【原创】温家宝讲述的天下大势 53
　　我们这些"业余政治家"每天上网看新闻看评论，真正追求的就是把握天下大势。比如你经商，把握了天下大势才能知道往哪里投资是正确选择；比如你做官，把握了天下大势才能在政治斗争中选对边跟对人；比如你像我一样不经商不做官整天就喜欢上网扯淡，也只有把握了天下大势才能说几句有谱的话不至于让人特别笑话。这就叫"识时务者为俊杰"。
　　
　　然而天下大势可不是那么容易把握的。比如陈良宇就没有把握好，再比如布什就不知道现在世界上的战争游戏是应该怎么玩的。特别对于一般普通人来说，所谓天下大势就是四个字： 轻重缓急。都说台湾该打，那么是应该现在马上打呢，还是等等再打？目前中国最紧迫的任务是不是打台湾？都说现在韩国太讨厌，那么是中韩合作大于分歧呢还是分歧大于合作？都说要支持自主创新，那么当下中国是提高铁路技术研发水平更紧迫呢，还是迅速提高铁路运力更紧迫？像这样的问题如果不从定量角度深刻了解中国国情，感情用事是不能做出正确判断的。民间科学家不能证明哥德巴赫猜想，业余政治家不能治国。
　　
　　今天温家宝不知何故发表了一篇文章《关于社会主义初级阶段的历史任务和我国对外政策的几个问题》，为我们讲述了天下大势。显然他是中国最有资格谈论天下大势的两个人之一。最近李长春贾庆林刘云山有时候也爱在报纸杂志上发表几篇文章，但我仔细研读了温家宝这篇，绝对不是那些八股官样文章，而是一篇真正把握了天下大势的治国方略。这篇文章所提供的思想在去年的六中全会上已经开始提到过，从这个角度说"新意 "不足，否则的话此文的重要性不亚于诸葛亮的隆中对策。
　　
　　下面我谈谈对此篇雄文的理解，希望抛砖引玉。
　　
　　- 1： "社会主义初级阶段"。我理解这个词最初被创造出来完全是因为要进行"让一部分人先富"的经济改革，而这种改革是不符合"原教旨主义"社会主义学说的，因此发明了这个词。也就是说"社会主义初级阶段"本来针对的是我国经济制度。而温家宝这篇文章所强调的可不是经济，指出" 不光要讲生产力的不发达，还要讲社会主义制度的不够完善和不够成熟。"
　　也就是说我国改革的重点从经济体制转向社会制度，法制。从"先富"转向"共富"。从"效率优先"转向" 逐步实现社会公平与正义，极大地激发全社会的创造活力和促进社会和谐"。这是一个非常重要的战略转折。
　　
　　- 2：但是经济建设仍然是中心。发展才是硬道理。国内有的极左派认为最好全面反思改革，甚至干脆再来一次文化大革命来彻底清除腐败，这种思想是错误的，是不知道什么是大局。中国的大局不是那几个腐败分子，而是在这个战略机遇期必须通过经济建设来迅速提升国力。特别强调的就是" 战略机遇期"。现在世界的大形势是，我们有机会发展。
　　
　　- 3：中国发展的最重要阻碍是什么？腐败？民主？人权？台湾？美国？错！那些问题都是"软"的问题，是人可以解决的问题。中国发展的真正阻碍是资源和环境。没有资源，没有生存空间，就算你制度再好也没用，这叫巧妇难为无米之炊。从2004年开始中国对世界资源的需求已经开始令人恐惧了。有识之士纷纷担心中国为了发展会不会侵略别国来掠夺资源呢？温家宝明确回答了这个问题：" 中国在发展中会遇到资源、能源、环境等瓶颈制约，但经过多年努力，我们已经找到了一条全面协调可持续的发展道路。这就是树立和落实科学发展观，建设资源节约型、环境友好型社会"。
　　这个战略做起来绝对比说要困难得多，其难度甚至超过"和谐社会"，超过反腐败。只要看看最近的新闻就知道，我国经济建设什么指标一般都比预定计划完成的好，只有环境指标完成不了。所以这里总理说归说，中国也许已经"找到了"这个可持续发展的道路，但真正"走上"这条道路是非常困难的。最大的问题就是怎么在不牺牲经济增长速度的情况下走这条路。
　　
　　- 4：对外政策。中国过去几十年都是"闷声发大财"，温家宝的意思是说这个政策不会改变，叫做"不扛旗、不当头"。文章特别提到现在" 国际社会对我国的期待会日益增多"，但是这个方针不能改变。然而我仔细研读之下发现还是有"微调"的，这个微调就是" 我们应当保持良好的精神状态，增强对外工作的主动性和进取性"。这一段落的真正精华所在就是中国已经决定要在对外关系方面有所作为。甚至提出"世界新秩序 "的"最高目标"是和谐世界，请问除了老大谁敢给江湖立规矩？我理解美国现在衰落之后，留下一个巨大的权力真空，中国众望所归，不做老大也不行。中国真正的想法不是不做，而是不张扬。
　　
　　- 5：文化。这篇文章提到文化，把它跟内政建设和对外关系相提并论，特别提到要" 从全面建设中国特色社会主义的战略高度"来搞文化和交流，这非常引人注目。我理解中国要通过文化来左右世界。
　　
　　阅读温相雄文，一定要记住"大局"这两个字。这篇讲的是当下治国的大道理，而我们整天关心的什么长白山钓鱼岛高铁陈水扁都是小道理。温家宝说"小道理都归大道理管着"。文章甚至根本不必提台湾，台湾绝对不是我国当前的最重要问题。
　　
　　最后我想猜测一下为什么温家宝会选择在这个时候发表这篇文章？可能跟即将到来的"两会"有关，也可能为了在十七大以前进一步统一思想。基本可以断定这篇文章就是未来十七大的主题。我猜测，之所以要发表这篇文章，很可能是因为有些官员还不太理解这个天下大势。
　　
　　读懂这篇文章就把握了天下大势。建议大家好好读。最后补充一句，所谓“以正治国，以奇用兵”。让国家长治久安靠的不是什么奇思妙想阴谋诡计，而正是这种看似平淡的雄才大略。

