"In-depth Perspective" Exclusive Interview with Xin Haonian: On the Legitimacy of the People's Republic of China

In this episode, "Deep Perspective" conducts an exclusive interview with Xin Haonian to discuss the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China. Xin Haonian believes that the Republic of China is a modern nation-state established by the Chinese people themselves, inheriting China's historical and cultural traditions and promoting republican democracy, and therefore possesses legitimacy; whereas the People's Republic of China is not a continuation of the Chinese people's own traditions, but rather a transplant of the international communist movement and the Soviet Russian political system into China, representing an autocratic restoration of the Republic of China. He presents his judgment from multiple perspectives, including the nation-state, historical inheritance, the constitution, the War of Resistance, the origin of the political system, the Soviet model, U.S. policy toward China, the current state of the ROC faction, and the future transformation of China. He argues that the CCP is not China, but a party-state regime established by a foreign ideology, a foreign political system, and a party of faith. At the end of the program, the possible paths for China's future are discussed. Xin Haonian advocates for distinguishing the CCP from China, supports the people of the mainland in opposing the CCP, and suggests ending CCP rule and restoring social order and the democratic system through a method of "removing the party while keeping the administration, with a peaceful transition."

Host: Historian Professor Xin Haonian, author of the book "Who is the New China," is widely recognized as a representative of the overseas ROC faction. He directly criticizes the legitimacy of the CCP regime. He believes that the People's Republic of China inherited not the Qin, Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and the Republic of China, but the Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao of the European communist religion.

In today's "Deep Perspective" program, Professor Xin Haonian will lead us to look at the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China from different perspectives.

Professor Xin Haonian, thank you very much for accepting this exclusive interview with VOA's "Deep Perspective."

Xin Haonian: Thank you.

Host: Professor Xin, you wrote the book "Who is the New China" and are a recognized representative of the overseas ROC faction. You have also directly criticized the legitimacy of the CCP regime. In fact, the issue of legitimacy is a very important key to our understanding of how the CCP has evolved since taking power in 1949.

Could you please talk to our listeners and viewers about the legitimacy of the CCP regime from the perspective of the relationship between the state, the nation, history, and culture?

Xin Haonian: When we consider whether a country is legitimate or not, there are certainly many aspects, such as power, systems, revolutions, and so on. When we consider whether a country is ultimately legitimate, what must first be affirmed is the relationship between the country and its nation.

If the country is the state of that nation—for example, the Republic of China is the nation-state of the Chinese nation, a country established by this nation for itself—then that country is legitimate.

After founding the Republic of China, Mr. Sun Yat-sen visited the Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum, showing that he was a successor of the Chinese nation and that he recognized China's historical and traditional culture. Therefore, it was naturally legitimate, wasn't it?

So, the Republic of China is a modern China born from a revolution; it recognized its own historical traditions while pushing China's politics, culture, and other aspects toward progress. It was, of course, legitimate.

But conversely, is the People's Republic of China legitimate? Is the People's Republic of China the nation-state of the Chinese nation? Definitely not.

Why? It is part of an international world revolution launched by the so-called international communist party created by Karl Marx, the international communist movement. And this communist party and this international revolution are a backlash and a regression of 19th-century Europe.

I will explain this backlash and regression in two sentences.

What kind of Europe was the 19th century? It was an era moving toward liberalization in thought, democratization in politics, and diversification in culture.

But what did the communist ideology and the communist party that appeared in the mid-19th century want to do? In thought, they pursued monism; in politics, they pursued monism, and dictatorship is also monism; in economics, they opposed private ownership and pursued public ownership, which is also monism; in culture, they only allowed Marxist-Leninist culture and forbade other cultures from existing, which is again monism.

In a 19th-century Europe that was developing toward diversification, a party suddenly appeared that wanted to overthrow diversification in every aspect and return to monism, which is to return to the path of absolutism. Is such a party a progressive party? It is, of course, a reactionary party, a regressive party, right?

Therefore, the Communist Party precisely inherited this historical tradition. This does not belong to the tradition of the Chinese nation at all. Then, the international communist party launched a revolution in China, led the revolution, directed this revolution, seized power in China, overthrew the legitimate nation-state of China, the Republic of China, and established such a state. Can this state be legitimate?

Moreover, before 1949, this state had already become a vassal state of the former Soviet Russia, called the Chinese Soviet Republic. In 1936, before the Communist Party sought to surrender to the Nationalist Government, a National Congress of the Chinese Soviet Republic was held in Yan'an. Then they stopped using that name, until 1949 when it was changed to the People's Republic of China.

