贸易战，反全球化，在我看来，未尝不是一件好事。 如果历史真得终结了，我们只有两种可乐可选，两套电脑系统可以对比， 就可以骗自己没有被垄断。 全都连锁了，这世界只会越来越单调。 当然这只是我个人的看法。 似乎有不少人甚至连只有样板戏可看的日子都要怀念的。 他们是不怕乏味的。
不要奇怪于我的立场，不要琢磨我的屁股在哪边。 共产主义是资本主义的升级。 靠物质极大丰富，做大蛋糕来解决贫富差距问题也是资本主义右派鼓吹的方法。 这不是一丘之貉吗？（在股市画大饼用无限的发展前景忽悠你，与用按票分配按身份码分配骗你这就是按需分配不是按级别分别，真得有很大的不同？） 区别不过就是当大领导以集体的名义搞垄断时，你们就不认识他也是你们嘴里要不得的资本家了。
世界的问题是痴迷于高速发展，无限公司无限膨胀，没有认真反垄断，包括以集体的名义进行的垄断。无法按占市场比收税以提供福利(支持个体经营者）。 中国的问题是因为下层对爱国爱家之类的个人品德太过执着，忠奸最重要，真假无所谓，上层无法自己赦免自己，无法立个新闻法，走向公开透明。前面的问题是几百年的惯性，后面的更是几千年的积累，估计都是无解的。
据说地球已经进入不适宜人类居住的阶段。 我不知道这是不是危言耸听。 我知道无论真假，占人口比1%的上层不会放在心上， 我在电视上看到的洪水泥浆中的小孩绝不可能是他们中的一员。 我是不相信什么至大的主或神的。 不合逻辑。 有阳就有阴。 世界不可能变成天堂，但也不应该这么容易就奔向地狱。 要解决这世上的问题我认为关键就是要按占市场比收税以提供福利并遏止垄断，包括集体的名义搞的垄断。 这意味的经济放缓，甚至倒退。 这在我看来是好事，早该踩刹车了。 但这只是我个人的看法，怎么可能成为共识？人们早已习惯被钱能生钱的底层逻辑支配，怎么可能放弃所谓的发展。（职业经纪人选择垄断市场也是理性的必然选择，这就如同那些战争机器一旦开动，就停不下来了） 所以还是自求多福，继续锻炼吧。
与其检讨人种不如先检讨文化。与其检讨文化不如先检讨制度。 现代制度各个国家其实也差不多。毛病也一样，主要就是没有认真反垄断。甚至政府自己搞垄断。 垄断可能难免。但应该要求按占市场比提供免费服务之类的福利。包括国营事业。估计垄断的热情就大幅下降了。 我不赞同所谓的生产力高度发达，物质极大丰富，取消市场，按身份码分配的所谓按需分配，因为那实际是按级别分配。更糟糕的意味着以集体的名义搞垄断，会造成单调乏味，多样性的丧失。
Instead of reviewing the race, we should first review the culture. Instead of reviewing the culture, we should first review the system. The modern system is actually similar in all countries. The problems are the same, the main one is that there is no serious anti-monopoly. Even the government itself is engaged in monopolization. Monopoly may be unavoidable. But it should be required to provide free services and other benefits according to the proportion of the market. Including state-run utilities. I guess the enthusiasm for monopolization drops dramatically. I don't agree with the so-called highly developed productive forces, great material abundance, abolishing the market, and the so-called distribution according to need according to the status code, because that is actually distribution according to rank. Worse still, it means monopolization in the name of the collective, which will result in monotony and loss of diversity.
社会主义提倡的合作共赢要实际得多。市场经济+按各经济实体占市场比收税以提供福利（既不是消费税，也不是所得税），福利倾向弱势而不是高官，才是比较合理的。 关于政治制度，中共应该至少回到胡耀邦时代。并立法保障个人权利，从新闻法开始。
Socialism promotes a much more practical win-win cooperation. A market economy + taxing each economic entity according to its share of the market in order to provide benefits (neither consumption tax nor income tax), with benefits favoring the disadvantaged rather than the top officials, would be more reasonable. Regarding the political system, the CCP should at least go back to the Hu Yaobang era. And legislate individual rights, starting with the press law.
