A Small Logical Issue "It Has Nothing to Do with Me" and "The Cost of Backwardness"

 A Small Logical Issue

"It Has Nothing to Do with Me" and "The Cost of Backwardness"

In the movie Election 2, a gangster boss named Uncle Teng delivers a line that’s full of swagger: “You want to make money but won’t put in the effort, you stick around and still expect to get a free ride—damn it.” If we stretch this a bit, it’s not just swagger—it lays bare the nature of many ordinary people, including myself. Of course, “ordinary people” here doesn’t include standout “patriotic thieves” like Hu Xijin, Jin Canrong, Zhang Weiwei, or Sima Nan—they lack humanity. If we don’t exclude them, any discussion about human beings would be flawed. Precisely because of this, their most logical purpose might be as sacrificial offerings. I’ve been sidetracked by these clowns again. Since I’m off track, let’s roll with it. I’ll briefly explain why I despise these “patriotic thieves” so much and why they pop up in nearly every piece I write. In my humble view, as long as these prominent figures aren’t locked up, this country has no real hope. On some level, they’re the root of its disease.

Speaking of the root, let’s start there. From the day the Chinese Communist Party established its regime on this ancient land—or even from the day it was founded—up to today, or until the day it falls, the evils and injustices caused by politics will always be a pervasive issue. It’s not even a “problem” per se; it’s more like a full-blown social phenomenon. Why? Why is it like this? Fundamentally, it’s determined by the nature of communism and the Communist Party—I won’t dwell on that here. What I want to address is a more surface-level, direct answer: the fusion of Party and state. This isn’t just a factual merger; it’s conceptual, ideological, logical, and formal. If anyone dared to seriously discuss with the Party that “the Party is the Party, and the state is the state,” they’d likely be locked up to “reflect.” And if they didn’t “figure it out,” they wouldn’t get out. The Party-state fusion is a critical lifeline for the Communist Party. If the two were truly separated, no rebellion would be needed—the Party would probably choke itself to death. How likely that is is another topic. For now, connecting this Party-state fusion to the countless evils and injustices it causes requires a small explanation.

Here’s the explanation: Conceptually, when Party and state are fused, all political concepts are linked in a chain. Ideologically, all political thoughts carry a strange stench. Logically, all political reasoning becomes sophistry. Formally, all political structures turn into theater. Factually, all political realities are fake. These harsh words might sound exaggerated at first, but I believe any normal person who cares about politics and examines history and reality objectively will find the truth even more outrageous—outrageous enough that most political evils and injustices are now treated with indifference, while pointing them out is seen as abnormal. That’s terrifying. What’s even scarier is that among the majority of normal people who care about politics, most know—or vaguely sense—that Party-state fusion is bad, yet instinctively or rationally think, “It has nothing to do with me.”

To be fair, if you elevate “it has nothing to do with me” to a lofty enough height or lower it to a humble enough level, it can be seen as profound wisdom—a wisdom of self-love and self-preservation. Whether it’s Yang Zhu’s saying from over two thousand years ago, “I wouldn’t pluck a single hair to benefit the world,” or the proverb, “Sweep the snow from your own doorstep and don’t worry about the frost on someone else’s roof,” both embody this wisdom of self-love and self-preservation. But fairness aside, in many cases—especially when politics is involved—this grand wisdom has a flaw bigger than its grandeur. Politics isn’t just tied to everyone’s daily necessities; it’s directly linked to whether the air you breathe is reliable. To take it further: “Party-state fusion has nothing to do with me,” but should you then calmly accept the problems—or rather, the costs—it brings, without complaint? Otherwise, it’s exactly like Uncle Teng’s line: “You want to make money but won’t put in the effort, you stick around and still expect a free ride—damn it.” There’s no such thing as a free lunch. So, all those normal people who care about politics and think “Party-state fusion has nothing to do with me” should quietly bear the costs it brings—the costs of backwardness.

On the point that “Party-state fusion” equals backwardness, I’ve touched on it briefly earlier. Here, I’ll expand on the costs of backwardness. At the national level—though with Party-state fusion, it extends to nearly every individual—in terms of politics alone, backwardness means enduring poverty, contempt, and, if you’re too arrogant about it, a beating. On a grander scale, otherwise humanity would step-by-step revert to monkeys, and society would turn into a jungle.