关键词(Tags): 战略机遇期 资源 环境 和谐社会 温家宝
同人于野 选转。铁手 荐,最后于2007-02-27 01:11:01改,共3次;

好文
送花。

地板花

但愿被称做“胡温新政”的政策不被沙文主义绑架
说一句吧，那个大国崛起是有心也好，无意也罢。但总归是在客观上起着造声势的作用。

只是希望，这个崛起是正常的崛起，而不是在资本集团有意无意诱导下的民族沙文主义和民族分裂主义的“崛起”，这对红朝来说，会是一条不归路。

好！

赞！
大国崛起是国富民强，不是特权阶层搞得“中兴运动”。

社会生产的发展和社会制度的完善是大事情。

温的文章对制度改革也是点到为止。

在国家整体存在信仰和信用危机的情况下，温也只能给领导干部框个蓝图罢了。

尽管套话还是那么多，好歹有些问题还是点了一下。

好文照例花之！

凑个热闹。
温家宝说：我国正处在并将长期处在社会主义初级阶段。这句话有两个定位：一个是社会主义初级阶段；另一个是中国将长期处于这个阶段。

中国的社会主义初级阶段定位，最早是叶剑英在1979年国庆30周年讲话中提出来的。据说，社会主义初级阶段包含两层含义：第一，中国社会已经是社会主义社会。第二，这个社会主义社会还处在初级阶段，并且不能超越这个阶段。

又据说，社会主义和社会主义初级阶段，其本质就是社会经济制度中公有制所占比例。在社会主义初级阶段，公有制所占比例应该是多少？有人说，80%才是主体，才是社会主义；也有人说，51%就是占主体，就是社会主义。剩下的当然可以是私有制了。

