最近，中国社会科学院公布了一份调查报告，指出中国的城乡收入差距全世界第一。城乡收入差距大约是三点几倍。另外的几个国内研究机构指出，这是一份太保守的估计了，实际应该是五到六倍。
无论如何，世界第一是肯定了。农村人被剥削也是肯定了。造成这种不正常状况的原因是什么呢？国内的专家们不敢说，或者是顾左右而言他。言论不自由，政治压力是主要的原因。这不能怪他们。
可以找出来的原因很多。但是根本的原因有两条：一个是农村基层的腐败；另一个就是所谓的中国模式需要保持廉价劳动力。由这两个原因又派生出其它许多的原因。可以说是有意地制造出了城乡贫富差距。
农村基层干部的腐败，可以说是古往今来登峰造极。我记得在监狱里的时候，和一个看押我的犯人聊天。我问他：你们家乡种的大葱很有名，你自己的三亩地如果种一亩大葱，你也不至于穷得娶不上媳妇去强奸幼女呀。
他轻蔑的笑着说：你们这些书生懂什么？我种大葱还是种黄金都没用，最后还是只够吃饭。我忙问为什么，就是交公粮，即使是苛捐杂税也是有数的。他更笑了：什么有数的，要不说你们书生什么也不懂呢。我听了就更不懂了。他解释说：你说说中央有多少种政策吧。有一种政策就有一种苛捐杂税。中央也没说收多少，怎么收， 那还不是大队干部说了算。
我一听吓了一跳，这还不把农民逼反了。他说不会：干部们一般不会把人逼反了，否则他们自己就成了造反的第一个对象。所以他们给每家算的帐不一样。根据你收入的多少，肯定让你有饭吃，饿不死也撑不着。人家的帐算得精着呢，让你恨得牙痒痒但算算造反还是划不来。这就叫水平。所以俗话说得太对了，尤其是现在，“人不得外财不富；马不吃夜草不肥”。我们这种人想娶媳妇就只能靠外财了。
零零碎碎说了些闲话之后我又问了个题外的话：不是都改叫乡和村了吗，怎么还叫大队公社呢？他想了想说不知道，反正都是书记和支书管着呢。没什么区别就这么叫下去了。
我这才真正明白了，正是共产党建立的乡村专制体制，是农村贫困的根本原因。共产党又不养活他们，却看着城里的腐败享受。小平同志给他们指了条路，他们自然会因地制宜地让他们自己这一部分人先富起来了。所以才会有吃着国家救济的贫困县里，乡村干部开的却是奔驰和宝马。
估计马上会有比我还迂腐的书生跳起来反对说：那宝马和奔驰不也是农村的收入吗？所以你说的贫富差距不对。前几天还有人说我不该批评修改刑事诉讼法呢，企图论证共产党的法律修改得越来越好。我要说，首先，那个贫富差距是共产党自己的社会科学院和民政部说的，要说造谣也是共产党自己造的谣。其次，宝马和奔驰说明不仅城乡贫富差距大，农村本身的贫富差距更大。
更重要的是奔驰和宝马以及基层干部的腐败消费，正好花掉了农民用于农田基本建设和农业生产所需要的资本。这才是农村经济发展缓慢的根本原因。这就是城乡贫富差距加大的根本原因。这也是迫使大量农民工涌向城市的根本原因。就为了这个原因，才有了号称世界第二大经济体却拥有世界最廉价劳动力。跨国公司当然要支持这样的专制政权了。否则他们的超额利润从哪儿来呢？
这时候马上有马屁学者出来为政府作解释了，说这是发展中必然产生的规律。这就是用真话撒谎的例子。确实，在发展中会产生贫富差距拉大的现象。如果不加限制和调节的话，这种现象不仅仅是在发展的初级阶段产生，就是发达了也还是会维持这个状况。因为资本和市场的自然规律，就是利润最大化。资本和政治相结合所需要产生的结果，就是保证利润最大化。这才是资本主义的本意。
可惜民主国家并不完全是资本主义，不是任由市场规律自由发生作用的自由资本主义，而是市场和社会利益兼顾的民主主义。不管是否打着社会民主主义的旗帜，限制和控制市场以便保证社会成员的利益，是现代民主国家普遍实行的制度。民主国家的议会争论最多的问题，就是在保证市场经济和保证人民利益之间，如何找到最好的平衡点。
或者用学者们习惯，而老百姓听不大懂的说法就是在效率和公平之间寻找平衡。找不对你就下台，换一个党继续找。这是影响西方民主国家选举的最大因素。老百姓也用不着都去当学者；并不需要什么提高了国民素质才能知道自己是公平了还是效率了，只要看看自己的腰包就知道该选谁了。
可是在中国你能够选举吗？虽然有虔诚的美国人拿着高工资到中国去教人们怎样选举，人们也只能奉旨选举。或者是在共产党的官员们不愿占有的低级职位上，给共产党的高官选一些马仔。因此，共产党根本不需要在公平和效率之间选择。执政之前，他们用公平打倒了别人。执政以后，他们眼里就只有党和国家的利益和效率了。
现在改革了，据说效率大大提高了，也据说是腐败了。所以中共官员们只关心官僚资产阶级和跨国资本的利益，也就是他们自己的利益。连党和国家也成了他们的私产，老百姓不过是他们赚取利润的螺丝钉。谁有必要和螺丝钉谈公平呢？按照马克思的剩余价值理论，给他们养活自己的口粮就行了。在这个层面上，中共还真是马克思主义者。说他们已经不是共产党了，那可是西方跨国公司雇用的学者们造的谣，他们自始至终都在共别人的产。
这才是中国老百姓累死累活仍然一贫如洗的根本原因。
[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.
