王志安撞上秦晖翻车后，再来看看曹德旺如何游走于中国的低人权优势与美国的高人权优势之间。（汉英双语 bilingual） After Wang Zhi'an bumped into Qin Hui and overturned, let's take a look at how Cao Dewang walked between China's low human rights advantage and the United States' high human rights advantage. ( In Chinese)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2QcYCLAKKg

目前以色列跟伊朗的分歧在油管上的热度应该赶不上王志安跟秦晖的分歧。在低人权优势这个议题的讨论上，秦晖站在良心一边或者说公平一边，所以赢得了绝大多数观众。王志安更多站在结果或者说效率一边，所以他从观众中得到的负面评价占据了绝大多数。秦晖教授的说法固然在理，作为媒体同行，我也没觉得王志安特别错到哪里去，他欠缺的是对所谓低人权优势中被忽视、被牺牲的广大民众体现出更多的关注和共情。我个人的感受是，低人权优势对中国的经济起飞来说是一个重要因素，但未必是决定性因素。

跟欧美日本比较起来，这个优势不同阶段起到的作用大小也可能不一样。拿现在跟改革开放之初比，中国经济发展获得的低人权优势也许更为突出。为什么呢？因为从前跟相似的低收入国家比较起来，中国的人权状况之糟糕未必特别突出，比如朝鲜、埃塞俄比亚、土库曼斯坦。而几十年发展下来，跟发展状况相似的同级别国家比较起来，中国的低人权状况就显得更为突出，人权状况亟待逐步改善。现在中国的实际状况是在很多议题上对标美国，中国是世界第二大经济体了，在国际政治、经济中扮演的角色都希望比肩美国。如果跟美国比，中国的低人权优势或者说糟糕的状况当然非常突出。

美国跟中国比较是一个非常不同的经营环境，我们就从人权环境来看看曹德旺在俄亥俄的福耀玻璃工厂。这个人权环境是广义的，不仅是劳资关系，还有企业与政府的关系、企业与土地、资源、资金这些市场大环境的关系。我们有一个比较直观的例子，就是美国导演掌控、获得奥斯卡奖的纪录片，这就是2019年上映的《美国工厂》(American Factory)。这个片子是最近几十年来公众第一次有机会了解在美国投资的外国企业的运作细节，在这以前，上一波就是40多年前日本汽车企业在美国投资的时候。中国企业在美国铁锈地带的投资，当然可以看作是中国制造业上升和美国制造业衰落的一个例证，这应该没有问题。

曹德旺也将习惯高人权环境的美国员工带回到了福建的母工厂，看看低人权环境中的中国工人是怎么在工作的。大家可以想象美国员工的感受，他们当然是感到震惊，他们看到的是中国工厂军营般的管理，早上大家在嘹亮的军号中排队上班，年轻的工人们快节奏的工作，哪里会有咖啡时间。

中国资本家们在美国的高人权环境中适应是很快的。曹德旺打赢了劳资纠纷，投票结束以后，他叮嘱管理层，尽量雇佣美国的年轻工人，培养他们适应中国的企业文化。用秦晖教授的低人权优势的视角，也就是说曹德旺是希望自己在美国的工厂和工人其实也能尽可能发挥低人权优势，习惯加班，任劳任怨，不要组织工会，不能为了涨工资才拼命干，而是为了让美国再次伟大。如果成立工会，曹德旺会怎么做呢？他会考虑关闭工厂。从当地政府和员工的角度看，是要人权高一些，但工厂关闭呢，还是人权少一些，让工厂继续运转呢？从福耀这个样本看，大家选择了牺牲一些人权，当然美国工人享受的人权仍然比中国同事多不少，他们可以拥有枪支啊。

记者易速利 Apr 16, 2024

我的简评：

关于中国特色党国经济发展具有低人权优势的说法是不够全面的。特色经济的所谓发展离不开资本主义经济发展的常规，那就是在政治压迫下尽其可能地压低工资水平，同时提高劳动强度，从而提升无偿获取高额剩余劳动价值的机会，从而达到资本主义经济所要求的社会平均利润率上升的主要目的。

这个资本主义经济发展的客观规律不受人权高低的影响，是放之四海而皆准的。

特色党国经济发展同样适用了这个科学论点，但同时又借助于中国革命的大量而普遍的历史遗留-原工人阶级在领导一切前提下，昂扬向上、鼓足干劲、力争上游的绝佳纪律性，使得特色经济飞速前进，成为举世瞩目的所谓奇迹。此外，毛主席领导的社会主义建设成果被邓江胡习四修趁机大加利用，把数以几百万亿美元计的公有及国有财产私有化、党国官僚占有化，于是四修经济发展的速度与规模无不所向披靡，震惊了世界各国的资产阶级。

秦晖之流动辄人权、民主、自由等主观片面性早就失去存在的价值，遑论什么赢得大多数。[Mark Wain 2024-04-17  https://www.youtube.com/@wtkh 

https://blog.creaders.net/u/12901/]