众所周知，共产主义者不喜欢私有制，把消灭私有制当作终身奋斗目标。面对掌握国家政权的共产主义者，私有制在社会建设中战战兢兢地活着。当共产主义者向全社会发出号召发展私有制时，一个个个人既激动又恐慌，激动的是个人可以拿主意为社会生产了，恐慌的是个人能为社会生产多久，将来是否还会株连九族。

据说，为了解决这个问题，有共产主义者对外讲五十年不会变，对内讲二十年不变，此后又说坚持一百年不动摇。帝国主义者也跟着瞎起哄：只要走上自由经济之路，根本用不了那么久，共产主义者就会抛弃共产主义。

二十多年过去了，私有制在中国大地上恢复了活力，并且有了个雏形，政府不得不计划在法律上恢复保护私有财产的功能。因此，国家总理说了，中国将长期处于这个初级阶段。长期是多长？或许一百年，或许一千年，反正是很长。

多谢！我理解，以前提“社会主义初级阶段”，文字上来看，, 1
多谢！我理解，以前提“社会主义初级阶段”，文字上来看，实际是搞私有化的“借口”。强调的是我们将长期处于这个阶段。

而现在温家宝提“社会主义初级阶段”，强调的是这个阶段制度太落后，急需改变。

del

俺的理解 1
既然是长期的，共产主义者就该接受现状，共产主义者就该帮助政府想想办法，减少资本带来的消极影响。比如说如何分配，比如说如何开发和利用资源，比如说如何反腐败，等等。物权法出台实施以前，舆论界还得先想想初级阶段。


最后于2007-02-27 08:58:52改,共1次;

hua! 1

good

不知道现在还用得着向谁找借口？
按说如果是文革后几年，人们的意识还停留在闹革命的年代一时转不过弯来。现在娼妓合法化都有人谈了，还用得着借口，坚持什么什么100年么？从上到下，还有多少有共产主义理想的？我看有这个理想的恐怕也是边缘人，不掌权，也不主流，用得着照顾他们情绪么？

历史是螺旋上升，曲折前进的。
现在的低谷，不能否定共产主义啊。没准共产主义也与时俱进，变成新的形式哩。

赚了钱要赶紧移民
一是解放和发展生产力，极大地增加全社会的物质财富；一是逐步实现社会公平与正义，极大地激发全社会的创造活力和促进社会和谐。上述两大任务相互联系、相互促进，是统一的整体，并且贯穿于整个社会主义历史时期一系列不同发展阶段的长久进程中。没有生产力的持久大发展，就不可能最终实现社会主义本质所要求的社会公平与正义；不随着生产力的发展而相应地逐步推进社会公平与正义，就不可能愈益充分地调动全社会的积极性和创造活力，因而也就不可能持久地实现生产力的大发展。

【文摘】AP的相关报道
Democracy up to 100 years away, China's Premier says
SCOTT MCDONALD

Associated Press

BEIJING — Communist leaders have no plans to allow democracy in the near future because they must focus on economic development before political reform, China's No. 3 leader said in comments published Tuesday.

Democracy will emerge once a “mature socialist system” develops but that might not happen for up to 100 years, Premier Wen Jiabao wrote in an article in the People's Daily, the main Communist Party newspaper.

For now, China must focus on “sustained rapid growth of productive forces ... to finally secure fairness and social justice that lies within the essence of socialism,” Mr. Wen wrote.

The Premier said the country is “still far from advancing out of the primary stage of socialism. We must adhere to the party's basic guidelines of the primary stage of socialism for 100 years.”

Mr. Wen's comments, which appeared as the government prepares for its annual parliament session, come amid pressure by activists for an end to the ruling party's monopoly on power but made no reference to those demands.

The communist government has carried out limited political reforms in recent years, allowing non-partisan elections for the lowest-level village leadership posts. But the ruling party controls policymaking, and harasses and jails activists who call for multiparty democracy.

Mr. Wen said China would develop its own democratic policies and that a socialist system was not contradictory to those policies.

“A highly developed democracy and a complete legal system are inherent requirements of the socialist system and important symbols of a mature socialist system,” Mr. Wen said.