无论无私有多么的正当，多么的道德。实际上做不到就是做不到，再怎么样感情用事，来多少遍无产阶级文化大革命，也还是证明做不到而已。狠斗“私心一闪念”，自己斗自己的私心，这就相当于拔自己的头发以为能使身体长得高一点。属于自欺欺人。 即便假设没有私有制，甚至没有私有物，连身体都是公家的（我猜这才是习所谓的我将无我），人还是自私的。 因为所有物和所有者是两个概念。 或许一无所有，无产，但还是有个我的。 （混淆概念。方便了英明领导们为所欲为，还可以自欺欺人，说不是出于私心。就好比跳了集体主义的大神，国家意志上身，就不受你们凡人的道德约束了。）No matter how justified and moral selflessness is. In reality, not being able to do it is not being able to do it, and no matter how emotional it is, and how many times the proletarian cultural revolution comes, it still proves that it can't be done. To fight hard against "a flash of selfishness", to fight against one's own selfishness, is equivalent to pulling out one's own hair thinking that it will make one's body grow a little taller. It is self-deception. Even assuming that there is no private ownership, not even private property, and that even the body is owned by the public (which I guess is what Xi calls "I will have no self"), people are still selfish. Because ownership and owner are two concepts. Maybe there is nothing, no property, but there is still an I. (Confusing concepts. It's convenient for wise leaders to do whatever they want, and still be able to delude themselves that it's not out of selfishness. It's like jumping on the collectivist bandwagon, where the will of the state takes over and is not subject to the moral constraints of you mortals.)
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
在商业社会，消费者是不是整个社会合作共赢的一环？
我认为是的。
类似最低保障之类的机制理应在全球推广，
更重要的是反独家垄断，反无节制膨胀。我认为两家同时分据垄断也是垄断，这些垄断难免，但必须受到节制。
理应立法，按占市场比收税以提供免费商品或服务之类的福利。
并且设法扶持小商家，小众消费品牌，例如 理应规定肯特鸡麦当劳必须包养隔壁的路边小摊。
摩登社会（或者现代商业）也是既有好的地方，也有坏的地方的。
好的地方是分工合作的配合度由市场调节，相对比较准。所以分工越细越好，品牌越多越好。（有人工智能，会更精确）
坏的地方是经理人在按资本分配的底层逻辑的支配下总是选择扩张（钱能生钱，资本膨胀,投入再生产，但是很少投入再消费）。一旦形成独家垄断，消费萎缩，市场供需关系提供的调节作用就会被破坏。
因此必须抑制垄断（例如 将人工智能更多地交给小商家，小品牌）。
In the business world, is the consumer part of a cooperative win-win situation for society as a whole?
I think so.
Mechanisms like the Minimum Guarantee should be promoted globally.
More importantly, it is anti-exclusive monopolization and anti-uncontrolled expansion. In my opinion, two simultaneous monopolies are also monopolies. These monopolies are inevitable, but they must be subject to regulation.
Legislation should be enacted to provide benefits such as free goods or services by taxing a percentage of the market.
And there should be ways to support small businesses, niche consumer brands, for example, Kent's Chicken and McDonald's should be required to underwrite the roadside stand next door.
Modern society (or modern business) has both good and bad points.
The good part is that the fit of the division of labor is regulated by the market and is relatively accurate. So the finer the division of labor, the better, and the more brands, the better. (With AI, it will be more accurate)
The bad thing is that managers always choose to expand under the dominance of the underlying logic of distribution by capital (money generates money, capital expands, is invested in reproduction, but rarely invested in re-consumption). Once an exclusive monopoly is created, consumption shrinks and the regulation provided by market supply and demand is destroyed.
Therefore monopolies must be curbed (e.g. giving more AI to small businesses, small brands).
