超级军网《经济学人》：中国在怕什么？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/02 07:53:48
转篇《经济学人》的文章，原文地址：http://www.economist.com/world/a ... m?story_id=15546095
中文是由小弟翻译的，纰漏之处还望指正，此文仅供参考。
The politics of repression in China
What are they afraid of?
The economy is booming and politics stable. Yet China’s leaders seem edgy.
中国的政治管制
他们担心什么？
经济繁荣，政治稳定，但中国的领导人似乎忧心忡忡。
“THE forces pulling China toward integration and openness are more powerful today than ever before,” said President Bill Clinton in 1999. China then, though battered by the Asian financial crisis, was busy dismantling state-owned enterprises and pushing for admission to the World Trade Organisation. Today, however, those forces look much weaker.
“把中国拉向与世界融合和开放的力量，今天比以往任何时候都更为强劲。”比尔·克林顿在1999年这样说道。中国那时候，尽管受着亚洲金融危机的冲击，但正忙于处置国有企业和推进加入世贸组织。然而今天，这些力量看上去弱得多了。
A spate of recent events, from the heavy jail sentences passed on human-rights activists to an undiplomatic obduracy at the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen last December, invite questions about the thinking of China’s leaders. Has their view of the outside world and dissent at home changed? Or were the forces detected by Mr Clinton and so many others after all not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting?
最近大量事件，从对人权激进分子的很重的入狱处罚到上年12月份在哥本哈根举行的气候变化会议上的毫无外交策略的顽固不化，引起人们纷纷质疑中国的领导层到底在想什么。他们对外部世界形势和国内反对派意见的看法有变化吗？或者克林顿先生和许多其他人所发现的力量终究在他们期待的方向上牵扯不够？
The early years of what China calls its “reform and opening” after 1978 were marked by cycles of liberalisation and repression. The turning-points were usually marked by political crisis: dissent on the streets, leadership struggles, or both. Now, however, the only big protest movements are repressed ones among ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. China’s big cities are hardly roiled by political turmoil. By the time Liu Xiaobo, an academic, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December, dissident debate surrounding the reform manifesto he had issued a year earlier had long subsided. Yet it was the heaviest-known penalty imposed on any activist for “inciting subversion” since such a crime was written into law in 1997.
1978年后的中国所谓的“改革开放”的前几年，有着自由-管制-自由的周期性往复运动特征。表现为街道上的反对或者领导陷入困境或者二者均有之的政治危机，通常意味着周期转折的到来。然而现在，大型的反抗运动只剩下在西藏和新疆的受到抑制的少数民族运动。中国的大城市几乎不会有政治骚动的烦恼。直至刘晓波，一名学者，在12月被宣判11年有期徒刑，异见人士围绕他在一年前提出的改革宣言的讨论长期处于低潮。但这是自1997年“图谋颠覆国家罪”写进法律以来，激进分子因这个罪名被判罚的已知最重的一次。
China has so far survived the global economic downturn with hardly any of the agitation many once feared it might cause among unemployed workers or jobless university graduates. The economy grew at a very robust-sounding 8.7% last year and is predicted by many to be on course for similar growth in 2010.
中国到目前为止成功度过全球经济衰退，几乎没遭受到任何许多人曾经担忧会在失业工人或者无工作大学毕业生当中产生的敌对情绪。经济上年获得了听上去非常强劲的8.7%的增长，许多人预测2010年经济会获得同样的增长，迈入正轨。
Sweeping changes are due in the senior leadership in 2012 and 2013, including the replacement of President Hu Jintao and of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. But if a struggle is brewing, signs of it are hard to spot. An unusually high-profile campaign against organised crime by the party chief of Chongqing municipality, Bo Xilai, has raised eyebrows. Some speculate that it is part of a bid by Mr Bo, who is a Politburo member, to whip up popular support for his promotion to the Politburo’s all-powerful Standing Committee in 2012. An online poll by an official website chose Mr Bo as the “most inspiring voice” of 2009.
高层领导层将会在2012和2013年发生剧变，那时主席胡 锦 涛和总理温家宝都会被取代。但如果围绕权力的争斗正在酝酿，人们是很难发现其中的一些蛛丝马迹的。重庆直辖市的党的主要领导薄熙来发起的不同寻常的高规格的反黑运动，已经让一些人皱眉了。一些人认为这是政治局成员之一的薄为了争取广泛支持在2012年进入最高权力的政治局常委而作出的出价的一部分。一个官方网站发起的网上民意调查显示，薄被选为2009年“最令人鼓舞的声音”。
But Andrew Nathan of Columbia University in New York does not see this as a challenge to the expected shoo-in for Xi Jinping, the vice-president, as China’s next leader, despite Mr Xi’s failure last year to garner the leading military post analysts thought would form part of his grooming. Li Keqiang, a deputy prime minister, still looks set to take over from Mr Wen in 2013.
但纽约哥伦比亚大学的Andrew Nathan并不认为这足以对人们期待的下任国家领导人的大热候选人——副主席习近平构成挑战，尽管习在去年落选了军队高层的一个职位，这个职位分析员认为将会构成习当选国家主席的一部分。而副总理李克强看上去仍然会在2013年接替温家宝。
Against this backdrop of political stability and economic growth, the most credible interpretation of the government’s recent hard line is that the forces pushing its leaders towards greater liberalisation at home and sympathetic engagement with the West are weaker than had been hoped. Nor is there any sign that the next generation of leaders see their mission differently. As Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing-based political analyst, puts it: “The argument in policy-making circles where reform is concerned is ‘how much more authoritarian should we be?’ not ‘how do we embark on Western-style democracy?’”
在政治稳定和经济增长的背景下，中国政府最近的强硬路线最令人信服的解释是，推动国家领导人朝着内部更自由、外部更积极融入西方方向发展的力量比一直以来所希望的要弱。而且也没有任何迹象显示下一代领导人会改变对他们的使命的看法。正如驻北京的一名政治分析员Russell Leigh Moses所说，“关于改革决策流程的讨论是‘我们应该变得更专制多少？’而不是‘我们怎样着手于进行西方风格的民主？’”
Tough though the recent sentences of activists have been, they are hardly out of keeping with the leadership’s approach to dissent in recent years. This has involved giving a bit of leeway to freethinking individuals, but occasionally punishing those seen as straying too far. Since late last year two activists have been jailed in an apparent attempt to deter people from organising the parents of children killed in shoddily built schools during an earthquake in Sichuan province in 2008. But another critic of the government’s handling of the parents’ grievances, Ai Weiwei, remains free in Beijing and just as outspoken.
虽然最近对激进分子的判罚很严厉，但这是与领导层近年处理反对意见的方法相一致的。即给予自由思想的人一点余地，但时不时地惩罚那些被认为游离得太远的人。自从去年底以来，政府明显地为了阻止人们把在2008年四川地震时，死在劣质建造学校的孩子的父母组织起来，已经逮捕了两名激进分子。但另一名批评政府不当处理这些父母的不满的人士，Ai Weiwei,仍然在北京自由自在，而且和往常一样公开发表言论。
The coming months are unlikely to see much change. Despite boasting of their country’s resilience in the face of the global economic crisis, China’s leaders still appear jittery. Mr Wen has forecast that 2010 will see “even greater complexity in the domestic and international situation”. China’s security chief, Zhou Yongkang, in a speech published this week said the task of maintaining social stability “was still extremely onerous”.
未来几个月几乎看不到多少改变。尽管对他们的经济在面对全球经济危机时的强劲反弹力夸夸其谈，中国的领导人看上去仍然神经兮兮的。温预测2010年“国内外形势将会更为复杂”。中国的安全主管，周永康，在这个星期发表的演说中说维持社会稳定的任务“仍然困难重重”。
Some Chinese economists worry out loud that China’s massive stimulus-spending might have bought the country only a temporary reprieve. Bubbles, they fret, are forming in property markets, inflationary pressure is building up and reforms needed to promote sustained growth (including measures to promote urbanisation) are not being carried out fast enough. Occasionally, even the government’s worst nightmare is mooted as a possibility: stagflation. A combination of fast-rising prices and low growth might indeed be enough to send protesters on to the streets.
一些中国的经济学家公开表示担忧中国的大规模政府刺激性支出仅仅使国家暂时免于危机。他们担心泡沫正在资产市场形成，通胀压力正在加强，而需要用来促进可持续发展的改革（包括促进城市化的措施）并没有足够快地实施。有时，甚至政府最糟糕的噩梦也会被提出成为可能：滞涨。价格快速攀升而增长缓慢的结合可能真的足以使反对者公然反抗。
Abroad, Chinese leaders are struggling to cope with what they feel to be an accelerated shift in the global balance of power, in China’s favour. This has resulted in what Mr Moses describes as behaviour ranging from “strutting to outright stumbling”. They reacted with oratorical fury in January, when America announced a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. But while pandering to popular nationalism at home, they remain aware of China’s limitations. This week China allowed an American aircraft-carrier to pay a port call to Hong Kong, just a day before President Obama was due to defy grim warnings and meet the Dalai Lama in Washington.
国外，中国的领导人正致力于处理他们认为的全球力量平衡往中国有利的方向加速转移的问题。这导致了Moses所描述的从“昂首阔步到十足的跌跌撞撞”的行为表现。他们在一月份当美国宣布价值64亿美元的对台售武时反应异常愤怒。但当迎合国内普遍的民族主义情绪时，他们仍然对中国的有限力量保持警觉。这个星期，在奥巴马总统即将罔顾严厉警告，在华盛顿接见达赖喇嘛仅仅一天之前，中国允许了美国一航母访问香港。
Chinese leaders can be confident that the plight of dissidents and the ever-louder grumbles of foreign businessmen over the barriers they face in China will not keep the world away. From May China will be visited by a series of foreign leaders going to the World Expo in Shanghai. Among the first will be France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, much reviled by Chinese nationalists for his stance on Tibet. China sees the Expo, like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as a chance to flaunt its strength. But, as Mr Clinton noted of China in 1999, “a tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand”.
中国的领导人可以很自信，国内反对派人士陷入困境和国外商人对他们在中国遭遇的障碍的大声抱怨并不会使世界远离中国。从5月份开始中国将迎来一系列参加上海世博的国外领导人。法国总统萨科奇将会是最先到达的领导人之一，他在西藏的立场受到中国民族主义者的痛斥。和2008年北京奥运会一样，中国把世博会看作一个炫耀力量的机会。但正如克林顿在1999年对中国所作的评价一样，“握得太紧实际上是手掌缺乏力量的表现”。转篇《经济学人》的文章，原文地址：http://www.economist.com/world/a ... m?story_id=15546095
中文是由小弟翻译的，纰漏之处还望指正，此文仅供参考。
The politics of repression in China
What are they afraid of?
