後我又問了個題外的話：不是都改叫鄉和村了嗎，怎麼還叫大隊公社呢？他想了想說不知道，反正都是書記和支書管着呢。沒什麼區別就這麼叫下去了。
我這才真正明白了，正是共產黨建立的鄉村專制體制，是農村貧困的根本原因。共產黨又不養活他們，卻看着城裏的腐敗享受。小平同志給他們指了條路，他們自然會因地制宜地讓他們自己這一部分人先富起來了。所以才會有吃着國家救濟的貧困縣裏，鄉村幹部開的卻是奔馳和寶馬。
估計馬上會有比我還迂腐的書生跳起來反對說：那寶馬和奔馳不也是農村的收入嗎？所以你說的貧富差距不對。前幾天還有人說我不該批評修改刑事訴訟法呢，企圖論證共產黨的法律修改得越來越好。我要說，首先，那個貧富差距是共產黨自己的社會科學院和民政部說的，要說造謠也是共產黨自己造的謠。其次，寶馬和奔馳說明不僅城鄉貧富差距大，農村本身的貧富差距更大。
更重要的是奔馳和寶馬以及基層幹部的腐敗消費，正好花掉了農民用於農田基本建設和農業生產所需要的資本。這才是農村經濟發展緩慢的根本原因。這就是城鄉貧富差距加大的根本原因。這也是迫使大量農民工湧向城市的根本原因。就為了這個原因，才有了號稱世界第二大經濟體卻擁有世界最廉價勞動力。跨國公司當然要支持這樣的專制政權了。否則他們的超額利潤從哪兒來呢？
這時候馬上有馬屁學者出來為政府作解釋了，說這是發展中必然產生的規律。這就是用真話撒謊的例子。確實，在發展中會產生貧富差距拉大的現象。如果不加限制和調節的話，這種現象不僅僅是在發展的初級階段產生，就是發達了也還是會維持這個狀況。因為資本和市場的自然規律，就是利潤最大化。資本和政治相結合所需要產生的結果，就是保證利潤最大化。這才是資本主義的本意。
可惜民主國家並不完全是資本主義，不是任由市場規律自由發生作用的自由資本主義，而是市場和社會利益兼顧的民主主義。不管是否打着社會民主主義的旗幟，限制和控制市場以便保證社會成員的利益，是現代民主國家普遍實行的制度。民主國家的議會爭論最多的問題，就是在保證市場經濟和保證人民利益之間，如何找到最好的平衡點。
或者用學者們習慣，而老百姓聽不大懂的說法就是在效率和公平之間尋找平衡。找不對你就下台，換一個黨繼續找。這是影響西方民主國家選舉的最大因素。老百姓也用不着都去當學者；並不需要什麼提高了國民素質才能知道自己是公平了還是效率了，只要看看自己的腰包就知道該選誰了。
可是在中國你能夠選舉嗎？雖然有虔誠的美國人拿着高工資到中國去教人們怎樣選舉，人們也只能奉旨選舉。或者是在共產黨的官員們不願佔有的低級職位上，給共產黨的高官選一些馬仔。因此，共產黨根本不需要在公平和效率之間選擇。執政之前，他們用公平打倒了別人。執政以後，他們眼裏就只有黨和國家的利益和效率了。
現在改革了，據說效率大大提高了，也據說是腐敗了。所以中共官員們只關心官僚資產階級和跨國資本的利益，也就是他們自己的利益。連黨和國家也成了他們的私產，老百姓不過是他們賺取利潤的螺絲釘。誰有必要和螺絲釘談公平呢？按照馬克思的剩餘價值理論，給他們養活自己的口糧就行了。在這個層面上，中共還真是馬克思主義者。說他們已經不是共產黨了，那可是西方跨國公司僱用的學者們造的謠，他們自始至終都在共別人的產。
這才是中國老百姓累死累活仍然一貧如洗的根本原因。
[next]
The Way Out for China (Part L): Why the Gap between China's Urban and Rural Income is the World's Highest?
-- Wei Jingsheng
Recently, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences released a report that the gap between China's urban and rural income is the world's highest. Urban income is more than three times rural income. In addition, several research institutions in China point out that this is a very conservative estimate; the actual difference should be five to six times.
In any case, for sure it is the world's most extreme. The exploitation of rural people is also sure. What is the reason behind this abnormal situation? The experts inside China do not dare to say much outright. Without freedom of speech, political pressure limits their expression. So we cannot blame them.
We could find many reasons related to this issue. However, there are two fundamental reasons: one is the corruption of the rural area authority at the grass-roots level; the other is the so-called Chinese model which needs to maintain cheap labor. From these two reasons, there derive many other reasons. It could be said that this huge gap between urban and rural income was purposefully created.
The corruption of the rural officials can be said to have reached its peak since ancient times. I remember the time when I was in prison, I had a chat with a prisoner who monitored me. I asked him: your hometown produces famous onions, if you just grew one Chinese acre of onions out of the 3 acres you have, you should be able to have enough money to get married to a woman instead of (got in jail for) raping a girl.