毛 、习不过就是自觉不自觉地沿袭几千年的外道德内军法，换汤（共产修养代儒家）不换药（军法控制一切）。 在继承糟粕方面做得很好。在断绝精华方面也不输满清。反华分子是应该好好表扬毛、习。
中国文化的精华是不（借）外求，从容不迫。 早就断绝了。 糟粕主要是一贯的两面派。说一套做一套。 以前是外儒内（法家）。现在是台上为人民服务，台下“普天之下，莫非（吃）党饭，党恩浩荡”。 底下人没觉得不对，好像很自然。几千年了。早习惯了。 所谓西方现代文明，也有两面。 一面强调标准化系统化工业化机械化，乃至全球化，大家喝一样的可乐穿一样的T恤，单调乏味。 还有一面强调分工协作，靠市场调节，各自发挥特长，互补共赢。
前者有军事化（海盗）抢资源的传统（ 信奉丛林法则，不知道能量守恒定律）。 后者主要体现在软件上，而不是高楼大厦航母高铁。（如果办个事还要求爷爷告奶奶地拉关系，那离所谓的现代化还远。）
为什么从毛到习有吸收糟粕继承劣根的体质呢？ 因为他们实际都是实用主义者，（又不肯老实承认自己不信自己宣扬的那一套），怎么利于自己掌权，怎么能骗自己是有实力的，就怎么做。自卑（以至于靠排场撑）就是这二人共通的原罪。
(公平地讲，毛并非一无是处，客观上无意间他曾经启发一部分中国人的怀疑甚至造反的思想。只是现在的毛粉已经没有这个精神了。在我看来，就是白学了毛思想。）
Mao, Xi is but consciously or unconsciously inherited thousands of years of external morality and internal military law, change the soup (communist cultivation instead of Confucianism) but not change the medicine (military law to control everything). In the inheritance of the dregs do very well. In terms of severing the essence, it is not inferior to the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Anti-Chinese elements are the ones who should praise Mao and Xi well.
The essence of Chinese culture is not (borrowed) from outside sources, and is unhurried. It was severed long ago. The dross is mainly consistent duplicity. Saying one thing and doing another. It used to be outside Confucianism and inside (Legalism). Now it is to serve the people on the stage, but under the stage, "under the sky, there is nothing but (eat) the party's rice, the party's grace is great". The people at the bottom don't think it's wrong, it seems to be very natural. It's been thousands of years. They are used to it. The so-called modern Western civilization also has two sides. On the one hand, it emphasizes standardization, systematization, industrialization, mechanization, and even globalization, where everyone drinks the same Coke and wears the same T-shirt, which is monotonous and boring. On the other hand, it emphasizes the division of labor and collaboration, and relies on the market to regulate and complement each other's strengths and win-win situations.
The former has the tradition of militarization (pirates) to grab resources (believe in the law of the jungle, do not know the law of conservation of energy). The latter is mainly reflected in the software, not high-rise buildings aircraft carriers and high-speed rail. (If you have to ask your grandpa and grandma to pull strings to get things done, you are far from being modernized.)
Why is it that from Mao to Xi, there is a body that absorbs the dregs and inherits the bad roots? Because they are actually pragmatists, (and refused to honestly admit that they do not believe in the set of their own propaganda), how to facilitate their own power, how to lie to themselves is powerful, how to do. Low self-esteem (to the point of being propped up by platitudes) is the original sin shared by these two.
(To be fair, Mao wasn't useless, objectively and unintentionally he used to inspire skepticism and even rebellion in some Chinese people. It's just that Mao fans nowadays don't have that spirit anymore. In my opinion, it is just learning Mao's thoughts in vain.)
三“权”分立，乃至四“权”分立，不是权力power，而是权利right。 权利这个词也不太好，在有的语境里，用职权之类的概念更好一些。 在我看来，文明的程度并不取决于拿什么样的武器打群架。
如果所谓文明不过就是组织得比较好的野蛮，那么社会分工够不够精细，配合够不够精准才是文明程度的标准。 如果有人真地实行一人管一切东西南北中，那还不被累死？ 权利与权力音同意不同。职权Rights的分立（立法执法监察等机构互不隶属）与一个powerful的老大在小弟间搞平衡是两回事。现代社会的运作不在《二十四史》之类的中国古代史书里。 不追求细化分工，精确配合。一味地所谓集中力量办大事，难免放大个人的愚蠢， 老是指望天降白鹿，为民做主，所谓中国式民主，也是我们传统里比较糟糕的部分。 权力制衡是传统社会（摩登化之前的社会)玩的人治。摩登社会是陌生人间的分工合作，不是熟人结成的黑社会小团体，大佬在小弟间搞平衡。老毛看一辈子二十四史学会的也就是这种玩意儿。
老毛的思想太旧了。他不适合推进中国的摩登化。
The separation of the three powers, or even the four powers, is not a power but a right. Right is not a very good word, and in some contexts it is better to use the concept of authority or something like that. In my opinion, the degree of civilization does not depend on what kind of weapons are used to fight in a group.
