制度为先，行动为要：变革中国的现实路径
最近又看到“决定论之争”，什么制度决定论、文化决定论、信仰决定论……翻翻过往，你们还能看到气候决定论、饮食决定论、甚至支黑系的人种决定论……
可是，这上面有什么好纠结的？
每样上层建筑有每样的作用，各自在各自的地盘做决定，有的东西制度决定，有的东西文化决定，有的东西信仰决定……这不是常识？
如果有一样元素可以全面决定整个生态，或起着某种想象中类似习近平定于一尊的作用，那还要其它元素做甚？
废除网墙，废除敏感词，废除各平台一切言论审查……这些，夺取政权改了制度就能做到，因为它属于行政范畴，不必等到整个文化或信仰慢悠悠改变之后。
同理，解散并取缔中共、制定新宪法、军队国家化、司法独立化、新闻自由化、官员财产公示、设立两党或多党的选举制……这许许多多毫无疑问会对整个社会生态产生重大影响的制度改变，这些已经被西方文明证明有必要有作用的制度设计，在它们发挥影响的领域，当然是制度决定结果。
有人说中国人那尿性不行，什么制度到了中国都得走样，非得改造整个文化改变民众信仰不可。
问题是，你怎么改造？
首先，你不推翻中共的党国制度，你什么都做不了，管你文化还是信仰，都半点动弹不得，你能如何？在海外推动一下新文化，传播一下基督福音，就能改造海外华人然后再倒灌回大陆？那是不可能的，别说倒灌，中共分分钟培养出来的党文化的信仰战士，足以淹没你。到头来你发现，还是得先推翻这个党国制度。
其次，就算党国制度垮了，中国进入民主建设期，你要改变中国人的文化信仰，还是那句话：怎么做？
这么大个工程，肯定不能靠零零散散的临时举措吧？如果哪个办法好用，你是不是得想办法把它固定下来持续稳定的发挥作用？这个固定下来的过程，是不是就是制度化？
你最终，还是得依靠制度化的手段才能改造文化改变信仰。
当然，我这么说，不是在说制度决定一切，虽然改变往往都要通过制度的手段才能起作用，但在各自的领域，手段不代表决定因素。在文化影响的领域，当然是文化在决定，即便得用制度手段。信仰领域同理。
要让宪政的制度运转丝滑，光把那套架子立起来还不够，当然需要民众在公民意识、公民素质、乃至文化底蕴，价值信仰等方面有一个良好的支撑与配合。这些领域即便也设计了好的制度去改造，比如建立现代公民教育，但仍然需要一个漫长的过程，需要新的文化信仰搭建到某种程度，然后才能在各自领域开始发挥决定性作用。
不过现在讨论这些，甚至争辩这些，是不是有点太早了？甚至有点浪费时间？有点像大雁还没射下来，先就煮着吃还是烤着吃吵起来了。
第一步，推翻中共都还没完成呢先生们！
这一步本质上就是战争行为，所以，各位绅士们淑女们能不能放下一点优雅，真正进入战争状态？
我们最该讨论的，难道不是如何有效的发起破坏行动，摧毁一切支撑党国的有价值目标么？
我们缺得不是谦谦秀才，而是纠纠武夫。
文武双全，当然最好。 脱掉西装，换上迷彩。 能文能武，方是大儒。
Recently, I have seen the “determinism debate” again, what institutional determinism, cultural determinism, faith determinism ...... Looking back, you can also see climate determinism, dietary determinism, and even ethnographic determinism.... ...
But what's there to get hung up on?
Each superstructure has a role to play, each makes decisions on its own turf, some things are institutionally determined, some things are culturally determined, some things are faith-based ...... Isn't that common sense?
If one element can fully determine the entire ecology, or play some imaginary role similar to that of Xi Jinping's, then what is the point of having other elements?
Abolishing the Internet wall, abolishing sensitive words, abolishing all censorship of speech on all platforms ...... can be done by seizing power and changing the system, because it's administrative and doesn't have to wait for a slow change in the whole culture or beliefs.
By the same token, the dissolution and banning of the CCP, the formulation of a new constitution, the nationalization of the military, the independence of the judiciary, the liberalization of the press, the disclosure of officials' assets, the establishment of a two-party or multi-party electoral system ...... are just a few examples of the many systemic changes that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the social ecology of society as a whole, and which have been proved to be necessary by Western civilization. In the areas where they will have an impact, of course, it is the system that determines the outcome.
Some people say that the Chinese people that urine can not, what system to China have to go out of shape, have to transform the entire culture to change the beliefs of the people can not.
The question is, how do you do that?
First of all, if you don't overthrow the CCP's party-state system, you can't do anything, whether it's your culture or your beliefs, you can't move halfway, so what can you do? What can you do? Can you promote a new culture overseas and spread the gospel of Christ to reform overseas Chinese and then pour it back to the mainland? That's impossible. Not to mention pouring in, the faith warriors that the CCP cultivates in minutes are enough to drown you. In the end, you realize that you still have to overthrow the party-state system first.
Secondly, even if the party-state system collapses and China enters a period of democracy building, you have to change the cultural beliefs of the Chinese people, or the same thing: how do you do it?
Surely you can't rely on piecemeal ad hoc initiatives for such a big project? If any method works well, don't you have to find a way to fix it to work continuously and stably? Is the process of fixing it an institutionalization?
In the end, you still have to rely on institutionalized means to transform culture and change beliefs.
Of course, when I say this, I'm not saying that the system determines everything, although change often has to be effected through the means of the system, but in their respective fields, the means do not represent the determining factor. In the realm of cultural influence, of course, culture determines, even if institutional means have to be used. The same is true in the area of faith.
In order for the constitutional system to operate smoothly, it is not enough just to put up the framework, but of course, it requires the public to have a good support and cooperation in terms of civic awareness, civic qualities, and even cultural heritage, values and beliefs. These areas even if also designed a good system to transform, such as the establishment of modern civic education, but still need a long process, need to build a new cultural beliefs to a certain extent, and then only in their respective fields to begin to play a decisive role.
But isn't it a bit too early to discuss all this, or even to argue about it? A bit of a waste of time even? It's a bit like arguing over whether to cook or roast the geese before they're even shot down.
The first step, the overthrow of the CCP, is not even complete yet gentlemen!
This step is essentially an act of war, so can you gentlemen and ladies put aside a little elegance and actually get into a state of war?
Isn't the most important thing we should be discussing how to effectively launch sabotage operations and destroy all the valuable targets that support the party-state?
What we lack is not a modest showman, but a corrective military man.
It's certainly best to be both civil and military. Take off the suit and put on camouflage. If you can write and fight, you're a great scholar.