The economy is booming and politics stable. Yet China’s leaders seem edgy.
中国的政治管制
他们担心什么？
经济繁荣，政治稳定，但中国的领导人似乎忧心忡忡。
“THE forces pulling China toward integration and openness are more powerful today than ever before,” said President Bill Clinton in 1999. China then, though battered by the Asian financial crisis, was busy dismantling state-owned enterprises and pushing for admission to the World Trade Organisation. Today, however, those forces look much weaker.
“把中国拉向与世界融合和开放的力量，今天比以往任何时候都更为强劲。”比尔·克林顿在1999年这样说道。中国那时候，尽管受着亚洲金融危机的冲击，但正忙于处置国有企业和推进加入世贸组织。然而今天，这些力量看上去弱得多了。
A spate of recent events, from the heavy jail sentences passed on human-rights activists to an undiplomatic obduracy at the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen last December, invite questions about the thinking of China’s leaders. Has their view of the outside world and dissent at home changed? Or were the forces detected by Mr Clinton and so many others after all not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting?
最近大量事件，从对人权激进分子的很重的入狱处罚到上年12月份在哥本哈根举行的气候变化会议上的毫无外交策略的顽固不化，引起人们纷纷质疑中国的领导层到底在想什么。他们对外部世界形势和国内反对派意见的看法有变化吗？或者克林顿先生和许多其他人所发现的力量终究在他们期待的方向上牵扯不够？
The early years of what China calls its “reform and opening” after 1978 were marked by cycles of liberalisation and repression. The turning-points were usually marked by political crisis: dissent on the streets, leadership struggles, or both. Now, however, the only big protest movements are repressed ones among ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. China’s big cities are hardly roiled by political turmoil. By the time Liu Xiaobo, an academic, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December, dissident debate surrounding the reform manifesto he had issued a year earlier had long subsided. Yet it was the heaviest-known penalty imposed on any activist for “inciting subversion” since such a crime was written into law in 1997.
1978年后的中国所谓的“改革开放”的前几年，有着自由-管制-自由的周期性往复运动特征。表现为街道上的反对或者领导陷入困境或者二者均有之的政治危机，通常意味着周期转折的到来。然而现在，大型的反抗运动只剩下在西藏和新疆的受到抑制的少数民族运动。中国的大城市几乎不会有政治骚动的烦恼。直至刘晓波，一名学者，在12月被宣判11年有期徒刑，异见人士围绕他在一年前提出的改革宣言的讨论长期处于低潮。但这是自1997年“图谋颠覆国家罪”写进法律以来，激进分子因这个罪名被判罚的已知最重的一次。
China has so far survived the global economic downturn with hardly any of the agitation many once feared it might cause among unemployed workers or jobless university graduates. The economy grew at a very robust-sounding 8.7% last year and is predicted by many to be on course for similar growth in 2010.
中国到目前为止成功度过全球经济衰退，几乎没遭受到任何许多人曾经担忧会在失业工人或者无工作大学毕业生当中产生的敌对情绪。经济上年获得了听上去非常强劲的8.7%的增长，许多人预测2010年经济会获得同样的增长，迈入正轨。
Sweeping changes are due in the senior leadership in 2012 and 2013, including the replacement of President Hu Jintao and of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. But if a struggle is brewing, signs of it are hard to spot. An unusually high-profile campaign against organised crime by the party chief of Chongqing municipality, Bo Xilai, has raised eyebrows. Some speculate that it is part of a bid by Mr Bo, who is a Politburo member, to whip up popular support for his promotion to the Politburo’s all-powerful Standing Committee in 2012. An online poll by an official website chose Mr Bo as the “most inspiring voice” of 2009.
高层领导层将会在2012和2013年发生剧变，那时主席胡 锦 涛和总理温家宝都会被取代。但如果围绕权力的争斗正在酝酿，人们是很难发现其中的一些蛛丝马迹的。重庆直辖市的党的主要领导薄熙来发起的不同寻常的高规格的反黑运动，已经让一些人皱眉了。一些人认为这是政治局成员之一的薄为了争取广泛支持在2012年进入最高权力的政治局常委而作出的出价的一部分。一个官方网站发起的网上民意调查显示，薄被选为2009年“最令人鼓舞的声音”。
But Andrew Nathan of Columbia University in New York does not see this as a challenge to the expected shoo-in for Xi Jinping, the vice-president, as China’s next leader, despite Mr Xi’s failure last year to garner the leading military post analysts thought would form part of his grooming. Li Keqiang, a deputy prime minister, still looks set to take over from Mr Wen in 2013.
但纽约哥伦比亚大学的Andrew Nathan并不认为这足以对人们期待的下任国家领导人的大热候选人——副主席习近平构成挑战，尽管习在去年落选了军队高层的一个职位，这个职位分析员认为将会构成习当选国家主席的一部分。而副总理李克强看上去仍然会在2013年接替温家宝。
Against this backdrop of political stability and economic growth, the most credible interpretation of the government’s recent hard line is that the forces pushing its leaders towards greater liberalisation at home and sympathetic engagement with the West are weaker than had been hoped. Nor is there any sign that the next generation of leaders see their mission differently. As Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing-based political analyst, puts it: “The argument in policy-making circles where reform is concerned is ‘how much more authoritarian should we be?’ not ‘how do we embark on Western-style democracy?’”
在政治稳定和经济增长的背景下，中国政府最近的强硬路线最令人信服的解释是，推动国家领导人朝着内部更自由、外部更积极融入西方方向发展的力量比一直以来所希望的要弱。而且也没有任何迹象显示下一代领导人会改变对他们的使命的看法。正如驻北京的一名政治分析员Russell Leigh Moses所说，“关于改革决策流程的讨论是‘我们应该变得更专制多少？’而不是‘我们怎样着手于进行西方风格的民主？’”
Tough though the recent sentences of activists have been, they are hardly out of keeping with the leadership’s approach to dissent in recent years. This has involved giving a bit of leeway to freethinking individuals, but occasionally punishing those seen as straying too far. Since late last year two activists have been jailed in an apparent attempt to deter people from organising the parents of children killed in shoddily built schools during an earthquake in Sichuan province in 2008. But another critic of the government’s handling of the parents’ grievances, Ai Weiwei, remains free in Beijing and just as outspoken.
虽然最近对激进分子的判罚很严厉，但这是与领导层近年处理反对意见的方法相一致的。即给予自由思想的人一点余地，但时不时地惩罚那些被认为游离得太远的人。自从去年底以来，政府明显地为了阻止人们把在2008年四川地震时，死在劣质建造学校的孩子的父母组织起来，已经逮捕了两名激进分子。但另一名批评政府不当处理这些父母的不满的人士，Ai Weiwei,仍然在北京自由自在，而且和往常一样公开发表言论。
The coming months are unlikely to see much change. Despite boasting of their country’s resilience in the face of the global economic crisis, China’s leaders still appear jittery. Mr Wen has forecast that 2010 will see “even greater complexity in the domestic and international situation”. China’s security chief, Zhou Yongkang, in a speech published this week said the task of maintaining social stability “was still extremely onerous”.
未来几个月几乎看不到多少改变。尽管对他们的经济在面对全球经济危机时的强劲反弹力夸夸其谈，中国的领导人看上去仍然神经兮兮的。温预测2010年“国内外形势将会更为复杂”。中国的安全主管，周永康，在这个星期发表的演说中说维持社会稳定的任务“仍然困难重重”。
Some Chinese economists worry out loud that China’s massive stimulus-spending might have bought the country only a temporary reprieve. Bubbles, they fret, are forming in property markets, inflationary pressure is building up and reforms needed to promote sustained growth (including measures to promote urbanisation) are not being carried out fast enough. Occasionally, even the government’s worst nightmare is mooted as a possibility: stagflation. A combination of fast-rising prices and low growth might indeed be enough to send protesters on to the streets.
一些中国的经济学家公开表示担忧中国的大规模政府刺激性支出仅仅使国家暂时免于危机。他们担心泡沫正在资产市场形成，通胀压力正在加强，而需要用来促进可持续发展的改革（包括促进城市化的措施）并没有足够快地实施。有时，甚至政府最糟糕的噩梦也会被提出成为可能：滞涨。价格快速攀升而增长缓慢的结合可能真的足以使反对者公然反抗。
Abroad, Chinese leaders are struggling to cope with what they feel to be an accelerated shift in the global balance of power, in China’s favour. This has resulted in what Mr Moses describes as behaviour ranging from “strutting to outright stumbling”. They reacted with oratorical fury in January, when America announced a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. But while pandering to popular nationalism at home, they remain aware of China’s limitations. This week China allowed an American aircraft-carrier to pay a port call to Hong Kong, just a day before President Obama was due to defy grim warnings and meet the Dalai Lama in Washington.
国外，中国的领导人正致力于处理他们认为的全球力量平衡往中国有利的方向加速转移的问题。这导致了Moses所描述的从“昂首阔步到十足的跌跌撞撞”的行为表现。他们在一月份当美国宣布价值64亿美元的对台售武时反应异常愤怒。但当迎合国内普遍的民族主义情绪时，他们仍然对中国的有限力量保持警觉。这个星期，在奥巴马总统即将罔顾严厉警告，在华盛顿接见达赖喇嘛仅仅一天之前，中国允许了美国一航母访问香港。
Chinese leaders can be confident that the plight of dissidents and the ever-louder grumbles of foreign businessmen over the barriers they face in China will not keep the world away. From May China will be visited by a series of foreign leaders going to the World Expo in Shanghai. Among the first will be France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, much reviled by Chinese nationalists for his stance on Tibet. China sees the Expo, like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as a chance to flaunt its strength. But, as Mr Clinton noted of China in 1999, “a tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand”.
中国的领导人可以很自信，国内反对派人士陷入困境和国外商人对他们在中国遭遇的障碍的大声抱怨并不会使世界远离中国。从5月份开始中国将迎来一系列参加上海世博的国外领导人。法国总统萨科奇将会是最先到达的领导人之一，他在西藏的立场受到中国民族主义者的痛斥。和2008年北京奥运会一样，中国把世博会看作一个炫耀力量的机会。但正如克林顿在1999年对中国所作的评价一样，“握得太紧实际上是手掌缺乏力量的表现”。
中文是由小弟翻译的，纰漏之处还望指正，此文仅供参考。
The politics of repression in China
What are they afraid of?
