風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
印度學者：中國在建設全球民主中的作用為發展中國家照亮了光明
China’s role in building global democracy a shining light for developing countries: Indian scholar
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1270884.shtml
環球時報 2022 年 7 月 19 日
編者注：
對於中國人民來說，過去的十年是史詩般的十年，也是鼓舞人心的十年。 中國在以習近平為核心的中國共產黨領導下，在發展經濟、深化改革、改善人民權利、擔當全球負責任大國等方麵作出了巨大努力。
印度馬克思主義知識分子、三大洲社會研究所執行所長維傑·普拉沙德（Prashad）表示，如果用一個詞來形容中國過去十年的變化，那就是“實驗”。 他在接受環球時報記者盧遠誌、白雲逸采訪時表示，“消除貧困是現代世界的最高道德”，中國在這方麵所做的事情“令人難以置信”。
這是有關這個特殊十年的係列文章的第 14 篇文章。
GT：如果讓你用一個詞來形容中國這十年的變化，你會選擇哪個詞？為什麽？
普拉沙德：很可能是“實驗”這個詞，因為我認為自1949年以來中國社會主義的特征之一就是嚐試實現某些目標，比如消除饑餓和貧困、建立人民的尊嚴等等。
1949年以來，中國人民經曆了許多風風雨雨。 而在一切風風雨雨中，目標始終是建立社會主義。
我認為在過去的10年裏，發生了很多非常有趣的實驗。 消除絕對貧困是一項巨大的成功。 我不會說像中國這樣的國家已經達到了完美，但肯定已經取得了某些成就。 生態文明進步顯著。 當我在中國時，看到新技術總是感到驚訝，尤其是高鐵。 已經取得了一些真正的進展。
環球時報：您在此前接受《環球時報》采訪時表示，非常關注中國的脫貧工作。 你為什麽關注它？
普拉沙德：我認為消除貧困是現代世界的最高道德，這意味著消除饑餓、文盲等。 這是一個政府的最高道德地位。 偉大的印度聖雄甘地說過，檢驗一個國家秩序是否良好的標準，不是看這個國家擁有多少百萬富翁，而是看這個國家的群眾有沒有挨餓。 我們可以更新一下，一個國家不應該根據億萬富翁的數量來判斷，而應該根據該國是否存在貧困來判斷。
多年來我一直在撰寫有關饑餓的文章，報道世界各地的饑餓故事。 我認為這是一個非常重要的問題，因為當人們處於饑餓狀態時，我發現做人很難。
中國所做的事情令人難以置信。 是否有可能被複製？ 當然。 但這不僅僅是遵循原則的問題。 國家必須致力於消除貧困作為首要目標。
環球時報：近年來，西方對中國特別是中國社會政治製度的妖魔化有愈演愈烈之勢。 是什麽引發了這樣的現象呢？
普拉沙德：從美國前總統理查德·尼克鬆訪問北京到巴拉克·奧巴馬擔任總統，中國實際上在美國受到了良好的對待。 美國還將深圳等地的中國生產視為國際產業生產鏈的基礎。
發生了什麽變化？ 在我看來，發生了兩件事。 首先，中國的技術發展威脅了西方公司的技術實力。 例如，華為開始生產手機。 如果華為生產的手機與蘋果等西方手機一樣好，而且價格更便宜，那麽它們肯定會威脅到西方公司的市場。 中國企業生產的技術即使不是更好，也與西方一樣好，而且價格更便宜。 這是一個很大的市場威脅。 西方試圖遏製中國的技術發展。
美國政府開始稱華為可能威脅其安全。 但沒有證據。 這是對西方資本的真正威脅——中國實際上已經實現了與西方技術發展的某種技術平價或接近平價。
其次，特別是2007-08年金融危機之後，中歐開始加強合作，許多中東歐國家簽署了“一帶一路”諒解備忘錄，意大利也加入了“一帶一路”倡議。 出於中國技術進步和歐亞大陸曆史一體化這兩點原因，美國加速了對華施壓。
環球時報：西方還炮製“中國威脅論”，試圖在全球範圍內孤立中國。 西方的意圖會達到嗎？
普拉沙德：我認為這是一個非常嚴肅的問題。
首先，我認為中國需要承認，在信息鬥爭方麵，它比西方弱得多。 例如，西方媒體公司在第三世界的大部分地區進行了飽和的新聞報道。 通過路透社、美聯社、CNN、福克斯新聞等。 他們的很多想法都通過世界新聞折射出來。 中國媒體報道的作用與西方媒體報道不同。 這與西方數百年的殖民主義有關。
其次，我們現在已經有證據表明，世界其他地區的人們不再真正完全相信美國在烏克蘭問題上的說法。 很多非洲國家、很多亞洲國家、很多拉美國家都不願意跟隨美國在烏克蘭問題上的劇情。
情緒有所轉變，但這還不夠。 我覺得直到最近中國外交一直很平靜。 中國對非洲正在發生的事情有何看法？ 中方對美國正在發生的事情有何看法？ 人們不清楚這些，但對於中國正在發生的事情有一個西方的理論，對於印度正在發生的事情有一個西方的理論。
我們需要承認這樣一個事實：在信息鬥爭中，西方仍然非常強大。 它能夠推動議程。 以消除絕對貧困為例。 為什麽這個新聞沒有出現在世界上每個貧窮國家的頭版新聞上？ 為什麽不？ 西方媒體稱，中國對數字不誠實，這突然影響了報道，因為他們有能力推動信息戰。
環球時報：有些人還在炒作“中國崩潰論”。 您認為中國的政治經濟模式有生命力嗎？ 您對中國的未來持樂觀態度嗎？
普拉沙德：西方對俄羅斯和中國進行了大規模的施壓。 然而，我們並沒有看到俄羅斯或中國表現出崩潰的跡象，而是看到了美國巨大的黨派之爭或者更確切地說是分歧，美國和歐洲之間的巨大分歧，就像法國和美國之間的巨大分歧，以及歐洲內部的巨大分歧。 這是災難性的。 我認為重要的是警告西方停止這種施壓行動，因為它不會看到中國或俄羅斯崩潰，實際上它自己也會崩潰。
我們不希望西方以災難性的方式崩潰，因為這可能導致各種可怕的衝突。
GT：西方將中國視為“一黨專製”國家。 對於這樣的觀點，你怎麽看？ 您如何看待西方和中國在民主和政治製度方麵的差異？ 曆史會證明哪一個更好？
普拉沙德：幸運的是，對我們來說，問題不在於哪一種更好，而在於我們是否能夠以不同的方式實現更好的民主。 同樣，我們都在嚐試如何讓更多的聲音被聽到。 在任何係統中，這都是一場持續的鬥爭。
對於大多數社會來說，而不是絕對君主製國家，需要代議製政府。 但即使在絕對君主製國家，也存在某種形式的代議製政府。 問題是，如何選擇你的代表。 大多數社會都決定舉行不同類型的選舉。 事實上，我想說，中國和美國的代表選舉程序實際上並沒有什麽不同。 它們的程度不同。