Backwardness Means Enduring Poverty

On this point, if you take Party-state fusion as a premise, there’s almost no way to argue it smoothly. With Party and state fused, the nation’s wealth is the Party’s private stash—no need to overthink it. Logically, even personal wealth counts as the Party’s too. Think about it: everyone’s a citizen, right? Setting aside human rights for a moment, it’s not a stretch to say all citizens belong to the state. If people belong to the state, their wealth is part of the state’s wealth. With Party-state fusion, all personal wealth becomes the Party’s private property. If someone asks, “If it’s all the Party’s, why are there such huge gaps in personal wealth?” Well, the Party loves money too, and its money has degrees of closeness and hierarchy. On closeness: if you’re fully the Party’s person—or half-attached to it—your wealth is the Party’s precious flesh. Spiritually or practically (healthcare, education, pensions), the Party prioritizes you. But if you’re far from the Party, or it takes eight detours to connect with it, can it trust your money? Protecting your wealth is a joke—your biggest threat is the Party itself. No dreaming allowed. On hierarchy: those with lots of money concentrate it, making it the Party’s premium asset. Those with little—or negative—wealth are the Party’s trash assets. It’d be a miracle if the Party cared about trash; you should thank it for not actively purging the negatives. Thus, under the Party’s glorious leadership, poverty trickles down relentlessly until it reaches those the Party can ignore. Backwardness means enduring poverty—not the Party’s poverty, mind you; it can’t be poor. It’s those the Party ignores who suffer, and because “backwardness means poverty” is a non-issue for the Party, the poverty it overlooks grows more painful and helpless, taking on broader meaning—how broad depends on the Party’s mood, until the day that mood no longer matters.

Backwardness Means Facing Contempt

What is backwardness? It’s stagnation, uncivilized behavior. Nationally—or with Party-state fusion, from the Party’s perspective—it’s the same. No matter how much rouge or thick colored paint the Party slaps on its face for power, rule, or pride, backwardness is backwardness. It’s unrelated to its slogans or occasional normal acts—it’s the Party’s nature. Politically, this isn’t the era of divine monarchy. Without real elections, backwardness is a done deal, no debate. If someone quibbles about “representative elections,” I’d struggle not to curse “represent your damn mother” and say that “representative elections” not only cement backwardness but showcase its sophistry and cunning, making it even more contemptible. Why does backwardness deserve contempt? Fundamentally, because the Earth is round—nothing political exists in total isolation. Everything’s connected, even logically. The progressive and civilized don’t despise backwardness just to change or improve it; they do it for their own progress and civilization. It’s not just a moral issue—civilization and backwardness are inherently paradoxical. If you don’t despise backwardness, progress and civilization have no security and could slide back. That’s the crux. Add morality, and it’s even clearer: as a normal person—not like the “patriotic thieves” Hu Xijin, Jin Canrong, Zhang Weiwei, or Sima Nan—even if you’re worlds away, knowing a Party claims shit smells sweet and countless people like you instinctively agree under its glorious leadership, doesn’t that disgust you? If you don’t despise that Party and those people, you can’t claim progress or civilization.

Backwardness Plus Arrogance Means a Beating

“Backwardness means a beating” is a familiar phrase within the Communist Party’s sphere—likely from its great leader Stalin—and it’s a propaganda anchor. From the Party’s view, it has three meanings: First, the Party isn’t backward, or progress began with it. Second, follow the Party, and you’re not backward—you won’t get beaten, or if you do, it’s glorious. Third, don’t follow the Party, and you’re backward, ripe for a beating—starting with the Party’s, which it can deliver with righteous gusto because “backwardness means a beating.” I’m not the Party, nor do I have its “awareness,” so beyond saying its intent is damnable, I won’t unpack it further. From a national perspective, backwardness plus arrogance deserves a beating. Backwardness is paradoxical to progress and civilization; coexistence or trade happens only due to practical constraints and mutual compromise. Backwardness compromises by pretending, but arrogance shatters that. The backward drop their mask, the advanced feel threatened, and conflict erupts. So, backwardness plus arrogance deserves a beating—not necessarily “will get beaten,” since in national fights, practical factors like size, population, and economy matter too. Backwardness has advantages—it can ignore costs, even human lives. But even if an arrogant backward entity avoids an external beating or beats others, there’s no triumph. A backward Party like the Communist Party beats its “own people” daily at home. When those “own people” wake up, it’ll be the Party’s turn for a real beating. I always think that day isn’t far off—arrogant backwardness deserves it.

There are many more costs of backwardness, but I’ll list just three here. The small logical link between “it has nothing to do with me” and “the cost of backwardness” is my focus. By now, readers likely get it—Uncle Teng’s “You want to make money but won’t put in the effort, you stick around and still expect a free ride—damn it” nails it. Plainly: too many normal people who care about politics say “Party-state fusion has nothing to do with me” on this core backwardness issue, yet act aggrieved—or even outraged—when bearing its costs. That’s a bit shameless, isn’t it? Like “playing both sides.” Again, these normal people shouldn’t include “patriotic thieves” like Hu Xijin, Jin Canrong, Zhang Weiwei, or Sima Nan—they don’t qualify. That so many semi-normal people “play both sides” isn’t just the Party’s fault; these “patriotic thief” reps contribute massively—they’re the core of the Party’s problem, far worse than economic corruption, not even in the same league. If—by some wild chance—the Party wanted to seriously pretend at reform, using them as scapegoats wouldn’t surprise me; I’d be ecstatic.

In closing, I arrogantly warn the good souls reading this—and myself—stay far from these “patriotic thief” reps and those “wanting money without effort, sticking around for a free ride—damn it” types. The latter are mostly ignorant by probability, but there’s a small chance they’re shameless. And if you’re too close to shamelessness, you’re too far from civilization.

June 7, 2023