The economy is booming and politics stable. Yet China’s leaders seem edgy.
中国的政治管制
他们担心什么？
经济繁荣，政治稳定，但中国的领导人似乎忧心忡忡。
“THE forces pulling China toward integration and openness are more powerful today than ever before,” said President Bill Clinton in 1999. China then, though battered by the Asian financial crisis, was busy dismantling state-owned enterprises and pushing for admission to the World Trade Organisation. Today, however, those forces look much weaker.
“把中国拉向与世界融合和开放的力量，今天比以往任何时候都更为强劲。”比尔·克林顿在1999年这样说道。中国那时候，尽管受着亚洲金融危机的冲击，但正忙于处置国有企业和推进加入世贸组织。然而今天，这些力量看上去弱得多了。
A spate of recent events, from the heavy jail sentences passed on human-rights activists to an undiplomatic obduracy at the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen last December, invite questions about the thinking of China’s leaders. Has their view of the outside world and dissent at home changed? Or were the forces detected by Mr Clinton and so many others after all not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting?
最近大量事件，从对人权激进分子的很重的入狱处罚到上年12月份在哥本哈根举行的气候变化会议上的毫无外交策略的顽固不化，引起人们纷纷质疑中国的领导层到底在想什么。他们对外部世界形势和国内反对派意见的看法有变化吗？或者克林顿先生和许多其他人所发现的力量终究在他们期待的方向上牵扯不够？
The early years of what China calls its “reform and opening” after 1978 were marked by cycles of liberalisation and repression. The turning-points were usually marked by political crisis: dissent on the streets, leadership struggles, or both. Now, however, the only big protest movements are repressed ones among ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. China’s big cities are hardly roiled by political turmoil. By the time Liu Xiaobo, an academic, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December, dissident debate surrounding the reform manifesto he had issued a year earlier had long subsided. Yet it was the heaviest-known penalty imposed on any activist for “inciting subversion” since such a crime was written into law in 1997.
1978年后的中国所谓的“改革开放”的前几年，有着自由-管制-自由的周期性往复运动特征。表现为街道上的反对或者领导陷入困境或者二者均有之的政治危机，通常意味着周期转折的到来。然而现在，大型的反抗运动只剩下在西藏和新疆的受到抑制的少数民族运动。中国的大城市几乎不会有政治骚动的烦恼。直至刘晓波，一名学者，在12月被宣判11年有期徒刑，异见人士围绕他在一年前提出的改革宣言的讨论长期处于低潮。但这是自1997年“图谋颠覆国家罪”写进法律以来，激进分子因这个罪名被判罚的已知最重的一次。
China has so far survived the global economic downturn with hardly any of the agitation many once feared it might cause among unemployed workers or jobless university graduates. The economy grew at a very robust-sounding 8.7% last year and is predicted by many to be on course for similar growth in 2010.
中国到目前为止成功度过全球经济衰退，几乎没遭受到任何许多人曾经担忧会在失业工人或者无工作大学毕业生当中产生的敌对情绪。经济上年获得了听上去非常强劲的8.7%的增长，许多人预测2010年经济会获得同样的增长，迈入正轨。
Sweeping changes are due in the senior leadership in 2012 and 2013, including the replacement of President Hu Jintao and of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. But if a struggle is brewing, signs of it are hard to spot. An unusually high-profile campaign against organised crime by the party chief of Chongqing municipality, Bo Xilai, has raised eyebrows. Some speculate that it is part of a bid by Mr Bo, who is a Politburo member, to whip up popular support for his promotion to the Politburo’s all-powerful Standing Committee in 2012. An online poll by an official website chose Mr Bo as the “most inspiring voice” of 2009.
高层领导层将会在2012和2013年发生剧变，那时主席胡 锦 涛和总理温家宝都会被取代。但如果围绕权力的争斗正在酝酿，人们是很难发现其中的一些蛛丝马迹的。重庆直辖市的党的主要领导薄熙来发起的不同寻常的高规格的反黑运动，已经让一些人皱眉了。一些人认为这是政治局成员之一的薄为了争取广泛支持在2012年进入最高权力的政治局常委而作出的出价的一部分。一个官方网站发起的网上民意调查显示，薄被选为2009年“最令人鼓舞的声音”。
But Andrew Nathan of Columbia University in New York does not see this as a challenge to the expected shoo-in for Xi Jinping, the vice-president, as China’s next leader, despite Mr Xi’s failure last year to garner the leading military post analysts thought would form part of his grooming. Li Keqiang, a deputy prime minister, still looks set to take over from Mr Wen in 2013.
但纽约哥伦比亚大学的Andrew Nathan并不认为这足以对人们期待的下任国家领导人的大热候选人——副主席习近平构成挑战，尽管习在去年落选了军队高层的一个职位，这个职位分析员认为将会构成习当选国家主席的一部分。而副总理李克强看上去仍然会在2013年接替温家宝。
Against this backdrop of political stability and economic growth, the most credible interpretation of the government’s recent hard line is that the forces pushing its leaders towards greater liberalisation at home and sympathetic engagement with the West are weaker than had been hoped. Nor is there any sign that the next generation of leaders see their mission differently. As Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing-based political analyst, puts it: “The argument in policy-making circles where reform is concerned is ‘how much more authoritarian should we be?’ not ‘how do we embark on Western-style democracy?’”
在政治稳定和经济增长的背景下，中国政府最近的强硬路线最令人信服的解释是，推动国家领导人朝着内部更自由、外部更积极融入西方方向发展的力量比一直以来所希望的要弱。而且也没有任何迹象显示下一代领导人会改变对他们的使命的看法。正如驻北京的一名政治分析员Russell Leigh Moses所说，“关于改革决策流程的讨论是‘我们应该变得更专制多少？’而不是‘我们怎样着手于进行西方风格的民主？’”
Tough though the recent sentences of activists have been, they are hardly out of keeping with the leadership’s approach to dissent in recent years. This has involved giving a bit of leeway to freethinking individuals, but occasionally punishing those seen as straying too far. Since late last year two activists have been jailed in an apparent attempt to deter people from organising the parents of children killed in shoddily built schools during an earthquake in Sichuan province in 2008. But another critic of the government’s handling of the parents’ grievances, Ai Weiwei, remains free in Beijing and just as outspoken.
虽然最近对激进分子的判罚很严厉，但这是与领导层近年处理反对意见的方法相一致的。即给予自由思想的人一点余地，但时不时地惩罚那些被认为游离得太远的人。自从去年底以来，政府明显地为了阻止人们把在2008年四川地震时，死在劣质建造学校的孩子的父母组织起来，已经逮捕了两名激进分子。但另一名批评政府不当处理这些父母的不满的人士，Ai Weiwei,仍然在北京自由自在，而且和往常一样公开发表言论。
The coming months are unlikely to see much change. Despite boasting of their country’s resilience in the face of the global economic crisis, China’s leaders still appear jittery. Mr Wen has forecast that 2010 will see “even greater complexity in the domestic and international situation”. China’s security chief, Zhou Yongkang, in a speech published this week said the task of maintaining social stability “was still extremely onerous”.
未来几个月几乎看不到多少改变。尽管对他们的经济在面对全球经济危机时的强劲反弹力夸夸其谈，中国的领导人看上去仍然神经兮兮的。温预测2010年“国内外形势将会更为复杂”。中国的安全主管，周永康，在这个星期发表的演说中说维持社会稳定的任务“仍然困难重重”。
Some Chinese economists worry out loud that China’s massive stimulus-spending might have bought the country only a temporary reprieve. Bubbles, they fret, are forming in property markets, inflationary pressure is building up and reforms needed to promote sustained growth (including measures to promote urbanisation) are not being carried out fast enough. Occasionally, even the government’s worst nightmare is mooted as a possibility: stagflation. A combination of fast-rising prices and low growth might indeed be enough to send protesters on to the streets.
一些中国的经济学家公开表示担忧中国的大规模政府刺激性支出仅仅使国家暂时免于危机。他们担心泡沫正在资产市场形成，通胀压力正在加强，而需要用来促进可持续发展的改革（包括促进城市化的措施）并没有足够快地实施。有时，甚至政府最糟糕的噩梦也会被提出成为可能：滞涨。价格快速攀升而增长缓慢的结合可能真的足以使反对者公然反抗。
Abroad, Chinese leaders are struggling to cope with what they feel to be an accelerated shift in the global balance of power, in China’s favour. This has resulted in what Mr Moses describes as behaviour ranging from “strutting to outright stumbling”. They reacted with oratorical fury in January, when America announced a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. But while pandering to popular nationalism at home, they remain aware of China’s limitations. This week China allowed an American aircraft-carrier to pay a port call to Hong Kong, just a day before President Obama was due to defy grim warnings and meet the Dalai Lama in Washington.
国外，中国的领导人正致力于处理他们认为的全球力量平衡往中国有利的方向加速转移的问题。这导致了Moses所描述的从“昂首阔步到十足的跌跌撞撞”的行为表现。他们在一月份当美国宣布价值64亿美元的对台售武时反应异常愤怒。但当迎合国内普遍的民族主义情绪时，他们仍然对中国的有限力量保持警觉。这个星期，在奥巴马总统即将罔顾严厉警告，在华盛顿接见达赖喇嘛仅仅一天之前，中国允许了美国一航母访问香港。
Chinese leaders can be confident that the plight of dissidents and the ever-louder grumbles of foreign businessmen over the barriers they face in China will not keep the world away. From May China will be visited by a series of foreign leaders going to the World Expo in Shanghai. Among the first will be France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, much reviled by Chinese nationalists for his stance on Tibet. China sees the Expo, like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as a chance to flaunt its strength. But, as Mr Clinton noted of China in 1999, “a tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand”.
中国的领导人可以很自信，国内反对派人士陷入困境和国外商人对他们在中国遭遇的障碍的大声抱怨并不会使世界远离中国。从5月份开始中国将迎来一系列参加上海世博的国外领导人。法国总统萨科奇将会是最先到达的领导人之一，他在西藏的立场受到中国民族主义者的痛斥。和2008年北京奥运会一样，中国把世博会看作一个炫耀力量的机会。但正如克林顿在1999年对中国所作的评价一样，“握得太紧实际上是手掌缺乏力量的表现”。转篇《经济学人》的文章，原文地址：http://www.economist.com/world/a ... m?story_id=15546095
中文是由小弟翻译的，纰漏之处还望指正，此文仅供参考。
The politics of repression in China
What are they afraid of?