He said with a smile of contempt: what do you scholars know? Regardless whether I grow onions or gold, it would be useless. In the end, I could barely have enough to eat. So I asked him why: "Even paying grain tax, after all the exorbitant taxes and levies, there should be a limit." He laughed even harder: "What limit? So you scholars do not understand anything." As he saw me confused, he explained: "Tell me how many policies there are from the central government. For every policy, there is an exaction. The central government did not say how much and how to take, so the officials at the production brigade have the final say.
I was shocked. Would not this to force the peasants rebel? He said it will not happen. The officials usually will not want to make the locals rebel, for they themselves would be the first object of the rebellion. So they calculated differently according to each family and its income to the degree that you will have some to eat, neither starving to death nor having much left. The calculations were well done to make the people resent the officials yet feel it not worth rebelling. This is sufficient. So there is a saying that was quite right, especially for now: "Without extra money, you will not be rich; without eating grass in the night, the horses will be thin." He said: "for people like us to get a wife, we have to get some extra money."
After some more conversation, I asked him a question on a different subject: "Isn't it all changed to towns and villages, why are they still called production brigades and communes?" He thought it over and replied that he did not know. After all it was still the Secretary of the Communist Party and its branch heads that were in charge. There was not much difference.
That made me really realize that the root cause of rural poverty in China is due to the authoritarian system that the Communist Party established in the countryside. The Communist Party does not feed them, yet these rural officials know that the officials in the cities are enjoying the corruption. With the road pointed by Deng Xiaoping, of course they would let their own people "get rich first" by adapting to and taking advantage of the local conditions. Thus we see in the poor counties that need relief from the country, the rural cadres drive expensive Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs.
I guess there will be some scholars more pedantic than me would jump up and express their objection: is not the BMW and Mercedes-Benz also rural income? So what you said about the gap between rich and poor is not right. Just a few days ago, I heard people saying that I should not criticize the Chinese government's intention to change the Code of Criminal Procedure as a way to prove that the laws of the Communist Party are modified for the better. I would say, first, the gap between rich and poor is reported by the Academy of Social Sciences and the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the Chinese government itself, so if someone says these numbers are rumors then they are rumored by the Communist Party itself. Secondly, the BMW and Mercedes-Benz show not only the wealth gap between urban and rural areas, but the even greater wealth gap within the rural area itself.
More importantly, the corrupt consumption by the grass-roots cadres of the Communist Party, including the Mercedes-Benz and BMW, would be just the capital that the Chinese peasants need for the basic construction of their farms and agricultural production. The corruption is the root reason that the economic development in the countryside is slow. It is the root reason that the wealth gap between the cities and the countryside has been widening. It is also the root reason that forces many peasant workers to flock to the cities. Just for this reason, the so-called world's second largest economy offers the world's cheapest labor. Of course, multinational corporations want to support authoritarian regimes like this. Otherwise, how could they get the excess profits?
At this time, we will immediately see the scholars who like to brown their noses from the Chinese government come out to explain that this situation is inherent during development. This explanation is an example of using truth to lie. Indeed, there will be a widening of the wealth gap during development. If continued without restriction and regulation, it will not just happen during the initial stages of the development, but it will also be maintained well after development stabilizes. That is because the natural law of the capital market is to maximize profits. The intended result of the capital and politics combined is to guarantee the maximization of profits.
However, democracy is not unfettered capitalism. It is not a totally free capitalism that lets the market rule without any restriction. A democratic society tries to take care of both the market and social interests. Regardless whether it is social democracy in name or not, restricting and regulating the market in order to guarantee the interests of the members of society is widely practiced in modern democratic states. The most often discussed issue in the parliaments of the democratic countries is how to find the best balance between the assurance of a market economy and the guarantee of the people interests.
Or, using a term that scholars are familiar with that average people do not quite understand, the parliaments try to find a balance between efficiency and equity. If a political party cannot find the correct balance, then the voters will choose a different party to look for it. The average people do not have to be scholars. Without so called "improving the quality of the citizens" people do know fairness and efficiency -- by just checking on their own wallets, people know whom to vote for.
But can you vote in China? Although there are devout Americans paid with high wages who went to China to "teach" people how to elect, people can only elect according to the Communist Party intention, or just elect some lower ranking running dogs for the higher officials of the Party. Therefore, the Communist Party does not need to choose between equity and efficiency at all. Before the Communist Party took over China, it used fairness to kick the others away. After it took over the country, it only cared about the interest and efficiency of the party and country, not the people.
Now with "economic reform", the efficiency is greatly improved, and so is the corruption. The Communist officials only care about the interest of the bureaucratic capitalist class and multinational capital, i.e., their own interests. Even the Communist Party and China as a nation have become their private property. The Chinese people are just working screws on this big machine for them to make profit. What is the need to discuss fairness with some screws? According to the surplus value theory of Karl Marx, all these people need is enough food to stay alive. From this level, the Chinese Communist Party indeed is Marxist. There are those saying that this political party is not Communist anymore, which is just a rumor made by scholars hired by the Western multinational companies, throughout, as literally from the composition of its Chinese characters "Gong Chan", the Communists have been taking away others' property (to share within themselves).
This is the root reason that the average Chinese person is working so hard yet is still poor.