In reality, the People's Republic of China is an expansion of the Chinese Soviet Republic, a vassal state of Soviet Russia. Can it be legitimate?

Therefore, it did not inherit from the Tang, Song, and other ancestors; it inherited from Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. They said it themselves; it wasn't said by others. It is Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, while we are the Tang, Song, and other ancestors—two completely different things.

So, in terms of the name and in terms of inheritance, it is not legitimate.

Looking at it from history, let's look at it from the perspective of modern history. Because the Republic of China is modern China, and the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China also calls itself the state of China and calls itself modern China. Then let's see which of these two modern Chinas is legitimate and which is not.

I have already mentioned the legitimacy of the Republic of China; I will only speak on why the People's Republic of China is not legitimate. Where is the illegitimacy?

The Republic of China was created by the Xinhai Revolution. The Xinhai Revolution, after ending three thousand years of monarchical autocracy in China, established the first "public under heaven," meaning it turned the "family under heaven" into a "public under heaven," which is a republic.

Although this republic still had many problems, these problems were being solved one by one on their firm path toward a republic, and they did it well.

So what is the Communist Party?

On this issue, who is the Communist Party like? It is like Yuan Shikai, who was the first to want to overthrow the Republic of China and restore three thousand years of autocracy; it is like Zhang Xun, who wanted to overthrow the Republic of China and restore the monarchical autocracy of the Qing Dynasty, and like the little Qing Emperor Puyi. It just used the banner of revolution to restore the autocratic system, restore autocratic rule, and carry out a rule of usurped power.

Is it legitimate? Of course not.

The path toward a republic is the path from autocracy to democracy. The path of returning to autocracy is stepping down from the republic and returning to autocracy and the path of monarchs; it is naturally not legitimate.

From the perspective of historical development, it is the third autocratic restoration in the hundred years since the founding of the Republic of China. However, in the name of revolution, in the name of the progressive Western communist revolution, it deceived our people, making it difficult for our people to immediately understand its nature or the nature of this regime.

But gradually, through the reflection of the people, we have become clear. This regime is a foreign regime, and its ruling ideology is a foreign ideology. Its ruling ideology is Marxism-Leninism, not the thought of the Chinese nation, nor the progressive democratic thought of the modern West, but that reactionary thought of the 19th century ruling today's China.

Can it be legitimate? A regime established in China by a foreign power, with foreign thoughts ruling today's China, completely Sovietized—it cannot be legitimate. It is not something of China.

Therefore, I have met some elderly people and old intellectuals who say with great heartache that this set of things from the Communist Party is not our China at all; our China never had this. Since it has never been something of China, can it be legitimate? Of course not, right?

Host: So Professor Xin, from the relationship between the state and the nation, and from historical and cultural inheritance, your view is that the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China is questionable.

But how do you view the rebuttals some people make? For example, that the People's Republic of China is a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations. Some famous dissidents even say that the People's Republic of China has a constitution, and the constitution stipulates that elections can produce a government. Of course, the current one-party dictatorship of the CCP is a so-called usurpation of power, but that does not mean the People's Republic of China is not a legitimate state. How do you respond to these rebuttals?

Xin Haonian: In history and in modern times, which international law stipulates that only a state recognized by foreigners is a legitimate state, and a state not recognized by foreigners is not a legitimate state? You can look for it; I can let these friends look for it—which international law has this clause? That if I do not recognize you as a state, you are not a state. Is there such a thing? Is there such a clause? There is no such clause.

The United Nations is also partial. After 1949, after the victory of World War II, it gradually went astray, and by today it has committed too many mistakes.

For example, in order to make concessions to the Soviet Union, it changed all instances of the word "civil rights" to "human rights." The three major human rights charters of the UN should actually be three major civil rights charters. Because the communist autocratic rule does not allow the mention of civil rights, the UN changed civil rights to human rights.

Do you still trust such a United Nations?

Everyone knows that the United Nations has done many bad things over the years. Is everything it agrees with correct? Is everything it opposes wrong?

It has a constitution; of course, it has a constitution. The People's Republic of China has a constitution. Mao Zedong said, what is a constitution? Isn't it just something I approve? What is a constitution? Isn't it just a piece of paper? If I want it, I take it; if I don't want it, I don't.