我不明白為什麽有這麽多關於民主與獨裁的討論。 事實上，我看到的是不同形式的代議製政治，人們正在努力創建更好的民主國家。 我們都在掙紮。 當美國大多數婦女希望有選擇是否墮胎的權利，而最高法院的少數人卻說不，美國這樣的國家怎麽能假裝自己擁有最好的製度呢？ 你不能擁有它嗎？ 怎麽這麽民主？
我們都在與民主作鬥爭。 坦率地說，我們在世界上需要多一點謙虛。 這個問題需要謙遜，而不是關於民主與獨裁的爭論。 那隻是噪音。
GT：過去十年，中國如何影響全球秩序？ 未來中國將作出哪些貢獻？
普拉沙德：現在，我們看到中國最大的影響是它實際上加入了許多多邊機構，以便為國際關係提供更好的民主化。 現在中國是金磚國家、上海合作組織的重要組成部分，是歐亞大陸穩定的重要組成部分。
我認為至少在2007-08年的金融危機之後，中國最大的不同是願意參與建設全球民主。 我認為這是一個巨大的進步，因為中國的內功和所取得的進步是一個強大的國家。 這是世界各地貧困人口的一盞明燈。
中國早就該加入世界體係民主化的嚐試，我很高興看到中國積極參與
代表世界上較貧窮的人民，因為它可以平衡一些代表較富裕人民進行談判的西方國家。
環球時報：中國共產黨正在帶領中國人民踏上實現第二個百年奮鬥目標的新征程。 中國共產黨的治國理政有哪些經驗可供其他國家借鑒？
普拉沙德：從中國這樣的社會主義實驗中學習是很困難的，因為隻有少數幾個國家仍然擁有真正的社會主義革命進程，即越南、中國和古巴。
但我認為值得學習的一個主要特點是中國思維缺乏僵化。 這就是為什麽我使用“實驗”這個詞。 你必須始終創造性地理解馬克思主義。 創造性的馬克思主義是我們進步的源泉，僵化是我們的死亡。 你絕對不能失去你的原則。 我認為這是非常重要的教訓。
中國國家主席習近平提出了社會主義原則的重要性。 年輕人需要創造性地運用馬克思主義原理並進行實驗。 我非常希望在中國各地的馬克思主義研究機構中，人們能夠了解實驗的力量，看到當我們讓人類的創造力蓬勃發展時，我們就能解決問題。
China's role in building global democracy a shining light for developing countries: Indian scholar
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1270884.shtml
By Global Times Jul 19, 2022
Editor's Note:
If using one word to describe China's changes over the past decade, it would be "experiment," said Indian Marxist intellectual Vijay Prashad (Prashad), executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. In an interview with Global Times (GT) reporters Lu Yuanzhi and Bai Yunyi, he said "it's the highest ethic of the modern world to eradicate poverty," and what China has done in this regard is "incredible."
This is the 14th article of the series about this special decade.
GT: If you are asked to use one word to describe China's changes over the past decade, which word would you choose and why?
Prashad: It would most likely be the word, experiment, because I think one of the features of Chinese socialism since 1949 has been to experiment with attaining certain goals, like eradicating hunger and poverty, building the dignity of the people and so on.
Since 1949, the Chinese people have gone through a lot of ups and downs. And in all the ups and downs, the goal has always been to establish socialism.
I think over the past 10 years, there have been a lot of very interesting experiments. The abolishment of absolute poverty is an immense success. I wouldn't say that a country like China has attained perfection, but certain things have certainly been achieved. Ecological progress has been dramatic. I'm always surprised to see the new technologies when I am in China, especially the high-speed rail. There have been some real advances.
GT: In a previous interview with Global Times, you said that you are paying great attention to China's poverty eradication. Why do you focus on it?