If civilization is nothing more than well-organized barbarism, then the degree of civilization is determined by how finely the social division of labor is and how accurately it is coordinated. If someone really practiced one-person rule over everything, would he not be exhausted to death? Rights and power sound different. Separation of powers and rights (legislation, law enforcement, supervision, etc. are not subordinate to each other) is not the same thing as a powerful boss striking a balance among his juniors. The workings of modern society are not in ancient Chinese history books like the 24 Histories. It doesn't pursue a fine-grained division of labor and precise coordination. To concentrate on the so-called centralization of power to do great things inevitably magnifies the stupidity of the individual, and to expect the white deer to fall from the sky and do the work for the people, the so-called Chinese democracy, is also the worse part of our tradition. Checks and balances of power is the rule of man played in traditional societies (pre-modernization societies). Modern society is a division of labor among strangers, not an underworld clique of acquaintances, where the big brother balances among his juniors. That's the kind of stuff Old Mao learned from a lifetime of reading 24 histories.
Old Mao's thinking is too old. He is not suitable for the modernization of China.
人类经济系统本质 （借题发挥一下） 从女采集男狩猎，到男耕女织，直至纺织女工与炼钢男工 先有分工，才有交换。 （先有交换，才有商品、货币、市场、金融、经济、等等等等） 先有分工，才有权力。 权力不仅是春药，还是毒品，戒不掉放不下， 我是没有体会过这种精神享受，估计能胜过毒品， 总之为了更大的权力，他们会掩盖权力来自分工的事实，自称真理或上帝或people的神圣代表， 取得支配、计划、配给所有交换的权力。 甚至有可能建立没有经济只有政治的社会。
中国式现代化，应该是福利社会反垄断社会（公用事业不得不垄断，但应该免费），而不是现代版的纳粹（国家垄断，国家社会主义）
国家这个必要之恶就是应该用来反垄断，而不是自己搞垄断。本该服务于人民的政府，一旦垄断，就会走向反面。本该协调分工的市场，一旦垄断，也会走向反面（如果一个市场里只有垄断企业，包括集体所有制企业，那么货币就是粮票，人人各取所“恩赐”，而不是什么按劳分配）
有两种文明，或文明的两个方面，一个是集中力量打胜仗，以城墙或凯旋门为标志，另一个是分工协作，以市场或广场为标志（东方也有，如清明上河图）。后者的好处是趋向复杂多样，而不是单调乏味，但必须认真反垄断，包括各种名义下的垄断。
1%未必有阴谋，但达成默契演互斗戏是不难的。洗脑的常常先把自己给洗了。玩火就要准备面对骑虎难下弄假成真。 靠税收改革解决不了贫富差距，包括来自税收的福利，因为垄断、尤其是不受监督的官营垄断，不受供需关系控制，一切税都可以转嫁给消费者。必须认真地反垄断，如果有两家在垄断就不算垄断了，那么就该按占市场比收税提供免费商品或服务之类的福利。其他措施例如可以强行要求麦当劳或肯特基必须包养隔壁的小店或路边摊。鼓励分家，禁止合并。大品牌不得做广告，小的可以免费做。等等等等。（实践的胜利检验出的也可以是一团好狗屎运。在上的未必真有能力，在下的未必不行。）Chinese-style modernization should be a welfare society anti-monopoly society (utilities have to be monopolized, but should be free), not a modern version of the Nazis (state monopoly, state socialism)
The necessary evil that is the state is that it should be used to counter monopolies, not to create monopolies itself. Government, which is supposed to serve the people, goes the other way when it monopolizes. The market, which is supposed to coordinate the division of labor, is also the opposite when it is monopolized (if there are only monopolies in a market, including collectively owned enterprises, then the money is food stamps, and everyone takes what they are "gifted" with, not what is distributed according to labor)
There are two kinds of civilization, or aspects of civilization, one focused on winning battles, marked by walls or triumphal arches, and the other on division of labor, marked by markets or squares (also found in the East, e.g., the painting of the river on the Qingming River). The latter has the advantage of tending toward complexity and variety rather than monotony, but must be seriously anti-monopolistic, including under various names.
The 1% may not be conspiratorial, but it's not hard to reach a tacit agreement to act out the inter-fighting theater. Brainwashed often wash themselves first. If you play with fire, you should be prepared to face the difficulty of riding the tiger and making it true. Tax reform will not solve the wealth gap, including welfare from taxes, because monopolies, especially unsupervised government-run monopolies, are not controlled by supply and demand, and all taxes can be passed on to consumers. Anti-trust must be taken seriously, and if there are two in the monopoly it is not a monopoly, then benefits such as free goods or services should be taxed as a percentage of the market. Other measures such as could force McDonald's or Kentucky to have to underwrite the small store or roadside stand next door. Encourage splitting and prohibit mergers. Big brands are not allowed to advertise, small ones can do it for free. And so on and so forth. (A triumphant test of practice can also be a ball of good shit luck. Those at the top may not really be capable, those at the bottom may not be incapable.)