This statement by Mao Zedong is the best footnote to the constitution of the People's Republic of China. To them, a constitution is not law at all; a single word from Mao Zedong outweighs the law.

Furthermore, since the constitution of the People's Republic of China was released, has the Communist Party ever followed its constitution, respected its constitution, or acted according to its constitution? Never.

Host: Let's look at it from a historical perspective. Many people believe that the history of the War of Resistance can actually illustrate whether the current regime of the CCP is legitimate.

Now, Xi Jinping says the CCP was the mainstay of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, which many believe is actually a packaging technique for the CCP's legitimacy. How do you view the legitimacy of the CCP regime from the perspective of restoring the history of the War of Resistance?

Xin Haonian: When a nation suffers foreign aggression, if you cannot stand up and fight, but instead collude with the aggressors to attack the national government, people, and army that are fighting to defend the nation, what do you call yourself? What do you call yourself? Can you still be legitimate?

In "Who is New China," I proposed two standards.

One standard is that those who can bravely stand up to strike and repel aggressors to defend their own country when the nation suffers foreign aggression are progressive and legitimate.

When our country is in the process of transitioning from autocracy to a victorious democracy, if you promote this transition, then you are legitimate and correct.

If you not only fail to promote the transition from autocracy to democracy, but instead pull a country that was already democratic back toward autocracy, can you still be progressive and legitimate? Of course, you are neither progressive nor legitimate.

These two standards have no partisan color. These two standards are the most just. One is from the perspective of the nation, and the other is from the perspective of democracy. Examining any political party from these two starting points: those who promote national progress and democratic progress are legitimate and correct.

If you did not promote the defense of your own nation and instead harmed your own nation; if you did not promote China's democratic progress and instead pulled China's democratic progress back toward autocratic regression, are you still legitimate? Are you still progressive?

Host: If the People's Republic of China is not a legitimate state, then what exactly is it?

Regarding this question, many people have proposed different views. Professor Cai Xia says the CCP is basically a gang, based on its organizational and linguistic characteristics. Some believe the CCP is actually a cult, perhaps looking at the origins of Marxist thought. Some even compare it to the privileged bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union, saying it is more like a privileged interest group.

Professor Xin Haonian, if it is not a legitimate state, what exactly is the CCP?

Xin Haonian: What exactly is the CCP? That is a very good question. What exactly is the CCP?

Why were our people—some of our people—once deceived, misled, and defrauded by it, even regarding it as revolutionary and progressive?

First, over a hundred years ago, Western learning spread to the East, and progressive Western theories, science, and technology began to reach China. The Chinese people at the time, specifically the intellectuals, believed that everything coming from the West was progressive. Because we lacked the ability to judge at the time, we couldn't determine which of the ideas, theories, science, or technology coming from the West—through the spread of Western learning—were progressive, not progressive, or even reactionary. We lacked the capacity to judge.

Therefore, Marxism—an extremely reactionary ideology, theory, revolution, and movement in the 19th century—was treated as progressive. Thus, a small number of Chinese intellectuals with shallow academic foundations viewed it as a cure to save China. This in itself is a historical tragedy and a key source of the seventy-plus years of rule by the CCP that China has encountered over the last century.

Second, the CCP's revolution actually succeeded in China. There are various reasons for this success. But one point is that after this revolution succeeded, it actually gained a foothold in mainland China and has ruled for 74 years up to today—nearly 74 years, almost the same duration as the Soviet rule.

I ask, why is it that to this day, we still cannot see what the CCP actually is?

That is because we do not understand the CCP. For many years, we haven't understood what kind of revolution the CCP's revolution actually was, what kind of regime the CCP's regime actually is, or what kind of government and state the CCP's government and state actually are.

I am telling you now, I also study this problem. Like many friends, I thought it was this today and that tomorrow, without ever finding the root.

Host: Yes, we have all thought about these questions.

Xin Haonian: Those points are all correct, but they do not answer what the CCP actually is. Its essence is what I have mentioned: looking at the relationship between the state and the political system, the CCP is not the state in China. The state of China has always existed; it did not create a China. In Beijing, China, it merely established a regime.

And this regime was established according to the system of the political structure brought by the CCP.

What is this political structure? I will say a few simple words.

First, the political structure established by the CCP in China in 1949 was a total copy and transplant of the Moscow Soviet regime. It was completely transplanted, without a single difference. The CPSU, its father—its big brother—taught it step-by-step and transplanted it.

Among people in China who are slightly older, there is not one person who does not think this. Everyone knows in their heart: China's system is the Soviet system, a total copy.