Prashard: I think that it's the highest ethic of the modern world to eradicate poverty, which means eradicating hunger, illiteracy and so on. It is the highest moral standing of a government. Mahatma Gandhi, the great Indian, said that the test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses. We can update that and say a country shouldn't be judged by the number of billionaires it has, but by the absence of poverty in the country.
I've been writing about hunger for years, covering stories of hunger all around the world. I think it's a very important issue, because I find it hard to be a person when people are hungry.
It's incredible what China has done. Is it possible for it to be replicated? Of course. But it's not just a question of following the principles. You got to have a state that is committed to eradicating poverty as a primary goal.
Prashad: Since former US president Richard Nixon visited Beijing till perhaps the presidency of Barack Obama, China was actually viewed favorably in the US. The US also viewed Chinese production in Shenzhen and other places as being fundamental to the international industrial production chains.
What changed? In my opinion, two things happened. First, Chinese technological developments threatened the technological power of Western companies. For instance, Huawei started to make phones. If Huawei makes phones that are as good as Western phones, such as Apple, and if they're cheaper, they certainly threaten the market of Western companies. Chinese firms are producing as good, if not better technology, as that in the West and at a cheaper price. This is a great market threat. The West attempts to roll back China's technological developments.
The US government started to say Huawei might threaten its security. But there was no proof. That was one genuine threat to Western capital - China had actually attained a kind of technological parity or near parity with Western technological developments.
Secondly, especially after the financial crisis of 2007-08, China and Europe began to enhance cooperation, and many Central and Eastern Europe countries signed the Memorandum of Understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative and Italy also joined the Belt and Road Initiative. For these two reasons: advances in Chinese technology and the historical integration of Eurasia, the US has accelerated a pressure campaign against China.
GT: The West has also fabricated the "China threat theory," attempting to isolate China on a global scale. Will the West achieve its intent?
Prashad: I think that it's a very serious question.