Translation

After Wang Zhi'an bumped into Qin Hui and overturned, let's take a look at how Cao Dewang walked between China's low human rights advantage and the United States' high human rights advantage. ( In Chinese)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2QcYCLAKKg

The current differences between Israel and Iran should not be as popular on YouTube as the differences between Wang Zhian and Qin Hui. When discussing the issue of low human rights advantages, Qin Hui stood on the side of conscience or fairness, so he won the vast majority of the audience. Wang Zhian is more on the side of results or efficiency, so he gets the vast majority of negative comments from the audience. Professor Qin Hui's statement is certainly reasonable. As a media colleague, I don't think Wang Zhian is particularly wrong. What he lacks is to show more concern and common ground for the vast number of people who are ignored and sacrificed in the so-called low human rights advantage. Affection. My personal feeling is that the advantage of low human rights is an important factor in China's economic take-off, but it may not be a decisive factor.

Compared with Europe, the United States and Japan, the role of this advantage may vary at different stages. Comparing now with the beginning of reform and opening up, the advantages of low human rights gained by China's economic development may be more prominent. why? Because in the past, China's human rights situation was not particularly bad when compared with similar low-income countries, such as North Korea, Ethiopia, and Turkmenistan. After decades of development, China's low human rights situation has become even more prominent when compared with countries at the same level with similar development conditions, and the human rights situation urgently needs to be gradually improved. China's actual situation now is that it benchmarks against the United States on many issues. China is the world's second largest economy, and its role in international politics and economy wants to be comparable to that of the United States. If compared with the United States, China's low human rights advantage or poor situation is of course very prominent.

The United States has a very different business environment than China. Let's take a look at Cao Dewang's Fuyao Glass Factory in Ohio from the human rights environment. This human rights environment is broad, not only the relationship between labor and capital, but also the relationship between enterprises and the government, and the relationship between enterprises and the market environment such as land, resources, and capital. We have a relatively intuitive example, which is an Oscar-winning documentary controlled by an American director, which is "American Factory" released in 2019. This film is the first time in recent decades that the public has had the opportunity to understand the details of the operations of foreign companies investing in the United States. Before this, the last wave was when Japanese automobile companies invested in the United States more than 40 years ago. Investments by Chinese companies in the U.S. Rust Belt can certainly be seen as an example of the rise of Chinese manufacturing and the decline of U.S. manufacturing, and there should be no problem with that.

Cao Dewang also brought American employees who were accustomed to a high human rights environment back to the parent factory in Fujian to see how Chinese workers worked in a low human rights environment. You can imagine how American employees felt. They were of course shocked. What they saw was the military camp-like management of Chinese factories. In the morning, everyone lined up to go to work amid loud military bugles. Young workers worked at a fast pace. There was no coffee time.

Chinese capitalists adapted quickly to the high human rights environment in the United States. Cao Dewang won the labor dispute. After the vote, he told the management to try to hire young American workers and train them to adapt to China's corporate culture. Using Professor Qin Hui's perspective of low human rights advantages, that is to say, Cao Dewang hopes that his factories and workers in the United States can actually use their low human rights advantages as much as possible, get used to working overtime, work hard without complaint, do not organize unions, and do not work hard for higher wages. , but to make America great again. If a trade union is formed, what will Cao Dewang do? He would consider closing the factory. From the perspective of the local government and employees, should human rights be higher but the factory closed, or should human rights be lower and the factory continue to operate? Judging from the example of Fuyao, everyone has chosen to sacrifice some human rights. Of course, American workers still enjoy many more human rights than their Chinese colleagues. They can own guns.

Reporter Yi Suli Apr 16, 2024

My brief review:

The argument that the economic development of the party-state with Chinese characteristics has the advantage of low human rights is not comprehensive enough. The so-called development of a characteristic economy is inseparable from the conventions of capitalist economic development, which is to lower wage levels as much as possible under political oppression and increase labor intensity, thereby increasing the opportunity to obtain high surplus labor value for free, thereby achieving rising profit margins on the social average, demanded by the main purpose of capitalist economy.

This objective law of capitalist economic development is not affected by the level of human rights and is universally applicable.

The economic development of the characteristic party-state also applies to this scientific argument, but at the same time it relies on the large and universal historical legacy of the Chinese revolution - the excellent discipline of the original working class, which under the premise of leading everything, was high-spirited, energetic, and strived to the top. The rapid development of the characteristic economy has become a so-called miracle that has attracted worldwide attention. In addition, the achievements of socialist construction led by Chairman Mao were taken advantage of by the four revisionists: Deng, Jiang, Hu and Xi. They privatized hundreds of billions of dollars of public and state-owned property and appropriated it to the party-state bureaucracy. As a result, the speed and scale the economic development of the four revisionists are invincible, shocking the bourgeoisie of all countries in the world.

Qin Hui and his ilk's subjective one-sidedness such as human rights, democracy, and freedom has long lost the value of existence, let alone winning the majority. [Mark Wain 2024-04-17 https://www.youtube.com/@wtkh

https://blog.creaders.net/u/12901/]