钱不重要。自身有利用价值比较重要。 如果我们还活在狩猎采集的时代，或男耕女织、自给自足的社会。 那么只要还有体力，甚至完全没有钱也没关系。 先有分工，才有社会，乃至文明。 钱只是个工具。
所谓现代化，有其糟糕的一面，我在别处可能已经谈得太多了。 而好的一面，其实不在于市场或自由竞争（不被垄断、包括国家垄断、所破坏的前提下） 而在于分工被工业化极大地细化了， 本该使我们的生活越来越方便。如果有什么事非得求爷爷告奶奶地拉关系，那就说明还是有反动势力，还很顽固，他们垄断某些分工，例如审批权之类的。这涉及政务官和事务官从哪里来的问题。 科举可以算中国式选举。 选的也是政务官或官， 而不是吏，或事务官。
公务员考试选的是后者，并不是当代科举。 高考也不是。只能做博士，不能做官。
中国当今官或政务官的产生，靠的是伯乐制，家臣制。
也就是说，在许多硬件方面中国已现代化，甚至可算后现代。在政务官产生这方面还不如宋朝。
现代化的一个特点就是陌生人的分工协作。不靠血缘，裙带，同学，朋党之类的人身依附关系。 我在别处说过：以大领导，所谓郭嘉的水平，其暗箱操作的结果就是按级别分配，各取所恩赐。 不会是什么按劳分配。 按劳分配也是一句不切实际的口号，尤其是在如今，无人工厂里连灯都没有。 只有在不被垄断资本（包括国有垄断）破坏的市场里，才能通过供需关系实现比较合理的按劳分配。
这话也适用于国际市场。 当中国低价倾销时，你以为倒霉的是谁？
所以川普说中国抢了美国人工作时，底下掌声很大。 其实是各国垄断资本，包括中国官僚垄断资本，也包括美国的富人，一起携手抢的。 （这与其说是资本家或官僚有没有良心的问题，不如说是职业经纪人的理性选择。 总之，这个按资本分配的制度虽然透明，但太容易形成一家独大。人们似乎有种他独大不是因为钱能生钱而是产品特别好的错觉， 至今没有认真反垄断，更不用说还有自己忍不住以集体的名义搞垄断的。） （应该立法：谁垄断谁按占市场比提供免费产品或服务，包括公用事业）如果政府不能认真反垄断，还要自己搞垄断， 那还不如不要政府了 （真让我做主。谁占市场份额高，谁就为穷人买单。以人民名义搞的垄断更该如此。）
Money is not important. Self-utilization is more important. If we were still living in the hunter-gatherer era, or in a society where men farmed and women weaved and were self-sufficient. Then it wouldn't matter if there was even no money at all, as long as there was still physical strength. There is a division of labor first, and then there is society, and even civilization. Money is just a tool.
There is a bad side to so-called modernization, which I've probably talked about too much elsewhere. The good side is not really in the market or free competition (provided it is not destroyed by monopolies, including state monopolies) but in the fact that the division of labor has been greatly refined by industrialization, which is supposed to make our lives easier and easier. If we have to beg and plead for connections for anything, it means that there are still reactionary forces, still stubborn, who monopolize certain divisions of labour, such as the power to grant approvals and so on. This involves the question of where the political and business officials come from. The imperial examinations can be considered Chinese-style elections. They also elect political or government officials, not mandarins or civil servants.
The civil service exams elect the latter, not the contemporary imperial examinations. Neither is the college entrance examination. You can only be a doctor, not an official.
China today relies on the Bole system, the vassal system, for the creation of officials or government officials.
That is to say, in many hardware aspects, China is modernized, even post-modern. In this respect, the generation of government officials is not as good as that of the Song Dynasty.