The question then is, what kind of system was the Soviet system?

To understand this, let me say a few more words.

One point is, what was the political structure of the Tsarist Russian rule? Generally, it is believed that Tsarist rule was also monarchical rule, monarchical autocracy, right? But its monarchical autocracy was different. Its monarchical autocracy was a union of church and state.

That is to say, Orthodoxy—a branch of Christianity—was combined with the political rule of the Tsar. During the Tsarist era, Orthodoxy helped the Tsar carry out ideological rule over the Russian people, even serving the ideological propaganda tasks assigned by the Tsar—the kind of work the Communist Party's propaganda department does, or the work the Party's organization and state security (MSS) departments do. It actually sent secret reports to the Tsar about the ideological state of intellectuals and the movements of the people, regarding whether they wanted to oppose the Tsar.

So it was an organization where church and state were one. For the entire 700 years of the Tsarist era, it was a union of church and state.

Soviet Russia overthrew this Tsarist system, but it did not inherit the Tsarist union of church and state. Instead, it inherited another form of theocratic rule from Christianity, where the church comes first and the state second—the theocratic rule of the Roman Curia.

That is, the religion is on top and the government is below; the government must listen to the religion, listen to the church.

Host: The CCP must listen to the Party.

Xin Haonian: Exactly. You see, in the Soviet Union, the Party led the government, and in the CCP, the Party also leads the government. What kind of party is this Party? For the first time, I am saying this publicly—my book will be published soon—this Party is a party of faith.

The Communist Party is a party of faith. The Communist Party says, "We have faith," you know this phrase, right? "We have faith in Marxism, we have faith in communism, we want to build a communist paradise on earth," right?

What is a party of faith? It is a political organization established under the faith of communism; this political organization is called a political party.

Then I ask you, what is a religion? A religion is a faith organization established under the faith of a god; this faith organization is called a religion.

Host: So now Xi Jinping is creating a god.

Xin Haonian: Therefore, any organization established based on faith is called a religion in ancient times, and when it engages in politics in modern times, it is called a political party. Their essence is the same; they are both "teachings" (sects).

The Roman Curia was a union of church and state (theocracy). Orthodoxy, passed from Byzantium to Tsarist Russia, was a union of state and church. One had the church on top and the state below; the other had the state on top and the church below.

However, after the so-called success of the Soviet revolution and the overthrow of the Tsarist system, it did not inherit the "state on top, church below" model, but inherited the Roman Curia's "church on top, state below" model—which is "Party on top, state below."

Host: This seems to be what Professor Yu Ying-shih called "the Party's world" (Dang Tianxia).

Xin Haonian: Yes, the Party's world. For fifty years, so-called right-wing elements criticized the Communist Party, calling it the Party's world.

And now Xi Jinping is creating a god. Not only is it the Party's world, but a party of faith is about creating a god. How can there be faith without a god? The god of Marxism-Leninism is Marx and Lenin, right?

Under such a premise, we can understand what the Communist Party is.

Now it can be answered simply: the political structure established by the Communist Party reveals the fundamental nature of the Communist Party.

Its fundamental nature is exactly the same as the political system of the Soviet Union. What was the nature of the Soviet political system? It was the unity of church and state, like the medieval Roman Papacy.

Host: Professor Xin has spoken about this part. Your explanation of the essential nature of the CCP regime is that it was entirely transplanted from the Soviet Union, with no differences, no distinctions, all the same.

Many people believe that the process of packaging the CCP as China, turning the CCP into China, is not just a Soviet matter, but a shared karma of the US and the Soviet Union. This is because the US and Western countries also bear some responsibility. In fact, many people believe that the CCP we see today was raised by the US and the West. What are your thoughts on these statements?

Xin Hannian: I would like to add a sentence to what I just said, a sentence that needs to be said.

As I mentioned earlier, over a hundred years ago, our Chinese intellectuals lacked the ability to judge whether everything coming from the West was good. They thought it was all progress, and we made mistakes. We erred in mistaking Marxism for progressive Western thought.

Secondly, throughout our thousands of years of history, the most prideful aspect for every Chinese person is that China has never had religious rule, never had the unity of church and state, never had the unity of state and religion. We have always had freedom of religion, freedom of belief, where religion and belief do not interfere with politics, and politics does not allow religion and belief to interfere with it.

This is the most prideful point in our Chinese history, in the history of the Chinese nation, that we can boast to the world. This is the most remarkable thing.