The economy is booming and politics stable. Yet China’s leaders seem edgy.
中国的政治管制
他们担心什么？
经济繁荣，政治稳定，但中国的领导人似乎忧心忡忡。
“THE forces pulling China toward integration and openness are more powerful today than ever before,” said President Bill Clinton in 1999. China then, though battered by the Asian financial crisis, was busy dismantling state-owned enterprises and pushing for admission to the World Trade Organisation. Today, however, those forces look much weaker.
“把中国拉向与世界融合和开放的力量，今天比以往任何时候都更为强劲。”比尔·克林顿在1999年这样说道。中国那时候，尽管受着亚洲金融危机的冲击，但正忙于处置国有企业和推进加入世贸组织。然而今天，这些力量看上去弱得多了。
A spate of recent events, from the heavy jail sentences passed on human-rights activists to an undiplomatic obduracy at the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen last December, invite questions about the thinking of China’s leaders. Has their view of the outside world and dissent at home changed? Or were the forces detected by Mr Clinton and so many others after all not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting?
最近大量事件，从对人权激进分子的很重的入狱处罚到上年12月份在哥本哈根举行的气候变化会议上的毫无外交策略的顽固不化，引起人们纷纷质疑中国的领导层到底在想什么。他们对外部世界形势和国内反对派意见的看法有变化吗？或者克林顿先生和许多其他人所发现的力量终究在他们期待的方向上牵扯不够？
The early years of what China calls its “reform and opening” after 1978 were marked by cycles of liberalisation and repression. The turning-points were usually marked by political crisis: dissent on the streets, leadership struggles, or both. Now, however, the only big protest movements are repressed ones among ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. China’s big cities are hardly roiled by political turmoil. By the time Liu Xiaobo, an academic, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December, dissident debate surrounding the reform manifesto he had issued a year earlier had long subsided. Yet it was the heaviest-known penalty imposed on any activist for “inciting subversion” since such a crime was written into law in 1997.
1978年后的中国所谓的“改革开放”的前几年，有着自由-管制-自由的周期性往复运动特征。表现为街道上的反对或者领导陷入困境或者二者均有之的政治危机，通常意味着周期转折的到来。然而现在，大型的反抗运动只剩下在西藏和新疆的受到抑制的少数民族运动。中国的大城市几乎不会有政治骚动的烦恼。直至刘晓波，一名学者，在12月被宣判11年有期徒刑，异见人士围绕他在一年前提出的改革宣言的讨论长期处于低潮。但这是自1997年“图谋颠覆国家罪”写进法律以来，激进分子因这个罪名被判罚的已知最重的一次。
China has so far survived the global economic downturn with hardly any of the agitation many once feared it might cause among unemployed workers or jobless university graduates. The economy grew at a very robust-sounding 8.7% last year and is predicted by many to be on course for similar growth in 2010.
中国到目前为止成功度过全球经济衰退，几乎没遭受到任何许多人曾经担忧会在失业工人或者无工作大学毕业生当中产生的敌对情绪。经济上年获得了听上去非常强劲的8.7%的增长，许多人预测2010年经济会获得同样的增长，迈入正轨。
Sweeping changes are due in the senior leadership in 2012 and 2013, including the replacement of President Hu Jintao and of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. But if a struggle is brewing, signs of it are hard to spot. An unusually high-profile campaign against organised crime by the party chief of Chongqing municipality, Bo Xilai, has raised eyebrows. Some speculate that it is part of a bid by Mr Bo, who is a Politburo member, to whip up popular support for his promotion to the Politburo’s all-powerful Standing Committee in 2012. An online poll by an official website chose Mr Bo as the “most inspiring voice” of 2009.
高层领导层将会在2012和2013年发生剧变，那时主席胡 锦 涛和总理温家宝都会被取代。但如果围绕权力的争斗正在酝酿，人们是很难发现其中的一些蛛丝马迹的。重庆直辖市的党的主要领导薄熙来发起的不同寻常的高规格的反黑运动，已经让一些人皱眉了。一些人认为这是政治局成员之一的薄为了争取广泛支持在2012年进入最高权力的政治局常委而作出的出价的一部分。一个官方网站发起的网上民意调查显示，薄被选为2009年“最令人鼓舞的声音”。
But Andrew Nathan of Columbia University in New York does not see this as a challenge to the expected shoo-in for Xi Jinping, the vice-president, as China’s next leader, despite Mr Xi’s failure last year to garner the leading military post analysts thought would form part of his grooming. Li Keqiang, a deputy prime minister, still looks set to take over from Mr Wen in 2013.
但纽约哥伦比亚大学的Andrew Nathan并不认为这足以对人们期待的下任国家领导人的大热候选人——副主席习近平构成挑战，尽管习在去年落选了军队高层的一个职位，这个职位分析员认为将会构成习当选国家主席的一部分。而副总理李克强看上去仍然会在2013年接替温家宝。
Against this backdrop of political stability and economic growth, the most credible interpretation of the government’s recent hard line is that the forces pushing its leaders towards greater liberalisation at home and sympathetic engagement with the West are weaker than had been hoped. Nor is there any sign that the next generation of leaders see their mission differently. As Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing-based political analyst, puts it: “The argument in policy-making circles where reform is concerned is ‘how much more authoritarian should we be?’ not ‘how do we embark on Western-style democracy?’”
在政治稳定和经济增长的背景下，中国政府最近的强硬路线最令人信服的解释是，推动国家领导人朝着内部更自由、外部更积极融入西方方向发展的力量比一直以来所希望的要弱。而且也没有任何迹象显示下一代领导人会改变对他们的使命的看法。正如驻北京的一名政治分析员Russell Leigh Moses所说，“关于改革决策流程的讨论是‘我们应该变得更专制多少？’而不是‘我们怎样着手于进行西方风格的民主？’”
Tough though the recent sentences of activists have been, they are hardly out of keeping with the leadership’s approach to dissent in recent years. This has involved giving a bit of leeway to freethinking individuals, but occasionally punishing those seen as straying too far. Since late last year two activists have been jailed in an apparent attempt to deter people from organising the parents of children killed in shoddily built schools during an earthquake in Sichuan province in 2008. But another critic of the government’s handling of the parents’ grievances, Ai Weiwei, remains free in Beijing and just as outspoken.
虽然最近对激进分子的判罚很严厉，但这是与领导层近年处理反对意见的方法相一致的。即给予自由思想的人一点余地，但时不时地惩罚那些被认为游离得太远的人。自从去年底以来，政府明显地为了阻止人们把在2008年四川地震时，死在劣质建造学校的孩子的父母组织起来，已经逮捕了两名激进分子。但另一名批评政府不当处理这些父母的不满的人士，Ai Weiwei,仍然在北京自由自在，而且和往常一样公开发表言论。
The coming months are unlikely to see much change. Despite boasting of their country’s resilience in the face of the global economic crisis, China’s leaders still appear jittery. Mr Wen has forecast that 2010 will see “even greater complexity in the domestic and international situation”. China’s security chief, Zhou Yongkang, in a speech published this week said the task of maintaining social stability “was still extremely onerous”.
未来几个月几乎看不到多少改变。尽管对他们的经济在面对全球经济危机时的强劲反弹力夸夸其谈，中国的领导人看上去仍然神经兮兮的。温预测2010年“国内外形势将会更为复杂”。中国的安全主管，周永康，在这个星期发表的演说中说维持社会稳定的任务“仍然困难重重”。
Some Chinese economists worry out loud that China’s massive stimulus-spending might have bought the country only a temporary reprieve. Bubbles, they fret, are forming in property markets, inflationary pressure is building up and reforms needed to promote sustained growth (including measures to promote urbanisation) are not being carried out fast enough. Occasionally, even the government’s worst nightmare is mooted as a possibility: stagflation. A combination of fast-rising prices and low growth might indeed be enough to send protesters on to the streets.
一些中国的经济学家公开表示担忧中国的大规模政府刺激性支出仅仅使国家暂时免于危机。他们担心泡沫正在资产市场形成，通胀压力正在加强，而需要用来促进可持续发展的改革（包括促进城市化的措施）并没有足够快地实施。有时，甚至政府最糟糕的噩梦也会被提出成为可能：滞涨。价格快速攀升而增长缓慢的结合可能真的足以使反对者公然反抗。
Abroad, Chinese leaders are struggling to cope with what they feel to be an accelerated shift in the global balance of power, in China’s favour. This has resulted in what Mr Moses describes as behaviour ranging from “strutting to outright stumbling”. They reacted with oratorical fury in January, when America announced a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. But while pandering to popular nationalism at home, they remain aware of China’s limitations. This week China allowed an American aircraft-carrier to pay a port call to Hong Kong, just a day before President Obama was due to defy grim warnings and meet the Dalai Lama in Washington.
国外，中国的领导人正致力于处理他们认为的全球力量平衡往中国有利的方向加速转移的问题。这导致了Moses所描述的从“昂首阔步到十足的跌跌撞撞”的行为表现。他们在一月份当美国宣布价值64亿美元的对台售武时反应异常愤怒。但当迎合国内普遍的民族主义情绪时，他们仍然对中国的有限力量保持警觉。这个星期，在奥巴马总统即将罔顾严厉警告，在华盛顿接见达赖喇嘛仅仅一天之前，中国允许了美国一航母访问香港。
Chinese leaders can be confident that the plight of dissidents and the ever-louder grumbles of foreign businessmen over the barriers they face in China will not keep the world away. From May China will be visited by a series of foreign leaders going to the World Expo in Shanghai. Among the first will be France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, much reviled by Chinese nationalists for his stance on Tibet. China sees the Expo, like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as a chance to flaunt its strength. But, as Mr Clinton noted of China in 1999, “a tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand”.
中国的领导人可以很自信，国内反对派人士陷入困境和国外商人对他们在中国遭遇的障碍的大声抱怨并不会使世界远离中国。从5月份开始中国将迎来一系列参加上海世博的国外领导人。法国总统萨科奇将会是最先到达的领导人之一，他在西藏的立场受到中国民族主义者的痛斥。和2008年北京奥运会一样，中国把世博会看作一个炫耀力量的机会。但正如克林顿在1999年对中国所作的评价一样，“握得太紧实际上是手掌缺乏力量的表现”。
还好发出来了，刚刚发现发在百度空间的这篇文章被管理员删除了。
横看成岭侧成峰，远近高低各不同。
我从来不认为一个外国人能理解中国的国情，中国的民众。
我从来不认为一个外国人能理解中国的国情，中国的民众。
西人的习惯而已
别的不说，上次那个哥本哈根大会英国像敲中国竹杠没得手，过去了这么久还是一提中国就歇斯底里，印度每年又是饿死人又是人口贩卖又是强制拆迁又是内部火并，为虾米经济学人一直都屁都不放一个呢》
rx78nt1gx 发表于 2010-2-23 00:20 
因为那是民主国家，呵呵
因为那是民主国家，呵呵
西方脑残又不是一天两天了。看着一头猪养肥了而不能杀来吃，心里不痛快而已。
中国的确是在怕.....
