Interpretation of the historical resolutions of the CCP. 2｜Hong Kong needs to take its own "new path of modernization"

In November last year, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China passed the third "Historical Resolution". This is a major event for the Chinese Communist Party, but what it means to Hong Kong is rarely mentioned.

The Communist Party of China is the ruling party in China, and its political behavior will inevitably affect Hong Kong.

More importantly, China's development experience in the past few decades has attracted worldwide attention. The historical summary of the CCP is a material that any politician should refer to. As a special administrative region of China, Hong Kong is even more accessible.

Recently, the magazine "Seeking Truth" published the content of the speech delivered by Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, at the Sixth Plenary Session of the CPC Central Committee, making it easier for everyone to understand the thinking context of the "Resolution of History".

Therefore, I selected two topics from my speech: "self-revolution" and "modernization", trying to find a shortcut for readers to understand the "Resolution of History" and the CCP.

At the second session of the Sixth Plenary Session, Xi Jinping proposed how China "successfully walked out of the path of Chinese-style modernization and created a new form of human civilization." In the transcript of his speech published in the magazine Qiushi, he said that the Chinese-style modernization path "has been cracked." It has solved many problems in the development of human society, abandoned the capital-centered modernization, polarized modernization, materialistic modernization, and external expansion and plundering of the old ways of modernization in the West, and expanded the way for developing countries to modernize. The search for a good social system offers a Chinese solution."

The content contained in this sentence can help us understand how the historical experience of the Chinese Communist Party has inspired Hong Kong's transformation and reform, and launched Hong Kong's Modernization 2.0.

Those who are accustomed to viewing the CCP with prejudice will easily assume that Xi Jinping's above words are just a continuation of the past criticism of the West and capitalism, and will not delve into the significance of the times, but the reality of these words cannot be denied, because China has indeed stepped out of a different modernization. path, and its criticism of the West and capitalism has long been confirmed by the status quo.

For the CCP, whether it is the goal of modernization or the vision of common prosperity, it must be based on China's basic national conditions, seek truth from facts, and avoid repeating historical mistakes and mistakes.

(Associated Press)

The rise of communism and the Soviet Union was closely related to the Great Depression in the United States and Europe. World War II proved that capitalism and Western-style democracy did not eliminate the ongoing wars in Europe.

After World War II, the Soviet Union strongly recovered its economy. In 1957, it even launched the first artificial satellite of mankind, Sputnik, which established the leadership in technology at that time. The Cold War also started in this context.

It is a pity that the political, economic and social governance of the Soviet Union has since embarked on the wrong path, digging a trap for the final disintegration.

The CCP, which inherited socialism, did not follow closely. Instead, it pushed forward its own reforms and created the most successful modernization process of our time.

The slightly older Hong Kongers have all witnessed, and even personally experienced, the mainland's change from "poor and poor" to today's "rich and powerful". The gap is huge, but the achievements are universally recognized, and are what Xi Jinping called "China's solution". Provides solid content and authority.

"Westernization equals modernization"

What modernization is has always been the focus of social science research, but it has never been able to reach a consensus. Except for a materially prosperous social life, there are great controversies in other aspects.

The modernization that most of us know is the modernization of the West in the past 100 years. It is indeed capital-centered, polarized, materialistic, and colonialist and expansionist, and it has abandoned backward countries. modern form.

Hong Kong is very familiar with this kind of modernization and is itself a prominent case.

In addition to the foundation of modernization, the material also solidified the legitimacy of capitalism, and at the same time made the democratic system authoritative.

Many sociologists are reluctant to link capitalism and democracy, and they always feel that it is inappropriate, but inadvertently, they have created "modern" together. Modern civilization has been reduced to material civilization, and the success of modernization has been Defined as the success of capitalism, modern is equivalent to Western, and modernization and the democratic and liberal system based on the United Kingdom and the United States are used interchangeably in political discourse.

The Soviet Union once regarded Europeans as a model of social development. Saudi Arabia and Qatar used their wealth to build prosperous cities. Before the handover, Hong Kong was a famous modern city in Asia, but they are not democratic economies as defined by the West, so they are not considered as democratic economies. is modern.

Based on the same understanding, in the early days of reform and opening up, most Western public opinion held a pessimistic attitude towards China's modernization path.

The CCP has been critical of the Western capitalist system since its founding, but it has never been taken seriously by the West. This is not only because China has no right to speak, but also because of its own lack of development, it cannot give any authority to such criticism. Take a different path to modernization, and this criticism becomes more powerful.

However, why does the central government allow Hong Kong to continue on the "old path of modernization" while embarking on another modernization path that it considers more scientific and fair?

Fairness and justice is the new test

The economic base determines the superstructure, which is the key argument of the CCP's materialist view of history.

Of course, it is understandable that material abundance has brought about modernization, but whether material is enough to change the shape of the times and define it as modern is increasingly questioned.

Especially young people and intellectuals, they criticized: the nouveau riche may be rich, but they are shambags without culture, how can they be modern?

On the other hand, in today's world, successful technology or cultural entrepreneurs are more respected by society than wealthy real estate developers. How do they connect with modernity?

Xi Jinping's emphasis on common prosperity is a major revision of Deng Xiaoping's idea of ​​letting some people get rich first, and it is also a major shift in the CCP's economic reform and wealth distribution policy.

(file picture)

Material is no longer the only criterion for modernization. Social governance, the rule of law, a free and open humanistic environment, education, and social morality have gradually become the inevitable connotations of modernity, and the fairness and justice of resource allocation has become the international community’s recognition of modernization in recent years. Brand new requirement.

In recent years, both the left and the right in the United States have insisted that social resources must be allocated reasonably, although there are theoretical differences in understanding and methods.

Why is China's modernization road gradually appreciated?