One of the characteristics of modernization is the division of labor among strangers. There is no personal dependence on blood, nepotism, classmates, cronies, or the like. I have said elsewhere: at the level of the big leaders, the so-called Guojia, the result of their back-room operations will be a distribution according to rank, each taking what he or she is given. It won't be any kind of distribution by labor. Distribution according to labor is also an impractical slogan, especially nowadays, when there are no lights in unmanned factories. Only in a market that is not destroyed by monopoly capital (including state-owned monopolies) can there be a more reasonable distribution by labor through supply and demand.
This statement also applies to the international market. When China dumps at low prices, who do you think is the unlucky one?
That's why there was a lot of applause underneath when Trump said that China had taken American jobs. Actually, it was monopoly capital from all countries, including Chinese bureaucratic monopoly capital, but also rich Americans, who joined hands to steal them. (This is not so much a question of whether capitalists or bureaucrats have a conscience or not, but a rational choice of professional brokers. In short, this system of distribution by capital is transparent but it is too easy to create a monopoly. People seem to have the illusion that he is dominant not because money makes money but because the product is particularly good, and so far there has been no serious anti-monopoly effort, not to mention those who cannot help themselves from monopolizing in the name of the collective.) (Legislation should be enacted: whoever has a monopoly should provide free products or services, including public utilities, according to their market share.)
如果政府，这个所谓的必要之恶，不能认真反垄断，还要自己搞垄断，甚至所谓公有制，变相战时共产主义，那还不如不要政府了。
真让我做主，既然这些必要之恶不认真反垄断，还要靠垄断资本，包括国家资本，发展战争生意，那就不要什么国家了。或国家减弱到只是个地名就够了。（军队警察减弱到只是保安。政府减弱到类似物业公司。法律改名叫公约。其他类似。）
按劳分配是句口号，没有可操作性，计件？计时？
尤其是在有的工厂无人到不需要装灯，连脑力劳动都开始转交借ai的当代。
按资分配，钱能生钱，必然使穷的越穷，富的越富。
但是规则比较透明，不至于具体怎么按劳分配完全由领导们暗箱操作。 你都不用管，只要相信其英明神武就行了。 实际国家资本也是一种资本，
韩非子早就说过：要想国家富，就要百姓穷。（大意如此，原文忘了）
而且，在不被垄断破坏供需关系之前，靠市场调节， 人们付出的体力，技术，脑力，创意，等等，是可以获得合理的回报的。 无论哪个制度的老板，还是领导，人都是差不多的。按劳分配只能靠市场调节，供需关系，不能靠垄断集团头目或首席的道德水平。如果市场没有被垄断，人们的劳动值多少取决于供需关系，他们是不是大善人或圣君都没关系。
人总是自私的。即便实现了共产主义， 按码分配各取所赐，所赐满足甚至超过预期，因而没有私有制，甚至没有私有物，连身体都是公家的（我猜这才是习所谓的我将无我），人还是自私的。 因为所有物和所有者是两个概念。 一无所有，无产，但还是有个我的。 （混淆概念。方便了英明领导们为所欲为，还可以自欺欺人，说不是出于私心。就好比跳了集体主义的大神，国家意志上身，就不受你们凡人的道德约束了。）
检讨人种不如检讨文化。检讨文化不如检讨制度。 现代制度各个国家其实也差不多。毛病也一样，主要就是没有认真反垄断。甚至政府自己搞垄断。 垄断可能难免。但应该要求提供免费基础产品与免费服务。包括国营事业，水电煤网医。估计垄断的热情就大幅下降了。 又或者规定麦当劳之类的必须包养路边小摊或补贴其他类似的竞争对手。
真让我做主，既然这些必要之恶不认真反垄断，还要靠垄断资本，包括国家资本，发展战争生意，那就不要什么国家了。或国家减弱到只是个地名就够了。（军队警察减弱到只是保安。政府减弱到类似物业。法律改名叫公约。其他类似。）
我说的当然是所有国家。当然不现实。不用提醒。本就是个假设而已。
五大流氓不是笑话。实质就是如此。并没有多少民意的代表性。就是五个绑架各国民众的黑社会组织。本该只是个物业管理之类的行业工会。
把国家人格化，就是默认公众是有统一的集体意志的。那是土共喜欢的话术。 国家，对我来说就是个地名。对有的人来说，郭嘉，就是政府，更确切地说，就是大领导们及其手下。 据说，现在习已经取消集体领导制度，也就是说，只有一个大领导了。 那么，习个人怎么想？我实在很难猜。 我只是把我能想到的最坏的可能告诉你们，悲观一点未必是坏事，至少有个心理准备，不至于冲击太大。