不知道这杂志是真傻还是假傻，就算是对中文化一窍不通也应该从历史的角度知道，大规模经济危机的结果就是战争，这不可怕吗?
下面是支持度最高的回帖:http://www.economist.com/node/15 ... mmend#sort-comments。
watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 6:37 GMT
Dear Economist;
亲爱的《经济学人》，
Your article is sensible enough, and balanced, but your leader: "China's tetchy and brutal leadership" is really offensive.
你的文章足够明智和平衡，但你说“中国的领导层是臭脾气的野蛮的”就实在是得罪人。
For the benefit of readers everywhere, I would like to restate my circumstance. I am a foreigner (Canadian) living in Shanghai, and have been here for some years now. This is not my country, and I do not have a defense contract with it.
为了各个地方的读者的利益，我愿意再一次说说我本人的情况。我是一名外国人（加拿大人），住在上海，已经住了好几年了。中国不是我的祖国，而且我也没有受聘为其辩护。
My posts are made to dispel what I see as mis-statements or twisted observations about this County - often consisting of outright falsehoods - and done for no good reason. The range of incorrect, or just plain stuupid, comments about China is staggering.
我回帖是为了驱散我所认为的关于中国的错误陈述或者歪曲的观察——通常这些错误由一派胡言所构成——而这样做是毫无道理可言的。关于中国的不正确的或者简直就是愚蠢的评论，所涉及的范围之广是惊人的。
The fact that a country has a different form of government is not in itself a reason to propagate distrust and hatred.
一个国家拥有一个不同的政府形式这件事本身并不是一个鼓动不信任和憎恨的理由。
China is in fact a fine country. For sure there are growing pains and difficult strategic decisions to make, since China is largely travelling uncharted waters. But the 'repression' and 'brutality' referred to by this 'communist dictatorship' and really just nonsense and I wish a paper with the status of the Economist would be a bit more intelligent in its presentation.
中国实际上是一个好国家。当然，既然中国主要在未知水域航行，她会有发展的难题和艰难的战略决策去制定。但这篇“认为共产主义就是专制”的文章所提及的“压制”和“野蛮”简直就是废话，我希望《经济学人》这样地位的文章，在陈述时能聪明一点。
China has a very different culture than the West, and we cannot interpret their actions in the light of our own attitudes. To do so would be to misunderstand everything about China.
中国拥有一个与西方非常不同的文化，我们不能按照我们自己的态度来看待他们的行为。这样做会误解中国的所有事情。
For example, the treatment of what we choose to call 'dissidents'. We have these in the West too, but we don't refer to them a dissidents. In North America, we call them s***-disturbers. Some people are natural trouble-makers; some are professionals.
例如，对我们所认为的“异见人士”的对待。在西方我们同样有这些人，但我们并不称呼他们为异见人士。在北美，我们称呼他们为捣乱者。一些人天性喜欢制造麻烦，另一些则是专职捣乱。
We tolerate them in our Western society, but we don't tolerate them in our corporatations. If you work for a company and you walk around the office telling everyone what a jerk your President is, you won't see a lot of sympathy when you get yourself fired. People will say you knew what you were doing and you brought it upon yourself.
我们在我们的西方社会里包容他们，但我们并不在我们的公司里对他们忍耐。如果你供职于一家公司而你走遍整个办公室告诉每一位职员你的上司是十足的笨蛋，你炒自己鱿鱼的时候你不会获得许多同情。人们会说你知道自己在做什么而你是自作自受。
It's like that with China. The Chinese do not like 'troublemakers' and they don't like to BE troublemakers. Protesting is very possible here, but it's done differently than in the West.
这道理同样适用于中国。中国人不喜欢“麻烦制造者”，他们也不喜欢成为麻烦制造者。在这儿反对完全可以，但反对的方式不同于西方。
If we think of China as a corporation rather than a country, this is easy to understand. There is a CEO who says, "This is what we are going to do, now get it done." You can dissent if your objections are helpful, if you can improve the result, but if you just want to change the direction of the company to go someplace that YOU want, instead of where the directors and shareholders want to take it, you won't have much luck.
如果我们把中国看作一家公司而不是一个国家，这样就容易理解了。有一个CEO说，“这就是我们将要做的事，现在大家来完成它。”你可以提出异议，如果你的反对是有用的，你能改善结果，但如果你仅仅是想改变公司的前进方向以到达你想它到达的某个地方，而不是公司董事和股东想到达的地方，你还是省省吧。
And if you are too vocal, too public, too embarrassing, you'll get fired. And nobody here will feel sorry for you because everybody knows the corporate rules; violate them at your peril. It isn't 'brutal' any more than IBM is brutal.
而如果你说得太多，太公开，太令人尴尬，你将会被解雇。而且这儿没人会同情你，因为每一个人都知道公司的规矩，你想自寻烦恼就违反它们吧。这并不比IBM“野蛮”多少吧？
In this society, peace, prosperity and an absence of conflict are the measures of success. When Hu Jintao talks about building an 'harmonious society', those are not empty words. THAT is the goal. The West thrives on conflict, and often seeks it out; for the Chinese, open conflict is the last resort, a sign of abject failure to negotiate well.
在这个社会里，和平，繁荣和无冲突是衡量成功与否的因素。当胡 锦 涛谈论建设“和谐社会”，这些并不是空话。这是目标。西方到处可见对立，而且经常寻找对立；对于中国人，公开的冲突是最后的手段，是协商完全失败的表现。
In the police station in my neighborhood, the first room you see when you walk in, is a 'reconciliation room' - where a policeman can sit with disputing parties and talk them through a peaceful settlement. Compare that to a US or UK police department.
在我家附近的警察局，当你走进它时你见到的第一间房间是“协调室”——在这儿警察可以和有争论的多方当事人坐在一起并说服他们和平解决问题。把这和美国和英国的警察局比较比较吧。
This is a different place, and a valuable one. The Chinese are not so fiercely individualistic as Americans or Canadians. Many of the 'rights' that we incessantly harp on, are of no particular interest to people here. Female reporters are not going to court, demanding 'the right' to enter a locker room after a game to interview the naked male players.
这是一个不同的地方，而且是一个有价值的地方。中国人性子不像美国人或加拿大人一样猛烈。我们喋喋不休个不停的许多“权利”对这儿的人来说并没有什么特别的利益。女性记者不会到法院要求获得在比赛后进入运动员更衣室访问裸体男性运动员的“权利”。
Yes, some activities are circumscribed, but on a daily basis these are seldom important. So much of China's daily life is far more tolerant and less 'authoritarian' than in the West. I can argue with a policeman here; I can ignore many small rules without someone starting a war. The 'repressions', 'lack of freedoms' are just a myth, propagated in ignorance by right-wing neocons who are still living in the cold war and NEED an enemy to give them purpose.
是的，一些活动将会受到限制，但就日常生活而言这些通常是不重要的。在如此多的方面中国的日常生活要远远较西方更包容和不“专制”。我可以在这儿和一名警察争论；我可以无视许多小规小矩而不会使某人要和我开战。所谓的“压制”、“缺乏自由”是无稽的，被右翼新保守主义者无知地大肆宣传，这些人仍然活在冷战时代，需要一个敌人作为他们的靶子。
China doesn't want power; it wants to thrive, economically, just like a corporation. China is not a colonial power; it does not harbor imperialistic ambitions. Please try to see it for what it is.
中国不想变得太过强力；她只想像一家公司那样经济繁荣。中国不是一支殖民主义的力量；她并不怀有成为帝国主义的雄心。请实事求是。
Recommend (501)PermalinkReport abuse
下面是支持度最高的回帖:http://www.economist.com/node/15 ... mmend#sort-comments。
watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 6:37 GMT
Dear Economist;
亲爱的《经济学人》，
Your article is sensible enough, and balanced, but your leader: "China's tetchy and brutal leadership" is really offensive.
你的文章足够明智和平衡，但你说“中国的领导层是臭脾气的野蛮的”就实在是得罪人。
For the benefit of readers everywhere, I would like to restate my circumstance. I am a foreigner (Canadian) living in Shanghai, and have been here for some years now. This is not my country, and I do not have a defense contract with it.
为了各个地方的读者的利益，我愿意再一次说说我本人的情况。我是一名外国人（加拿大人），住在上海，已经住了好几年了。中国不是我的祖国，而且我也没有受聘为其辩护。
My posts are made to dispel what I see as mis-statements or twisted observations about this County - often consisting of outright falsehoods - and done for no good reason. The range of incorrect, or just plain stuupid, comments about China is staggering.
我回帖是为了驱散我所认为的关于中国的错误陈述或者歪曲的观察——通常这些错误由一派胡言所构成——而这样做是毫无道理可言的。关于中国的不正确的或者简直就是愚蠢的评论，所涉及的范围之广是惊人的。
The fact that a country has a different form of government is not in itself a reason to propagate distrust and hatred.
一个国家拥有一个不同的政府形式这件事本身并不是一个鼓动不信任和憎恨的理由。
China is in fact a fine country. For sure there are growing pains and difficult strategic decisions to make, since China is largely travelling uncharted waters. But the 'repression' and 'brutality' referred to by this 'communist dictatorship' and really just nonsense and I wish a paper with the status of the Economist would be a bit more intelligent in its presentation.
中国实际上是一个好国家。当然，既然中国主要在未知水域航行，她会有发展的难题和艰难的战略决策去制定。但这篇“认为共产主义就是专制”的文章所提及的“压制”和“野蛮”简直就是废话，我希望《经济学人》这样地位的文章，在陈述时能聪明一点。
China has a very different culture than the West, and we cannot interpret their actions in the light of our own attitudes. To do so would be to misunderstand everything about China.
中国拥有一个与西方非常不同的文化，我们不能按照我们自己的态度来看待他们的行为。这样做会误解中国的所有事情。
For example, the treatment of what we choose to call 'dissidents'. We have these in the West too, but we don't refer to them a dissidents. In North America, we call them s***-disturbers. Some people are natural trouble-makers; some are professionals.
