王志安撞上秦暉翻車後，再來看看曹德旺如何遊走於中國的低人權優勢與美國的高人權優勢之間。（漢英雙語 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熱度應該趕不上王志安跟秦暉的分歧。在低人權優勢這個議題的討論上，秦暉站在良心一邊或者說公平一邊，所以贏得了絕大多數觀眾。王志安更多站在結果或者說效率一邊，所以他從觀眾中得到的負面評價占據了絕大多數。秦暉教授的說法固然在理，作為媒體同行，我也沒覺得王志安特別錯到哪裡去，他欠缺的是對所謂低人權優勢中被忽視、被犧牲的廣大民眾體現出更多的關注和共情。我個人的感受是，低人權優勢對中國的經濟起飛來說是一個重要因素，但未必是決定性因素。

跟歐美日本比較起來，這個優勢不同階段起到的作用大小也可能不一樣。拿現在跟改革開放之初比，中國經濟發展獲得的低人權優勢也許更為突出。為什麼呢？因為從前跟相似的低收入國家比較起來，中國的人權狀況之糟糕未必特別突出，比如朝鮮、埃塞俄比亞、土庫曼斯坦。而幾十年發展下來，跟發展狀況相似的同級別國家比較起來，中國的低人權狀況就顯得更為突出，人權狀況亟待逐步改善。現在中國的實際狀況是在很多議題上對標美國，中國是世界第二大經濟體了，在國際政治、經濟中扮演的角色都希望比肩美國。如果跟美國比，中國的低人權優勢或者說糟糕的狀況當然非常突出。

美國跟中國比較是一個非常不同的經營環境，我們就從人權環境來看看曹德旺在俄亥俄的福耀玻璃工廠。這個人權環境是廣義的，不僅是勞資關係，還有企業與政府的關係、企業與土地、資源、資金這些市場大環境的關係。我們有一個比較直觀的例子，就是美國導演掌控、獲得奧斯卡獎的紀錄片，這就是2019年上映的《美國工廠》(American Factory)。這個片子是最近幾十年來公眾第一次有機會了解在美國投資的外國企業的運作細節，在這以前，上一波就是40多年前日本汽車企業在美國投資的時候。中國企業在美國鐵鏽地帶的投資，當然可以看作是中國製造業上升和美國製造業衰落的一個例證，這應該沒有問題。

曹德旺也將習慣高人權環境的美國員工帶回到了福建的母工廠，看看低人權環境中的中國工人是怎麼在工作的。大家可以想象美國員工的感受，他們當然是感到震驚，他們看到的是中國工廠軍營般的管理，早上大家在嘹亮的軍號中排隊上班，年輕的工人們快節奏的工作，哪裡會有咖啡時間。

中國資本家們在美國的高人權環境中適應是很快的。曹德旺打贏了勞資糾紛，投票結束以後，他叮囑管理層，儘量僱傭美國的年輕工人，培養他們適應中國的企業文化。用秦暉教授的低人權優勢的視角，也就是說曹德旺是希望自己在美國的工廠和工人其實也能儘可能發揮低人權優勢，習慣加班，任勞任怨，不要組織工會，不能為了漲工資才拼命干，而是為了讓美國再次偉大。如果成立工會，曹德旺會怎麼做呢？他會考慮關閉工廠。從當地政府和員工的角度看，是要人權高一些，但工廠關閉呢，還是人權少一些，讓工廠繼續運轉呢？從福耀這個樣本看，大家選擇了犧牲一些人權，當然美國工人享受的人權仍然比中國同事多不少，他們可以擁有槍支啊。

記者易速利 Apr 16, 2024

我的簡評：

關於中國特色黨國經濟發展具有低人權優勢的說法是不夠全面的。特色經濟的所謂發展離不開資本主義經濟發展的常規，那就是在政治壓迫下盡其可能地壓低工資水平，同時提高勞動強度，從而提升無償獲取高額剩餘勞動價值的機會，從而達到資本主義經濟所要求的社會平均利潤率上升的主要目的。

這個資本主義經濟發展的客觀規律不受人權高低的影響，是放之四海而皆準的。

特色黨國經濟發展同樣適用了這個科學論點，但同時又藉助於中國革命的大量而普遍的歷史遺留-原工人階級在領導一切前提下，昂揚向上、鼓足幹勁、力爭上游的絕佳紀律性，使得特色經濟飛速前進，成為舉世矚目的所謂奇蹟。此外，毛主席領導的社會主義建設成果被鄧江胡習四修趁機大加利用，把數以幾百萬億美元計的公有及國有財產私有化、黨國官僚占有化，於是四修經濟發展的速度與規模無不所向披靡，震驚了世界各國的資產階級。

秦暉之流動輒人權、民主、自由等主觀片面性早就失去存在的價值，遑論什麼贏得大多數。[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/]