北京最近推出的“共同繁荣”发展模式显然已经产生了影响。但西方及其盟友是否正确的看待这发展？当忧虑的基金经理看著他们管理的中国投资组合，而抓狂或心脏病发作时，西方的主流媒体和财经媒体，如华尔街日报、彭博社、有线电视新闻网、日经亚洲和金融时报等相关的记者，又找到了进一步妖魔化中国的新理由。
反华的西方媒体发出的讯息不仅仅是对投资于中国的教育、科技巨头、房地产和服务业的股票，如何受到这一系列新的和意想不到政策所影响。这也为宣传式评论员所描述的中国“新”社会主义意识形态带来的后果，拉响警报。
根据美国有影响力的半月刊，保守派杂志《国家评论》最近的一篇文章：“现今，全球投资者不能再忽视中共在国内欲树立的形象。这是一个顽强但进化的马克思主义的形象，一个适应21世纪的新社会主义，准备以追求利润动机的力量为中共的利益服务。”
显然，在文章作者看来，中国正推动的“新社会主义”或“中国特色马克思主义”，是要取代美国和统领世界其他地区！这种基于“追求利润动机的力量”发展模式，相信会使亚当斯密和马克思同时气得从坟墓中跳出。
在太平洋彼岸，希望在反华媒体竞争中超越美国同行的日本媒体《日经亚洲》，其资深撰稿人在一篇关于中国最新政治发展的文章中，就使用具有挑衅和误导的标题：习近平把中国置于危险的试探性“革命”风潮。
那么，这场让西方媒体哗然的“顽强但进化的马克思主义”和即将到来的“革命”究竟是什么？
共同繁荣原则
中共在最近8月召开的财经委员会第十次会议上强调，中国会关注于全体人民的富裕，而不仅仅是少数人的富裕，因此计划中的措施包括调节“过高”收入和鼓励富人更多地回馈社会。
“共同富裕”目标是要建设一个社会主义现代化国家，让所有公民共享致富机会。会议纪要强调，这是“妥善处理效率与公平关系”的一种手段。
以这个概念来指责中国当局搞革命或反资本主义，或者要消灭自由市场和私营企业，都是无的放矢。事实上，习近平主席向党做出了以下保证——而且可能也是针对批评中国的观察家和担忧的投资者之一种回应：
“金融是现代经济的核心，关系到发展和安全。要遵循市场化法治化原则，统筹做好重大金融风险防范化解工作。”
中共在7月的百年党庆上，承诺要实现中国现代化和民族复苏后，中共展示了改善治理实践的决心，整顿科技巨头、金融腐败和自由市场的操纵行为，这已是公开的，而非什么秘密。
其实，更大的关注——虽然没有明确说明─—就是要立即和积极地解决贫富之间的收入差距。尽管中国的扶贫计划取得了显著的成功，但不平等现象也大幅增加。截至去年年底，中国拥有超过百万美元的富裕家庭，超过500万户。在2020年，中国最富有的1%人拥有全国30.6%的财富，高于20年前的20.9%。如今中国要切除资本主义带来的弊端，但这只是一种矫正和平衡，而不是革命。
另一种发展模式
这些措施旨在遏制西方新自由主义经济模式下所衍生的毒瘤，其能否成功，还有待观察。中国经济政策的重新调整，也旨在提升中低收入家庭的收入。这在很多方面都是前所未有的。那些支持追求一个更具包容、公平和进步的全球体系者，更应该为这鼓掌而不是谴责。
这一轮的新政策发展也发生在中共面临著多重危机的时刻，这些危机是由早期经济过度开放、中共领导层内部贪腐日益严重，以及更加敌对的外国环境而引起的。 .
然而，这一场战争，即使只取得了一小部分的成果，也可以为另一种可持续、更负责任和更平衡的发展模式，提供了出路。
目前可以看出两个小成就。第一个——教育、养老和医疗公共服务领域私有化的退潮——这始于政府强调这些领域包容性和可负担的重要。这一重大胜利是西方国家传统左翼和新左翼未能实现的。
第二个成就，是“第三次分配”，即指推动高收入群体和企业回馈社会。《财富》杂志报导，在过去8个月中，中国最富有和最受瞩目的五位科技亿万富翁已将至少130亿美元／544亿令吉的个人或企业财富，捐给了慈善基金会和供慈善用途。这些捐献肯定还会增加。
对于世界其他正在努力解决本身社会根深蒂固的贫富两极分化，以及缺乏公平、稳定和可持续性发展的国家，最好能以开明和非批判性的态度来看待中国在推动“共同繁荣”下面对的挑战和取得的进展。这最终很可能会让他们也想效仿中共正在实施的改革政策。
林德宜《中国新社会主义：能否带来颠覆性改革？》原文： China’s New Socialism: Can It be a Gamechanger?