例如，对我们所认为的“异见人士”的对待。在西方我们同样有这些人，但我们并不称呼他们为异见人士。在北美，我们称呼他们为捣乱者。一些人天性喜欢制造麻烦，另一些则是专职捣乱。
We tolerate them in our Western society, but we don't tolerate them in our corporatations. If you work for a company and you walk around the office telling everyone what a jerk your President is, you won't see a lot of sympathy when you get yourself fired. People will say you knew what you were doing and you brought it upon yourself.
我们在我们的西方社会里包容他们，但我们并不在我们的公司里对他们忍耐。如果你供职于一家公司而你走遍整个办公室告诉每一位职员你的上司是十足的笨蛋，你炒自己鱿鱼的时候你不会获得许多同情。人们会说你知道自己在做什么而你是自作自受。
It's like that with China. The Chinese do not like 'troublemakers' and they don't like to BE troublemakers. Protesting is very possible here, but it's done differently than in the West.
这道理同样适用于中国。中国人不喜欢“麻烦制造者”，他们也不喜欢成为麻烦制造者。在这儿反对完全可以，但反对的方式不同于西方。
If we think of China as a corporation rather than a country, this is easy to understand. There is a CEO who says, "This is what we are going to do, now get it done." You can dissent if your objections are helpful, if you can improve the result, but if you just want to change the direction of the company to go someplace that YOU want, instead of where the directors and shareholders want to take it, you won't have much luck.
如果我们把中国看作一家公司而不是一个国家，这样就容易理解了。有一个CEO说，“这就是我们将要做的事，现在大家来完成它。”你可以提出异议，如果你的反对是有用的，你能改善结果，但如果你仅仅是想改变公司的前进方向以到达你想它到达的某个地方，而不是公司董事和股东想到达的地方，你还是省省吧。
And if you are too vocal, too public, too embarrassing, you'll get fired. And nobody here will feel sorry for you because everybody knows the corporate rules; violate them at your peril. It isn't 'brutal' any more than IBM is brutal.
而如果你说得太多，太公开，太令人尴尬，你将会被解雇。而且这儿没人会同情你，因为每一个人都知道公司的规矩，你想自寻烦恼就违反它们吧。这并不比IBM“野蛮”多少吧？
In this society, peace, prosperity and an absence of conflict are the measures of success. When Hu Jintao talks about building an 'harmonious society', those are not empty words. THAT is the goal. The West thrives on conflict, and often seeks it out; for the Chinese, open conflict is the last resort, a sign of abject failure to negotiate well.
在这个社会里，和平，繁荣和无冲突是衡量成功与否的因素。当胡 锦 涛谈论建设“和谐社会”，这些并不是空话。这是目标。西方到处可见对立，而且经常寻找对立；对于中国人，公开的冲突是最后的手段，是协商完全失败的表现。
In the police station in my neighborhood, the first room you see when you walk in, is a 'reconciliation room' - where a policeman can sit with disputing parties and talk them through a peaceful settlement. Compare that to a US or UK police department.
在我家附近的警察局，当你走进它时你见到的第一间房间是“协调室”——在这儿警察可以和有争论的多方当事人坐在一起并说服他们和平解决问题。把这和美国和英国的警察局比较比较吧。
This is a different place, and a valuable one. The Chinese are not so fiercely individualistic as Americans or Canadians. Many of the 'rights' that we incessantly harp on, are of no particular interest to people here. Female reporters are not going to court, demanding 'the right' to enter a locker room after a game to interview the naked male players.
这是一个不同的地方，而且是一个有价值的地方。中国人性子不像美国人或加拿大人一样猛烈。我们喋喋不休个不停的许多“权利”对这儿的人来说并没有什么特别的利益。女性记者不会到法院要求获得在比赛后进入运动员更衣室访问裸体男性运动员的“权利”。
Yes, some activities are circumscribed, but on a daily basis these are seldom important. So much of China's daily life is far more tolerant and less 'authoritarian' than in the West. I can argue with a policeman here; I can ignore many small rules without someone starting a war. The 'repressions', 'lack of freedoms' are just a myth, propagated in ignorance by right-wing neocons who are still living in the cold war and NEED an enemy to give them purpose.
是的，一些活动将会受到限制，但就日常生活而言这些通常是不重要的。在如此多的方面中国的日常生活要远远较西方更包容和不“专制”。我可以在这儿和一名警察争论；我可以无视许多小规小矩而不会使某人要和我开战。所谓的“压制”、“缺乏自由”是无稽的，被右翼新保守主义者无知地大肆宣传，这些人仍然活在冷战时代，需要一个敌人作为他们的靶子。
China doesn't want power; it wants to thrive, economically, just like a corporation. China is not a colonial power; it does not harbor imperialistic ambitions. Please try to see it for what it is.
中国不想变得太过强力；她只想像一家公司那样经济繁荣。中国不是一支殖民主义的力量；她并不怀有成为帝国主义的雄心。请实事求是。
Recommend (501)PermalinkReport abuse
再转一条：
Simon K. wrote: Feb 19th 2010 6:01 GMT
I think this sort of provocation and anti-China attitude does not help the West either. I am not Chinese and I have no special sympathy to China either. But I am appaled by this propoganda and wrongful depiction of China's image in the western press. This has made all Chinese more united against the West and actually serving the interests of the hardliners there.
我认为这种挑衅性文章和反中国的态度也不会帮助西方什么。我不是中国人，我对中国也没有什么特别的情感。但我被在西方新闻上的对中国形象的这样的宣传和错误描述所震惊。这使得所有中国人更团结一致对抗西方，实际上是服务于那里的强硬路线者的利益。
I am reallt impressed by the tolarance and patience shown by the leaders. This is something new to me. The West villifies them time and often. They accept that Taiwan is a Chinese province but they sell weapons to them. They welcome Dalai Lama in the Whitehouse. Who is Dalai Lama? He is the head of the "Tibetan government in exile" and everybody knows in the world that he is separatist. So, the branding of him as a spiritual leader is a hippocrisy. But Chinese are so cool and just issue a statement. The West may understand it as China's limitations. But what limitations? China provides huge market to the Western companies. 70 percent of the Chinese exporters are foreign funded companies. China can play some hard games. But because of one party system,the Chinese govenment is still friendly to these enemies. In democracy, this is impossible. Many people would come to the street to demonstrate against America when it sells weapons and Dalai Lama enters the Whitehouse. But in a system like that of China's , this is not possible and actually that regine serves the interests of the west. Why cry foul?
我真的对中国领导人展示的忍耐力和耐心印象深刻。这对于我来说是新的东西。西方不时丑化他们。他们承认台湾是中国的一个省，但他们却卖武器给台湾人。他们在白宫欢迎达赖喇嘛。谁是达赖喇嘛？他是“西藏流亡政府”的首脑，而且世界上每一个人都知道他是一名分裂主义者。所以他作为一名精神领导的标签是虚伪的。但中国人很冷静，仅仅发表了一份声明。西方可能会把这理解成中国的黔驴技穷。但什么“技穷”？中国为西方公司提供了一个大市场。百分之七十的中国出口商是外资企业。中国可以玩硬的。但因为一党体制，中国政府仍然对这些敌人很友好。在民主体制，这是不可能的。许多人会在美国售武和达赖喇嘛进白宫时到街上表威抗议美国。但在一个如中国这样的体制，这是不可能的，实际上这种政治制度是为西方利益服务的。为什么强烈抗议？
The anti china sentiment in the west has become an obstacle to political liberalization in China. I think Chinese people believe that one party communist system will not last for ever. Someday down the road, there will be some change. they understand it but they dont like to be lectured by others who claim that the West's political system is dysfuntional in itself ( Economist front page). Why China copy the same dysfunctional system? I think the Chinese are good at learning from others. They have learned many good things from the West. I beleive that China will be more open and more liberal in the days to come. But if the West welcomes the separatist leaders in the whitehouse kitchen and sell weapons to a Chinese province, I think someday the endurance that Chinese leaders have shown toward the West will evaporate soon. Everything has a limitation.
西方反中国情绪成为了中国政治自由的一个障碍。我认为中国人民相信共产党一党体制不会永远持续下去。某天到街上，我们会看到一些改变。他们对此很明白，但他们不喜欢其他甚至声称西方的政治体制本身就运转不正常（《经济学人》首页）的人给他们上课。为什么中国要复制同样的不能有效运转的体制呢？我认为中国人善于向他人学习。他们已经向西方学习了很多好东西。我相信不久的将来中国会更开放和自由。但如果西方在白宫的厨房迎接分裂主义者的领导人，并向中国的省份出售武器，我认为有朝一日中国领导人向西方展示的忍耐力将很快就不复存在。凡事都有底线。
Recommend (81)PermalinkReport abuse
Simon K. wrote: Feb 19th 2010 6:01 GMT
I think this sort of provocation and anti-China attitude does not help the West either. I am not Chinese and I have no special sympathy to China either. But I am appaled by this propoganda and wrongful depiction of China's image in the western press. This has made all Chinese more united against the West and actually serving the interests of the hardliners there.
我认为这种挑衅性文章和反中国的态度也不会帮助西方什么。我不是中国人，我对中国也没有什么特别的情感。但我被在西方新闻上的对中国形象的这样的宣传和错误描述所震惊。这使得所有中国人更团结一致对抗西方，实际上是服务于那里的强硬路线者的利益。
I am reallt impressed by the tolarance and patience shown by the leaders. This is something new to me. The West villifies them time and often. They accept that Taiwan is a Chinese province but they sell weapons to them. They welcome Dalai Lama in the Whitehouse. Who is Dalai Lama? He is the head of the "Tibetan government in exile" and everybody knows in the world that he is separatist. So, the branding of him as a spiritual leader is a hippocrisy. But Chinese are so cool and just issue a statement. The West may understand it as China's limitations. But what limitations? China provides huge market to the Western companies. 70 percent of the Chinese exporters are foreign funded companies. China can play some hard games. But because of one party system,the Chinese govenment is still friendly to these enemies. In democracy, this is impossible. Many people would come to the street to demonstrate against America when it sells weapons and Dalai Lama enters the Whitehouse. But in a system like that of China's , this is not possible and actually that regine serves the interests of the west. Why cry foul?