When China was practicing separation of church and state five thousand years ago, the West did not begin to harbor the desire for separation of church and state until 1648. We were more than four thousand years ahead of them.

It is on this premise that I can now answer your question.

You just asked whether the process of the CCP becoming China involved the West and the US in the same way as the Soviet Union.

First, do not forget that communist ideology is an international ideology. International communist ideology is actually a resurgence of medieval theocratic ideology. It has infiltrated many countries around the world, especially those with more developed capitalist economies.

Second, this ideology also infiltrated the Western democratic countries led by the United States, particularly through the establishment of international communist parties.

Third, the establishment of the Comintern extended its claws not only to the East but also to the West. There were communist party organizations in the United States and various European countries. And due to the freedom of political parties in the West, they were able to exist, develop, and grow freely under free conditions. Therefore, the influence of the Communist Party in the West was not insignificant.

By the end of World War II, around 1945, even the US Secretary of State and Undersecretary of State were Russian spies. Even the wife of US Vice President Wallace was a communist. Even our great President Roosevelt believed that the Chinese Communist Party was implementing a socialist mode of production to save the people. They simply did not understand.

Host: Influenced by Snow.

Xin Hannian: Yes, influenced by Snow.

In such circumstances, influenced by the West, they had an innate sympathy for the Communist Party, believing it represented the workers and peasants. In the United States and Western democratic countries, workers and peasants have the same status as everyone else. However, in an underdeveloped country with residual authoritarianism, the status of workers and peasants is low. Showing sympathy and taking a stance towards workers and peasants is respectable.

Therefore, from President Roosevelt onwards, many government officials in Western democratic countries sympathized with the workers and peasants in so-called authoritarian countries. They therefore believed that the Communist Party was carrying out land reform and would help workers and peasants achieve prosperity and freedom. This tremendous mistake, this absolute error in perception, influenced them.

Third, the West has made numerous mistakes in its China policy for a century since the Xinhai Revolution. Shortly after I came to the United States, around 2012, I gave a speech at the US Congress. The title of my speech was "Major Mistakes in American China Policy Over the Past Century." That video recording still exists.

What did I talk about?

The Xinhai Revolution broke out on October 10, 1911. The very next morning, on the 11th, the Four-Nation Banking Consortium held a meeting in Beijing. Representatives from the United States, Germany, Russia, and France attended, with Japan as an observer.

At the meeting, the wife of a delegation leader said, "Maintaining a corrupt Chinese government is beneficial to all of us."

Think about it: a corrupt government must rely on Western support to survive. Conversely, the West can conduct its capital transactions on the land ruled by this corrupt government, turning it into a market, especially such a large market as China, with such a large population, one of the largest countries in the world.

So for 100 years, in the eyes of Western democratic countries, they looked down on China, they looked down on the entire East. The so-called Western centrism is still rampant today.

For example, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Civilizations only progress or lag; where is the conflict or clash of civilizations? There are only progressive civilizations, backward civilizations, and civilizations of different forms. Why say this? It is all due to the influence of Western-centric thinking.

Host: The West is also changing now. Seeing the rise of the CCP in China, and Xi Jinping's declaration of "East rising, West declining," it feels like the entire West, led by the US, is awakening and realizing, as you just said, that a century of China policy may have involved major mistakes, and that it has been like raising a tiger that becomes a threat.

What are your thoughts on the awakening of the West and the US now? Regarding the China strategies that the West and the US are currently implementing, including decoupling, do you think they are moving in the right direction?

Xin Hannian: That's right. What I have spoken about so far are past events, but past events are not without influence on the present.

We have witnessed firsthand how the CCP has infiltrated the United States, how it has infiltrated the US in politics, economics, culture, and other aspects, and how it has infiltrated Western countries.

We have seen with our own eyes how famous Western metropolises, such as Paris, London (which is slightly better), the capitals of many European countries, and major American cities, have one by one fallen victim to the CCP's ideological and cultural infiltration.

But is it too late to awaken now? Will it be too late?

It is not too late, but awakening requires determination.

Because you once sympathized with it, you once needed it. Today, your capitalists and your national strength still hope to gain wealth there. Can you truly awaken in these three aspects and sever all ties with the CCP?

Because since the CCP came to power, in fact, it was like this even before it came to power. If we count from 1949, the notorious Shen Chong case, where a US soldier allegedly raped a Chinese female student, was fabricated by the CCP itself, wasn't it? It was fake.