Beijing’s recently launched ‘common prosperity’ model of development is clearly already having an impact. But is the west and its allies seeing it in the right way? Nervous fund managers looking at their China portfolios are tearing out their hair or having heart attacks. And journalists associated with western mainstream and corporate media such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, CNN. Nikkei Asia and the Financial Times have now found a new reason to demonize China further.
The message going out from the anti-China western media is not just how investments in Chinese stocks in education, big tech, property and services are being affected by a range of new and unexpected policies. It is to sound the alarm bells on what propagandist commentators are describing as the ideological ramifications of China’s ‘new’ socialism.
According to a recent piece in the National Review, the influential American semi-monthly conservative magazine:
Now, however, global investors can no longer dismiss the image the CCP cultivates at home. This is an image of a recalcitrant but evolved Marxism, a new socialism adapted for the 21st century and ready to harness the power of the profit motive to serve the interests of the CCP.
And apparently to the article writer, this “new socialism” or “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” is being launched to take over the United States and the rest of the world!
This development based on “the power of the profit motive” would make both Adam Smith and Karl Marx turn in their graves at the same time.
Across the Pacific, looking to better its US counterparts in the anti-China media competition, the Japanese paper, Nikkei Asia, in a piece by the agency’s senior staff writer on the latest political developments in China has the provocative and deliberately misleading title, Xi's China floats dangerous trial balloon of 'revolution’.
Common Prosperity Principles
So what exactly is in this ”recalcitrant but evolved Marxism” and coming “revolution” that has some among the western media bowels in an uproar?
In its recent August meeting reviewing the state of the nation’s economy, the Communist Party of China emphasised that
●China would focus on moderate wealth for all, rather than just a few
●Planned measures included curbs on “excessive” incomes and encouraging the wealthy to give back more to society.
The goal of “common prosperity” for China to become a modern socialist country was announced to enable all citizens to share in the opportunity to be wealthy. The meeting notes emphasised that it was a means to “properly deal with the relationship between efficiency and fairness”.
Balanced Not Laissez Faire Development
There is nowhere in the concept that can be used to accuse the Chinese authorities of being revolutionary or anti-capitalist. Or stamping out free markets and private enterprise. In fact, the following assurance to the party - and also presumably aimed at critical China watchers and nervous investors - was made by President Xi:
“Finance is the core of the modern economy, with ties to development and security. It must follow the principles of marketization and the rule of law, and coordinate the prevention and resolution of major financial risks.”
What is clear in this prominently reported - not secretive - meeting event immediately following on the party’s celebration of its 100 anniversary in July which pledged to modernize China and rejuvenate its people, is not just the party’s determination to better its governance practices in the crackdown on big tech, financial corruption and manipulative practices of the free market.
Of larger concern - though not explicitly discussed in detail - is the knowledge that the income disparity between rich and poor needs to be addressed immediately and aggressively. Despite the remarkable success of the country’s anti-poverty programme, inequality has grown substantially. China had over 5 million US dollar millionaire households by the end of last year. In 2020, the wealthiest 1 percent of Chinese people held 30.6 percent of the country’s wealth, up from 20.9 per cent two decades ago. The lancing of this capitalist boil in China is now beginning but it is about redressal and balancing, not revolution.
How successful these moves aimed at curbing the excesses that have blighted the western model of neo-liberal economics remains to be seen. The recalibration of Chinese economic policy is also aimed at strengthening the lower and middle income households’ shares. It is in many ways quite unprecedented. It should be applauded rather than condemned by those supporting more inclusive, fairer and progressive global systems.
This new policy development is also happening at a time of multiple crises for the party arising from the excesses of the earlier opening up of the economy, the growing corruption and abuses of power within the party’s leadership as well as by a much more hostile foreign environment.
However, it is a battle, which even if it achieves modest results, can point the way to another model of development that is more sustainable and more accountable and balanced.
For now two small wins can be discerned. The first - the rollback of the privatisation of public services in education, elderly care and medical care - has begun with the government emphasising the importance of inclusiveness and affordability. This important win has been one which the traditional and new left in western countries has not been able to achieve.
The second on “third distribution” refers to the push for high-income groups and enterprises to give back to society. Fortune has reported that in the past eight months, five of China’s richest and most high-profile tech billionaires have pledged at least $13 billion of their personal or corporate fortunes to charitable foundations and initiatives. This is a sum that will surely grow.
Many countries grappling with how to redress the entrenched rich-poor polarization and the absence of fairness, stability and sustainability in their part of the world, would do well to follow China’s progress with its “common prosperity” challenge with an open and non-judgemental mind. It may lead them to even want to emulate the CCP reform policies being implemented.