我真的对中国领导人展示的忍耐力和耐心印象深刻。这对于我来说是新的东西。西方不时丑化他们。他们承认台湾是中国的一个省，但他们却卖武器给台湾人。他们在白宫欢迎达赖喇嘛。谁是达赖喇嘛？他是“西藏流亡政府”的首脑，而且世界上每一个人都知道他是一名分裂主义者。所以他作为一名精神领导的标签是虚伪的。但中国人很冷静，仅仅发表了一份声明。西方可能会把这理解成中国的黔驴技穷。但什么“技穷”？中国为西方公司提供了一个大市场。百分之七十的中国出口商是外资企业。中国可以玩硬的。但因为一党体制，中国政府仍然对这些敌人很友好。在民主体制，这是不可能的。许多人会在美国售武和达赖喇嘛进白宫时到街上表威抗议美国。但在一个如中国这样的体制，这是不可能的，实际上这种政治制度是为西方利益服务的。为什么强烈抗议？
The anti china sentiment in the west has become an obstacle to political liberalization in China. I think Chinese people believe that one party communist system will not last for ever. Someday down the road, there will be some change. they understand it but they dont like to be lectured by others who claim that the West's political system is dysfuntional in itself ( Economist front page). Why China copy the same dysfunctional system? I think the Chinese are good at learning from others. They have learned many good things from the West. I beleive that China will be more open and more liberal in the days to come. But if the West welcomes the separatist leaders in the whitehouse kitchen and sell weapons to a Chinese province, I think someday the endurance that Chinese leaders have shown toward the West will evaporate soon. Everything has a limitation.
西方反中国情绪成为了中国政治自由的一个障碍。我认为中国人民相信共产党一党体制不会永远持续下去。某天到街上，我们会看到一些改变。他们对此很明白，但他们不喜欢其他甚至声称西方的政治体制本身就运转不正常（《经济学人》首页）的人给他们上课。为什么中国要复制同样的不能有效运转的体制呢？我认为中国人善于向他人学习。他们已经向西方学习了很多好东西。我相信不久的将来中国会更开放和自由。但如果西方在白宫的厨房迎接分裂主义者的领导人，并向中国的省份出售武器，我认为有朝一日中国领导人向西方展示的忍耐力将很快就不复存在。凡事都有底线。
Recommend (81)PermalinkReport abuse
唉，移到这个区好像没什么人回复了。不知大家喜不喜欢看，喜欢的话再去搬运翻译。
支持楼主！
翻译的挺好
翻译的挺好
第一篇第6段sweeping changes感觉翻的不大好，剧变感觉有些颠覆的味道
支持楼主
驻上海枫叶国人士的回复还真是蛮有水平的，我直接看了原文，此君观点犀利，语言组织能力也超强。
再一次感谢lz。在lz的给的链接地址那边我看了2个多小时的回复，非常有意思。
也许经济学人文章的评论者属于精英人士吧？我感觉回帖的西方人想法跨度相当大，而且不少评论很有深度，大涨见识。
也许经济学人文章的评论者属于精英人士吧？我感觉回帖的西方人想法跨度相当大，而且不少评论很有深度，大涨见识。
回复 13# 旋转水星
多谢支持，有人回复我就继续搬运~~
多谢支持，有人回复我就继续搬运~~
回复 14# zmt
欢迎指正在下翻译不当之处，话说我搬运的其中一个目的是想练练英语哈。但“sweeping changes"我就只想到“剧变”较为合适，或者改成“大变”？“巨变”？“全面改变”？
欢迎指正在下翻译不当之处，话说我搬运的其中一个目的是想练练英语哈。但“sweeping changes"我就只想到“剧变”较为合适，或者改成“大变”？“巨变”？“全面改变”？
回复 15# dply
多谢支持，今晚太晚了，只翻译了一条回帖，同样是那位加拿大人的，支持度第二高。
watchingchina wrote: Feb 19th 2010 3:45 GMT
A brief point about government. Western observers generally tend to spout the jingoistic mantra that they 'hope China will move to a democracy - to be like us.'
简单谈谈我对政府的观点。西方的观察家普遍倾向于把这个硬派外交风格的口头禅挂在嘴边，“希望中国会走上民主体制——变得和我们一样。”
That's not likely. China's government is definitely evolving and I cannot predict the final form, but it will never imitate the US model of government.
这可能性不大。中国政府毫无疑问在演变之中，我不能预测最终的形态，但它永远不会模仿美国政府的形式。
China understands democracy better than most Westerners do, and their opinion of it is not high. Using the US as an example, they see it as grossly inefficient, corrupt and elitist in the sense that the country is managed to profit only a few. The greater good of the US is generally ignored in domestic politics, and corporations have a free hand to plunder.
中国比大多数西方人更懂得民主，他们对于民主评价不高。以美国为例，他们认为其严重缺乏效率、腐败和精英主义，因为这个国家的管理形式是仅仅为少数人谋利的。更多数的美国人一般是对国内政治漠不关心的，而公司则可以自由自在地掠夺国家财富。
China, like any sane country, will never permit the development of the US lobbying system because they see it as self-destructive. It is simply a system of bribes by the rich and powerful to help them become more rich and powerful. The politicians get the money and power, the corporations get the profits, and the people get the stick. That's not China.
中国，和任何明智的国家一样，永远不会允许美式游说体制在国内发展，因为他们把其看成自我毁灭。这不过是一个有钱的人和有权势的人贿赂以帮助他们变得更有钱更有权势的体制而已。政治家获得金钱和权力，公司获得利润，而人民则获得批评和指责。这不是中国。
The main difference between a 2-party system as in the US and a 1-party system as in China, is that in China the left and right are on the same team and must negotiate and work together to plan and execute the country's future. Everybody wins, especially the people. The system, like the country, is based on harmony.
美国那样的两党制和中国那样的一党制之间的主要差别是，在中国左派和右派在同一支队伍当中，必须一起协商和合作来计划和实现国家的未来。每一方都是赢家，尤其是普通民众。这种体制和这个国家一样，是以和谐为基础的。
In the US, the right and left are two separate factions constantly at war. The US political system, like the country, is based on conflict. There must be a clear winner and a clear loser. The clear winner tends to be the party in power, and the corporations, and the clear loser tends to be the good of the country and the people in it.
在美国，右派和左派是两支独立的经常互相扯皮的派别。美国的政治体制，和这个国家一样，是以对立为基础的。人们必须分清谁是赢家谁是输家。赢家将会成为执政党和公司，输家则会是这个国家的大多数及其人民。
Where is the good sense in separating people by ideology and then making them fight each other for the right to run a country? If you think about this for a while, it becomes bizarre. Nobody would be so stupid as to try to run a corporation in this manner.
把人民按意识形态划分开来然后使他们为运行国家的权利而互相争斗，到底有什么意义呢？如果你为此思考片刻，你会觉得这是怪诞的。没有人会这么愚蠢尝试以这种方式来运作一家企业。
China's government today consists of a large group of people elected by a much larger group. This latter group may become larger still. At the lower levels, China is experimenting with local elections, but I'm not aware of any consensus yet. Elections are contests in popularity and bribery, and that's no way to run a company or a country.
中国的政府今天由一个“群体”组成，这个群体由一个大得多的“群体”选举产生。第二个“群体”可能还会变得更大。在基层，中国正在试验当地人选举，但我至今未看到任何共识。选举就是比人气比贿赂，而这是没可能运转一家公司或者一个国家的。
So far as I can see, in the end China will have a hybrid government based on consensus and negotiation rather than on the open conflict winner and loser type in the West.
就我所知，最终中国会拥有一个混合体政府，这个政府以共识和协商为基础，而不是以西方的公开冲突的赢家输家式为基础。
Recommended (211)PermalinkReport abuse
多谢支持，今晚太晚了，只翻译了一条回帖，同样是那位加拿大人的，支持度第二高。
watchingchina wrote: Feb 19th 2010 3:45 GMT
A brief point about government. Western observers generally tend to spout the jingoistic mantra that they 'hope China will move to a democracy - to be like us.'
简单谈谈我对政府的观点。西方的观察家普遍倾向于把这个硬派外交风格的口头禅挂在嘴边，“希望中国会走上民主体制——变得和我们一样。”
That's not likely. China's government is definitely evolving and I cannot predict the final form, but it will never imitate the US model of government.
这可能性不大。中国政府毫无疑问在演变之中，我不能预测最终的形态，但它永远不会模仿美国政府的形式。
China understands democracy better than most Westerners do, and their opinion of it is not high. Using the US as an example, they see it as grossly inefficient, corrupt and elitist in the sense that the country is managed to profit only a few. The greater good of the US is generally ignored in domestic politics, and corporations have a free hand to plunder.
中国比大多数西方人更懂得民主，他们对于民主评价不高。以美国为例，他们认为其严重缺乏效率、腐败和精英主义，因为这个国家的管理形式是仅仅为少数人谋利的。更多数的美国人一般是对国内政治漠不关心的，而公司则可以自由自在地掠夺国家财富。
China, like any sane country, will never permit the development of the US lobbying system because they see it as self-destructive. It is simply a system of bribes by the rich and powerful to help them become more rich and powerful. The politicians get the money and power, the corporations get the profits, and the people get the stick. That's not China.
中国，和任何明智的国家一样，永远不会允许美式游说体制在国内发展，因为他们把其看成自我毁灭。这不过是一个有钱的人和有权势的人贿赂以帮助他们变得更有钱更有权势的体制而已。政治家获得金钱和权力，公司获得利润，而人民则获得批评和指责。这不是中国。
The main difference between a 2-party system as in the US and a 1-party system as in China, is that in China the left and right are on the same team and must negotiate and work together to plan and execute the country's future. Everybody wins, especially the people. The system, like the country, is based on harmony.
美国那样的两党制和中国那样的一党制之间的主要差别是，在中国左派和右派在同一支队伍当中，必须一起协商和合作来计划和实现国家的未来。每一方都是赢家，尤其是普通民众。这种体制和这个国家一样，是以和谐为基础的。
In the US, the right and left are two separate factions constantly at war. The US political system, like the country, is based on conflict. There must be a clear winner and a clear loser. The clear winner tends to be the party in power, and the corporations, and the clear loser tends to be the good of the country and the people in it.
在美国，右派和左派是两支独立的经常互相扯皮的派别。美国的政治体制，和这个国家一样，是以对立为基础的。人们必须分清谁是赢家谁是输家。赢家将会成为执政党和公司，输家则会是这个国家的大多数及其人民。
Where is the good sense in separating people by ideology and then making them fight each other for the right to run a country? If you think about this for a while, it becomes bizarre. Nobody would be so stupid as to try to run a corporation in this manner.