China's ceremonial parliament, the National People's Congress, opens Monday and is expected to discuss property and tax law changes.

China's economy has boomed in recent years, growing at double digit rates, but the expansion has been uneven. Communist leaders acknowledge that a growing wealth gap was threatening to undermine political stability and their control of the country.

Mr. Wen said that while economic development was the central task, that had to be done while building a harmonious society — the government's catchphrase to describe efforts to help the hundreds of millions who have not yet benefited from China's rapid economic growth.

环球邮报上的讨论 1
gulu Ng from Canada writes: I agree that economic development must go before political reform. but 100 yrs is too far away.. how about make it 50?
Posted 27/02/07 at 3:16 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes, the Chinese system isn't perfect, but it's not easy managing a country with 1.2 billion people. Just look how screwed up the Americans are with less than 30% the population of China.
Posted 27/02/07 at 3:32 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: 100 years ? That's about how long it will take me to go shopping at a Walmart.
Posted 27/02/07 at 3:51 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Andrew Burke from Canada writes: Law Reform: Perhaps India could mimic China when it comes to economic reform and China could mimic India when it comes to political reform?
Posted 27/02/07 at 4:15 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
X. T. from Waterloo ON, Canada writes: Andrew,
Then they both get screwed. :-D

Posted 27/02/07 at 5:21 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: I take it that what he is saying is that for the next hundred years Communist China will live the hedonistic materialism way until they learn how to share.
Posted 27/02/07 at 5:56 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
James CHIPMAN from Canada writes: 100 years to global domination , now thats looking ahead . So any chinese person that is 30-40 years old , their great grandkids might see some form of democracy , MIGHT !!! Oh well , guess it cant be all that bad , at least they got a plan for the next 100 years , our government cant look past their next term in office.
Posted 27/02/07 at 6:46 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Vickky Angstrom from Calgary, Canada writes: The trouble is, it is easy for other world leaders to catch on to the idea that a country is an economy first and a society second. This is why trade needs to be linked to human rights and democracy.

The Chinese economy will destabilize if they do not find ways to become more democratic and take care of their most vulnerable citizens - especially protecting them from corruption. This leader just wrote a licence for all the corrupt officials in China to carry on abusing citizens. Let's hope that Harper doesn't decide that we should hold off on democracy for the sake of the economy as well.
Posted 27/02/07 at 7:41 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
john chuckman from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, this puts China on the same footing as the United States.

I can't see democracy taking any less time to arrive there.
Posted 27/02/07 at 7:46 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Edward Thomas from Kingston, Canada writes: Wen Jiabao, a geomechanical engineer by training, needs to read more history books. Emerging middle classes have never been patient about gaining political influence. Telling them they will not see any political power in their lifetimes isn't a very smart move.
Posted 27/02/07 at 8:17 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
thomas ip from Shenzhen, Canada writes: Who cares whether or not any country is a democracy or not as long as money talks. Isn't it what it is all about?
Posted 27/02/07 at 8:56 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Eric H from Canada writes: So this means Taiwan will be free for at least another 100 years.
Posted 27/02/07 at 8:57 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Watson Jones from United States writes: No democracy in the US? Get real. It is in Canada where things are rammed down the throats of citizens. When is the last time there was a popular referendum, perhaps the most basic form of democracy, in Canada? (Though in fairness, I guess that would be Quebec separation). They happen all the time in US. My guess is that many of these commenters don't like popular referenda anyway, since they represent the will of the majority of people, but clearly they are democratic institutions and represent an additional check on the power of government. Many US states also vote for judges, so you don't get ones who care so much more about criminals than honest citizens. Again, you may not agree, but this is indeed democratic. Finally, though there are many more examples, US votes on all representatives--senators are not appointed. To suggest that the US is somehow less democratic than Canada is just plain silly.
Posted 27/02/07 at 9:04 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
robert marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: All these who gain power are afraid to loose it
Posted 27/02/07 at 9:09 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
thomas ip from Canada writes: No, Taiwan will not be free (at least economically) until it returns back to China.
Remember who said 'To be rich is Glorious'.