After 1949, although the relationship between the CCP and the US was outwardly affectionate like a gentle lake, behind the scenes, it never stopped calling for opposition to American imperialism and vigilance against American peaceful evolution.

Yet today, after allowing China into the WTO and granting China Most Favored Nation status, the Americans made a mistake. They did not expect that the CCP would begin to peacefully evolve the West.

The first step in the peaceful evolution of the West was comprehensive infiltration, ideological and cultural infiltration of the United States. The second move was to confront the US. The so-called powerful CCP has now become the biggest threat to the United States.

Just as you said, the CCP's reform and opening up was a matter of survival, and you mistakenly believed that as long as it underwent reform and opening up and its economy developed, it would move towards democracy. You were wrong. If the CCP has no power, it opposes you; if it has power, why wouldn't it want to eliminate you? This is a fundamental measure of a grand strategy.

In fact, any Chinese middle school student can see this, but our US President cannot. It's not surprising, we can't blame him.

Why? Advanced countries look at backward countries indifferently, without paying attention. Backward countries look at advanced countries because they want to learn, and they pay attention.

So today, how many people within the CCP's ruling group understand the United States very well, understand American politics, economics, culture, understand the US government, and understand how the White House and its presidents operate?

But let me ask, in today's United States, from the president to officials to ordinary people, how many truly understand how the Communist Party in mainland China operates? Even fewer understand the real society and hearts of people in mainland China?

Host: Indeed, it is necessary to study the nature of the CCP more deeply.

Xin Hannian: Therefore, I admit that the United States has awakened. Some government personnel in the US have indeed truly awakened.

Host: After awakening, what about policy?

Xin Hannian: But the policy is still in a fuzzy stage.

Why is it in a fuzzy stage? Because there is still something they cannot cut off. The past sympathy has not yet extinguished, and the present pursuit of self-interest has not yet died down.

If the pursuit of self-interest is completely severed, and the historical mistake of misplaced sympathy is corrected, I believe the United States will have thoroughly awakened.

And what is the behavior of thorough awakening? The behavior of thorough awakening is to resolve the CCP regime, not to just shout about protecting Taiwan every day, helping Taiwan today, and tomorrow...

To enhance Taiwan's international standing, we used to sell weapons to Taiwan, and now we are giving weapons and money to Taiwan.

Host: So you think this is not enough, and it should be more direct in diplomacy...

Xin Hannian: No, this is a grave mistake. If you want to protect Taiwan, you use all the power of the United States to try to protect Taiwan, why not cut the root? If the CCP regime in Beijing is resolved, won't Taiwan be completely safe?

Taiwan has only one enemy, the CCP. As long as the CCP does not attack Taiwan, Taiwan will always be safe, right?

So why not resolve the CCP regime? When you have clearly identified what kind of regime the CCP is, why don't you resolve it?

And what is the best way to resolve the CCP regime? The cheapest, most suitable way, is not to protect Taiwan. What is the way? Support the anti-CCP people on the mainland.

Host: You just mentioned that the CCP regime was transplanted from the Soviet Union and is not a traditional inheritance of the entire Chinese nation. What do you think of Xi Jinping's series of slogans like

Five years ago, at the Baota Mountain in Yan'an, the spiritual land of the CCP, two young men, fearing no death, unfurled the largest Republic of China flag they had made, standing atop the Baota Mountain.

A company of CCP troops surrounded them.

At the same time, at the Mausoleum of the Seventy-Two Martyrs of Huanghuagang in Guangzhou, several Republic of China flags encircled the entire Huanghuagang Memorial Pavilion, and soldiers arrived again.

Now, any place commemorating the Xinhai Revolution, the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, or any revolutionary martyrs and pioneers of the Republic of China, whether it be a park or a building, is guarded by plainclothes CCP police.

On January 1st of this year, 30,000 people flocked to Xinjiekou, the center of Nanjing, to pay homage to the bronze statue of Sun Yat-sen, but were blocked by the police. Eventually, the police were overwhelmed, and all 30,000 people surrounded the Premier's statue.

I tell you, the emergence of such situations in recent years is terrifying.

Why? Because the Communist Party, considering its united front efforts towards Taiwan, the Republic of China, has not openly suppressed the ROC faction, resorting to secret arrests and secret sentencing. The sentences are three to four times harsher than those for ordinary democracy activists or Falun Gong practitioners. Furthermore, when raiding homes and arresting ROC faction members in Beijing, they trampled on Sun Yat-sen's statues and tore up copies of the Three Principles of the People and Republic of China flags in front of them.