First, I think China needs to acknowledge that in terms of the information struggle, it is much weaker than the West. For instance, Western media companies saturate news coverage in much of the third world. It's through Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, Fox News and so on. A lot of their ideas are refracted through world news. Chinese media coverage doesn't have the same kind of role as the Western media coverage. This has to do with the West's hundreds of years of colonialism.
Second, we already have evidence now that people in other parts of the world no longer really fully believe what is coming out of the US on Ukraine. Many African countries, many Asian countries, and many Latin American countries are unwilling to follow along with the US storyline regarding Ukraine.
There's a shift in the mood, but that's not enough. I feel that Chinese diplomacy had been very quiet until recently. What is China's theory of what's happening in Africa? What's China's theory of what's happening in the US? These are not clear to people, but you had a Western theory about what's happening in China and a Western theory about what's happening in India.
We need to acknowledge the fact that in the information struggle, the West remains very powerful. It's capable of driving an agenda. Take the case of the eradication of absolute poverty. Why wasn't this front-page news in every poor country in the world? Why not? The West media said that China is not honest about the numbers and that suddenly influenced the story, because they have the capacity to drive an information war.
GT: Some are still hyping up the "China collapse" theory. In your opinion, does China's political and economic model have vitality? Are you optimistic about China's future?
Prashad: The West has carried out a major pressure campaign against Russia and China. However, rather than seeing either Russia or China demonstrate the lines of collapse, we have seen huge partisanship or rather divisions in the US, enormous divisions between the US and Europe, like between France and the US, and enormous divisions within Europe. This is catastrophic. I think what's important is to caution the West to cease this pressure campaign, because rather than seeing the collapse of China or Russia, it's going to actually itself collapse.
We don't want the West to collapse in a catastrophic way because that could lead to all kinds of terrible conflicts.
GT: The West sees China as a "one-party authoritarian" state. What do you think about such a view? What's your take on the differences between the West and China in terms of democracy and political systems? Will history prove which one is better?
Prashad: Fortunately, for us, the question isn't which one is better, but whether we will in different ways be able to attain better kinds of democracy. Again, we are all experimenting with how to get more voices heard. This is a constant struggle in any system.
For most societies, not absolute monarchies, a representational government is needed. But even in absolute monarchies, there is some form of representational government. The question is, how your representation is chosen. Most societies have decided to have elections of different kinds. In fact, I would say that the processes of selecting representatives in China and in the US are not actually different in kind. They are different in degree.
I don't understand why there is so much talk of democracy versus authoritarian. In fact, what I see is different forms of representational politics where people are struggling to create better democracies. We're all struggling. How can a country like the US pretend that it has the best system when the majority of women in the US want the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, but a small number of people in a supreme court say that, no, you can't have it? How is that democratic?
We're all struggling with democracy. We need a little more humility in the world, frankly. The question requires humility, not so much debate on democracy versus authoritarian. That's just noise.
GT: Over the past decade, how has China influenced the global order? What contributions will China make in the future?
Prashad: Now, the greatest impact that we see from China is that it has actually joined many multilateral bodies in order to provide better democratization for international relations. Now China is a key part of the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), key part of stability in Eurasia.
I think at least after the financial crisis of 2007-08, China's biggest difference has been the willingness to be involved in building a global democracy. I think it is an immense advance, because China is a powerful country in terms of its internal strength, its own advances that it has made. It's a shining light for poor people around the world.
The entry of China in attempting to democratize the world system has been long overdue and I'm so glad to see China's active participation on behalf of the poorer people of the world, because it provides a counterweight to some of the Western countries that negotiate on behalf of the richer people.
GT: The Communist Party of China (CPC) is leading the Chinese people on a new journey toward realizing the second centenary goal. What experience can other countries learn from the CPC governance ?
Prashad: It's difficult to learn from a socialist experiment like China, because only a few countries remain which had a genuine socialist revolutionary process, Vietnam, China and Cuba.
But I think one of the main features that can be learned is the lack of rigidity of the thinking in China. That's why I use the word experiment. You must always understand Marxism creatively. Creative Marxism is the source of our advances while rigidity is our death. You must never lose your principles. And I think that's the very important lesson.
What Chinese President Xi Jinping put on the table is the importance of the principles of socialism. And young people need to engage both the principles of Marxism creatively and experimentation. I very much hope that in the institutes of Marxist studies across China, people are able to understand the power of experimentation and to see when we allow human creativity to flourish, we can solve problems.