It is because the CCP has promoted a very successful poverty alleviation policy for rural and remote areas, proving that it is "one cannot miss" in terms of fairness and justice.

Many people think that there is no democracy and freedom in the mainland, so it is not modern. Such an argument used to be very popular, but years of research by authoritative public opinion organizations in the United States have pointed out that Chinese people are very satisfied with national governance, especially young people. On the contrary, The U.S. data is disappointing.

Since democracy is where the people are the masters of the country, why do those who are already "masters of the country" deny the governance of the country and even want to overthrow their own government?

In the same way, why in a country that claims to be free, would any people think they are bound?

This paradox raises questions about whether Western democratic freedoms can be used as a measure of modernization.

Assessed in terms of degrees of freedom, is discrimination against other races and genders freedom?

Is it freedom to prevent many people from obtaining better living conditions?

Tuition fees are high, and some people cannot enter high-quality institutions of higher learning. Is this freedom?

Many people think that the electoral system proves democracy, but in fact almost half of the people are always dissatisfied with the result, that is, they are not in charge.

In this case, how can elections be equated with democracy and freedom?

There is no way to prove that democracy and freedom in the West are the foundation or premise of modernization.

In general, Hong Kong is wealthy, but whether it is modern or not is different.

There are many high-rise buildings in Hong Kong, and people are intoxicated with money.

Hong Kong's material wealth is still superior to that of the mainland, but why does it seem to lag behind the mainland in terms of gain, and the index of life happiness and poverty eradication are not as good as those of the mainland?

If we assume that GDP is wealth, the per capita economic aggregate of Hong Kong is more than four times that of the mainland, and even if it is only compared with Shenzhen, it is more than double it, but this cannot explain the difference in the quality of life between the two places.

In terms of living area alone, Hong Kong's per capita figure is just the opposite of the superiority of GDP. In terms of income consumption power, the mainland middle class and Hong Kong are not far behind.

The political environment in the Mainland is indeed not as open as that in Hong Kong, but Hong Kong people who travel back and forth between the two places for a long time will not feel much difference in the degree of freedom of life.

As far as the degree of modernization is concerned, there is obviously no gap between the two places.

You should remember that Hong Kongers used to call mainlanders "A-chan", but today many mainlanders call Hong Kongers "Gang-chan" in turn.

Thirty years Hedong, thirty years Hexi.

Hong Kong and the Mainland can "each with their own beauty"

The old path of modernization once allowed Hong Kong people to live a comfortable life, and most people's lives were guaranteed. However, once the social disparity between the rich and the poor and frequent riots occurred, doubts would arise.

If the U.S. economy is not sluggish, social conflicts and poverty, political battles and divisions are not everywhere, and the rise of China's path will only be two countries "going their own way."

The current situation is that even Americans admit that their democratic system is faulty, that China is enough to challenge the international order it controls, and the threat is serious enough to "contain" China with its allies.

This just proves that China's modernization path is convincing and authoritative.

So, does this mean that Hong Kong's system is fundamentally unscientific and unfair, and it cannot achieve the prosperity and stability that Hong Kong wants to maintain and allow the people to pursue a happy life?

In fact, "same destination by different paths" is an inevitable situation in human society. Although there are differences between people, they cannot be separated from human nature.

Diversity is not the same as conflict, and "two systems" are not necessarily "different from each other", and may even be complementary.

The same is true of modernization. Yesterday's success does not mean that it is still the same today. Hong Kong's past success does not mean that the mainland must adopt the Hong Kong model in order to modernize, and the same is true for the West.

Wouldn't it be more ideal if both paths continued to be successful, or even helped each other and succeeded together?

"Two systems" does not necessarily mean "every way". If both paths are successful and sustainable, and even help each other and succeed together, wouldn't it be more ideal?

(file picture)

Sociologist Fei Xiaotong's famous saying "each is beautiful in its own way, the beauty of the beauties is beautiful, the beauty and the beauty together, the world is in harmony" is well-known in the mainland, and it is estimated that Hong Kong people will agree with it after hearing it.

Since it is "one country, two systems", Hong Kong and the mainland are taking different paths, but the goal of modernization is the same, and it will not be a life-and-death decision.

Under the premise of "one country", "two systems" should only be mutually reinforcing.

Of course, even if this is the original intention, temporary conflicts and misunderstandings are inevitable, which requires leaders to use various means to correct and resolve them.

The difficulties that Western capitalism is experiencing today and the chaos Hong Kong is in is not the result of China's criticism and rise, but the result of its own internal system flaws that have not been repaired, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

Shifting the blame for one's own mistakes to the external environment, or even slandering it as someone else's fault, is a despicable trick of politicians and is completely untenable.

Can Hong Kong's system be "beautiful"?

This is of course, but it cannot be obtained by means of "lying flat", let alone continuing to walk on the "old road", but must have the courage to take one's own "new road of modernization".

The "Historical Resolution" of the Sixth Plenary Session pointed out that the CCP's emphasis on summarizing historical experience and achievements is in preparation for "starting a new journey of building a modern socialist country in an all-round way."

Domestically, the Chinese dream, national rejuvenation, original mission, and modernization all point to the same direction: poverty eradication, a better life, civilization and happiness are all real and simple pursuits, both material and beyond material.

Hong Kong can also formulate its own "historical resolution" and plan its own "new journey of modern society" on the basis of reviewing its previous successes and failures.

This time, Hong Kong should address the inherent flaws of capitalism, remove capital dominance, polarization, and materialism, and look at the system of Hong Kong from a new and simple perspective. It should also learn from the modernization path of the mainland and adopt the attitude of "beauty and commonwealth". Reflect on the progressive significance of "One Country, Two Systems", and take "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" to a higher level.