However, I tell you, even now, right now, in Shanghai, Chongqing, Shaanxi, and Guizhou, people are still displaying Republic of China flags from their apartment windows. This continues to this day.

There are things I cannot say here; I cannot reveal certain information. But I just want to tell you that the Kuomintang was re-established in mainland China in 2005.

For so many years, on Double Tenth Day, before Xi Jinping intensified the crackdown, you could see groups of people sitting around tables in restaurants, with a cake on the table adorned with a small Republic of China flag.

Host: But Professor Xin, if even Peng Lifa, who hung a banner on Sitong Bridge, met such a fate, do you think the ROC faction still has hope and can achieve anything?

Xin Hannian: You must understand that it's not about what you do, but about what's in people's hearts.

This is what I mean: whether it's Taiwan, the United States, or the West, they do not understand the hearts of the people in mainland China. What people think in their hearts is the most terrifying thing.

Think about it, starting from 1985, there was historical reflection, first on the War of Resistance, then on the Northern Expedition, then on the Xinhai Revolution and the Republic of China. Then, the CCP launched a smear campaign against Sun Yat-sen, did you know? I don't think you all know.

The Communist Party launched a 25-year smear campaign against Sun Yat-sen. This campaign, lasting a full 25 years, was dedicated to criticizing Sun Yat-sen.

Overseas democracy activists openly wrote on websites: "Whip Sun Yat-sen's corpse," "Down with Sun Yat-sen," "Yuan Shikai is the founding father," "Sun Yat-sen is a national traitor." I tell you, all this documentation exists.

None of it has managed to suppress the ROC faction.

It's about the hearts of the people. As long as the hearts of the people are ready, isn't action just an opportunity?

Let me tell you something else. Even now, ordinary people in mainland China are still collecting Republic of China flags, large and small, especially small ones.

Before last year, in the latter half of last year, the CCP carried out a large-scale crackdown, smashing all the shops that were secretly selling Republic of China flags. This was last year.

But even now, flags are still being sent from the United States and Taiwan, and they are still being sold on the mainland.

In Taiwan, the Republic of China flag is now...

What are the people thinking? Do you know what people's hearts are like today?

When that day comes, when the opportunity arises, and all the people are in the squares, holding up Republic of China flags of all sizes, what will it look like? The infection will spread; it is inevitable.

Let me tell you something: believe in the laws of history.

After the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party, and after the collapse of all communist countries in Eastern Europe, all those countries returned to their original states that had been overthrown by the Communist Party.

Why?

Because the Communist Party does not value the nation. Every country that overthrew the Communist Party first valued its nation. Second, the Communist Party does not value democracy, and every country returned to its first republic that it founded.

Any country whose first republic was subverted by the Communist Party, once the Communist Party collapses, will surely return to its first republic. Who was our first republic in China? It was the Republic of China founded by the Xinhai Revolution, that was the true first republic.

Host: Professor Xin Hannian, you've spoken about the laws of history. I'd like to ask you about something.

It's very interesting that you've consistently said the CCP regime was transplanted from the Soviet Union, and therefore the CCP is extremely cautious and fearful of repeating the collapse of the Soviet Union you just mentioned.

Many people under Xi Jinping are studying how to avoid a similar fate to the Soviet Union's collapse.

In fact, if we calculate, the CCP has been in power for 74 years now, and the Soviet Union collapsed after more than 70 years. As a historian, looking at these historical patterns and making predictions, what do you think the collapse of the CCP will look like? Will it be a form of brittle collapse like the Soviet Union's downfall? What is your prediction?

Xin Hannian: I believe it will be primarily a brittle collapse, but not as simple as the Soviet Union's.

One reason is that the CCP is more stubborn and more brutal. For example, the CCP has repeatedly spread rumors that if China suffers, everyone else will suffer too. This is relatively civilized. The uncivilized part is saying that if the Communist Party dies, the whole world will die with it. These are the words of a former Chief of the General Staff.

The CCP differs from Western communist regimes, including the Soviet one.

Why? First, it shares the inherent nature of communism with them. Second, for over 30 years, it has learned lessons from the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It has learned these lessons negatively, by ensuring that any rebellion is crushed in its cradle.

China now has 1.4 billion people, and 2.8 billion cameras. Every person is monitored by two cameras. As soon as you step out, the Communist Party knows what you are doing, right?

So, how to solve the CCP problem? Will the CCP definitely collapse? We can say with certainty that no dynasty lasts forever. Which dynasty has lasted for ten thousand years? It's impossible, this is a universal truth, a truth of the world.

This is one point.

Second, the Chinese people have had enough. Xi Jinping's perverse actions have pushed the Chinese people further into the abyss.

Even though tens of millions of people in China live comfortably and very prosperously today, even they are now uneasy in their hearts. Not to mention the at least one billion people living in extreme suffering.

According to Beijing Normal University, 930 million people have an income of less than 1,000 yuan per month. The youth unemployment rate in China has exceeded 20%.

Host: Yes.

Xin Hannian: When young people have no jobs and no way forward, what will they do? Revolution, of course.

When people have no food to eat, a mother and her two children, a son and a daughter, tied themselves together with a rope and committed suicide by jumping into a fire just three days ago. Another woman tied her two sons with a rope and hanged herself from a bridge.

You see, I often see on Twitter the suffering and hunger of children in the mountainous regions of China and the children of ordinary urban families in China. I shed tears; I can't bear to watch; my heart aches.

Host: This is truly pitiful.

Xin Hannian: In a country that is extremely rich, excessively rich, and unjustly rich; in a country that is extremely poor, so poor that people can no longer live; the only solution to the sharp social contradictions between the rich and the poor is revolution, there is no other way.

But how should we revolutionize? Should we revolutionize like the Communist Party? By killing and setting fires? No.

I have conceived of something. The Communist Party, due to its sensitivity, will never understand it. It is very difficult to solve the problem using conventional revolutionary methods, or rather, it is very difficult to solve it using a single conventional revolutionary method.

We should adopt what is called a comprehensive revolutionary approach, a comprehensive revolution.

For example, let me give an example. First, we must break through the concept of peace, rationality, and non-violence, which has been glorified like a bible by overseas democracy movements for thirty years.

Peace, rationality, and non-violence are the bible of the pro-CCP reformist democracy movement overseas. Anyone who opposes the CCP, anyone who takes action against the CCP, is accused of not being peaceful, rational, or non-violent, and is attacked.

They don't question how the Communist Party has raped our people, and they don't allow the people to resist. This is slowly being broken through now. This shackle of irrationality is being broken.

So what do we want?

We do not proactively abandon any form of revolution. Any form of revolution that is beneficial for ending the CCP, we can execute.

Why? When the CCP is employing and believing in violent suppression, why can't we violently overthrow the CCP? Why? Only because it can use violence to kill people, people cannot use violence to overthrow it? Where is the logic in that? There is no such logic. This is called rationality, not irrationality.

Second, on the one hand, we do not proactively abandon any form of revolution. If the CCP does not use violence, we will resolutely not use violence. If the CCP does not use armed suppression, we will...

We will never engage in armed revolution. If the CCP engages in violence, we will definitely engage in violence. If the CCP suppresses with arms, we will definitely revolt with arms.

However, in order to prevent chaos in the world and suffering for the people, those who can abandon the Communist Party can still have a future. It is not about killing every Communist, it is not about revenge. We will also adopt a gradual revolution.

Five years ago, I proposed something called "remove the party, keep the government" for a peaceful transition. You can look it up.

What does "remove the party, keep the government" mean?

All the disasters and evils in mainland China today stem from this party. Within this party, there are also contradictions, even very intense ones, between the party and the government.

Even administrative officials are Communist Party members, but those engaged in party organization and leadership work are still different from those engaged in political and administrative work.

Therefore, as long as the party's organization is dismantled, the CCP's party organizations from central to local levels and in all walks of life are dismantled, and the administrative part is retained as a transitional government, a maintaining government, maintaining unchanged foreign diplomacy, and maintaining unchanged internal order management, we can stabilize a basic social order in the process of overthrowing the CCP.

Then, starting from the county level, elections will be held from the bottom up.

This is very important.

After I proposed this, my manuscript was 35,000 characters long. I spoke for three hours at that time. Many high-ranking CCP officials wrote to me, do you know what they wrote?

"Xin Hannian, you are indeed anti-CCP, but you truly love China. The CCP and China must be separated."

Host: Okay, thank you very much to Professor Xin Hannian for accepting VOA's "Deep Dive" program interview today to discuss the legitimacy of the CCP regime and the future of China. Thank you very much for your interview.

Xin Hannian: Thank you.