把人民按意识形态划分开来然后使他们为运行国家的权利而互相争斗，到底有什么意义呢？如果你为此思考片刻，你会觉得这是怪诞的。没有人会这么愚蠢尝试以这种方式来运作一家企业。
China's government today consists of a large group of people elected by a much larger group. This latter group may become larger still. At the lower levels, China is experimenting with local elections, but I'm not aware of any consensus yet. Elections are contests in popularity and bribery, and that's no way to run a company or a country.
中国的政府今天由一个“群体”组成，这个群体由一个大得多的“群体”选举产生。第二个“群体”可能还会变得更大。在基层，中国正在试验当地人选举，但我至今未看到任何共识。选举就是比人气比贿赂，而这是没可能运转一家公司或者一个国家的。
So far as I can see, in the end China will have a hybrid government based on consensus and negotiation rather than on the open conflict winner and loser type in the West.
就我所知，最终中国会拥有一个混合体政府，这个政府以共识和协商为基础，而不是以西方的公开冲突的赢家输家式为基础。
Recommended (211)PermalinkReport abuse
回复 17# 小佛
呵呵，感觉上吧，《经济学人》上面的文章多是反华的，但回复一般支持度较高的，多是站在中国这边的。当然，也会有各种各样的意见，所以才有趣。不过要说的是，就我所知，有很多中国人上《经济学人》的，那些站在中国立场的回帖有可能是中国人写的，或者是中国人刷支持刷上去的，是否能代表西方主流民意，这个说不准。不过我们也不用太在意他们的意见，看看参考参考就好了。
呵呵，感觉上吧，《经济学人》上面的文章多是反华的，但回复一般支持度较高的，多是站在中国这边的。当然，也会有各种各样的意见，所以才有趣。不过要说的是，就我所知，有很多中国人上《经济学人》的，那些站在中国立场的回帖有可能是中国人写的，或者是中国人刷支持刷上去的，是否能代表西方主流民意，这个说不准。不过我们也不用太在意他们的意见，看看参考参考就好了。
中国是你软他就硬你硬他就软
楼上的玩笑真冷啊= =
中国这么多年来什么时候看过别人的脸色？
中国这么多年来什么时候看过别人的脸色？
这条回帖支持度也是很高的。
Sensible GaTech Student wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:20 GMT
The headliner is terribly worded, but I'll ignore it now and go straight to the facts.
标题的措辞这是恶劣啊，但我现在会无视它，直奔事实。
China's government is not complacent. In order for their style of leadership to succeed, they must do a fantastic job growing the economy while at the same time balancing many other things: the environment, national interests, and Western intervention on "human rights" issues.
中国政府不会自满起来。为了他们的领导风格能够成功，他们必须做一份了不起的工作，使经济增长的同时，平衡如环境、国家利益和西方对“人权”问题的干预等许多其他事情。
I like to see governments in fear of their constituents. Isn't that what "Western style democracies" attempt to achieve? You see, because my United States of America, our parties are lazy and complacent. They could care less about growing the economy, and let's face it, no matter how bad things get, one of the two parties will still be in power.
我乐于看见政府害怕他们的选民。这不是“西式民主体制”尝试达到的吗？你知道，因为在我们美国，我们的政党是懒惰和自满的。他们可以不关注增长经济，而且说实话，无论事情变得多糟糕，那两个政党的其中一个仍然会在位执政。
If China had a crushing national debt, swathes of unemployment, extremely unpopular multi-front wars, etc., its current leadership would not stay in power. If this means the Chinese government has "weakened" since the time of Mao, I say that it's welcomed. But let's be serious: compare your so-called "repression" in today's China with it's past...you can't, really.
如果中国有令国家岌岌可危的国债，成片的失业，极度不受欢迎的多线战争等等，它现在的领导层将不会仍然在位。如果这意味着中国政府自毛泽东时代以来变弱了，我会说它是受人欢迎的。但严肃点吧，把你所谓的今天中国的“压制”与她的过去相比较。。。实际上你做不到。
This is just a red herring which The Economist is all to eager to chase.
这不过是整个《经济学人》苦苦追逐的转移人们注意力的事物罢了。
Recommend (212)PermalinkReport abus
Sensible GaTech Student wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:20 GMT
The headliner is terribly worded, but I'll ignore it now and go straight to the facts.
标题的措辞这是恶劣啊，但我现在会无视它，直奔事实。
China's government is not complacent. In order for their style of leadership to succeed, they must do a fantastic job growing the economy while at the same time balancing many other things: the environment, national interests, and Western intervention on "human rights" issues.
中国政府不会自满起来。为了他们的领导风格能够成功，他们必须做一份了不起的工作，使经济增长的同时，平衡如环境、国家利益和西方对“人权”问题的干预等许多其他事情。
I like to see governments in fear of their constituents. Isn't that what "Western style democracies" attempt to achieve? You see, because my United States of America, our parties are lazy and complacent. They could care less about growing the economy, and let's face it, no matter how bad things get, one of the two parties will still be in power.
我乐于看见政府害怕他们的选民。这不是“西式民主体制”尝试达到的吗？你知道，因为在我们美国，我们的政党是懒惰和自满的。他们可以不关注增长经济，而且说实话，无论事情变得多糟糕，那两个政党的其中一个仍然会在位执政。
If China had a crushing national debt, swathes of unemployment, extremely unpopular multi-front wars, etc., its current leadership would not stay in power. If this means the Chinese government has "weakened" since the time of Mao, I say that it's welcomed. But let's be serious: compare your so-called "repression" in today's China with it's past...you can't, really.
如果中国有令国家岌岌可危的国债，成片的失业，极度不受欢迎的多线战争等等，它现在的领导层将不会仍然在位。如果这意味着中国政府自毛泽东时代以来变弱了，我会说它是受人欢迎的。但严肃点吧，把你所谓的今天中国的“压制”与她的过去相比较。。。实际上你做不到。
This is just a red herring which The Economist is all to eager to chase.
这不过是整个《经济学人》苦苦追逐的转移人们注意力的事物罢了。
Recommend (212)PermalinkReport abus
我们的加拿大人也有反对者和支持者。
这位是反对的。
Bardamu wrote: Feb 19th 2010 7:08 GMT
Watchingchina: I just read your second post and this:
Watchingchina，我刚刚阅读了你的第二篇回帖，而你说：
"The main difference between a 2-party system as in the US and a 1-party system as in China, is that in China the left and right are on the same team and must negotiate and work together to plan and execute the country's future. Everybody wins, especially the people. The system, like the country, is based on harmony."
“美国那样的两党制和中国那样的一党制之间的主要差别是，在中国左派和右派在同一支队伍当中，必须一起协商和合作来计划和实现国家的未来。每一方都是赢家，尤其是普通民众。这种体制和这个国家一样，是以和谐为基础的。”
You seem to be completely oblivious to the pervasive and endemic corruption that is the hallmark of the Chinese system. Corruption is guaranteed by the concentration of power and the absence of any checks and balances, such as a free press or elections that hold local officials accountable.
你似乎完全无视普遍存在和流行的腐败是中国体制的标志。腐败滋生于权力集中和监督和力量平衡的缺失，例如没有使地方官员对人民负责的自由的新闻媒体和选举。
Everyone wins - except those who don't. Like the Shanghai residents evicted with minimal or no compensation to make way for city-centre redevelopments by corporations linked to unaccountable government officials. There were 90,000 "mass incidents" in China in 2008, many related to the expropriation of peasants' land by corrupt local officials in cahoots with property developers. How harmonious is that?
每一方都是赢家——除了那些输家。例如那些只获得了很少或者就毫无补偿的依法被驱逐的上海居民，他们只能让路于与没有责任心的政府官员有关系的企业对市中心的重建。2008年在中国有90000件“大规模群体事件”，许多事件是与和地产发展商狼狈为奸的腐败的当地官员征收农民的土地相关的。这有多和谐啊？
Are you watching China, actually? It seems to me you are sitting in a darkened room, immersing yourself in CCP propaganda.
你真的在观察中国？在我看来，你似乎正坐在一间漆黑的房间，自我陶醉于共产党的宣传当中。
Recommended (149)PermalinkReport abuse
这篇是支持的。
Nirvana-bound wrote: Feb 19th 2010 12:29 GMT @ watchingchina:
Great analysis! Scintillating & cogent! We need more commentators like you, to dispel the fog of ignorance, arrogance & jealousy, emanating from western media & western onlookers.
分析得好！睿智而有说服力！我们需要更多像你这样的评论员以驱散西方媒体和西方观察人士散播的无知、自大和妒忌的浓雾。
China-bashing seems to be on the upsurge, ever since the Chinese economy started to boom. Malice unrequited, albeit premeditated.
自中国经济开始繁荣以来，中国的冲击力似乎就正在激增。恶意没有得到回应，尽管这是有预谋的。
Human frailties soaring by the number, sad to say..
人性的弱点越来越多，真令人伤心。。
Recommend (146)PermalinkReport abuse
这位是反对的。
Bardamu wrote: Feb 19th 2010 7:08 GMT
Watchingchina: I just read your second post and this:
Watchingchina，我刚刚阅读了你的第二篇回帖，而你说：
"The main difference between a 2-party system as in the US and a 1-party system as in China, is that in China the left and right are on the same team and must negotiate and work together to plan and execute the country's future. Everybody wins, especially the people. The system, like the country, is based on harmony."
“美国那样的两党制和中国那样的一党制之间的主要差别是，在中国左派和右派在同一支队伍当中，必须一起协商和合作来计划和实现国家的未来。每一方都是赢家，尤其是普通民众。这种体制和这个国家一样，是以和谐为基础的。”
You seem to be completely oblivious to the pervasive and endemic corruption that is the hallmark of the Chinese system. Corruption is guaranteed by the concentration of power and the absence of any checks and balances, such as a free press or elections that hold local officials accountable.
你似乎完全无视普遍存在和流行的腐败是中国体制的标志。腐败滋生于权力集中和监督和力量平衡的缺失，例如没有使地方官员对人民负责的自由的新闻媒体和选举。
Everyone wins - except those who don't. Like the Shanghai residents evicted with minimal or no compensation to make way for city-centre redevelopments by corporations linked to unaccountable government officials. There were 90,000 "mass incidents" in China in 2008, many related to the expropriation of peasants' land by corrupt local officials in cahoots with property developers. How harmonious is that?
每一方都是赢家——除了那些输家。例如那些只获得了很少或者就毫无补偿的依法被驱逐的上海居民，他们只能让路于与没有责任心的政府官员有关系的企业对市中心的重建。2008年在中国有90000件“大规模群体事件”，许多事件是与和地产发展商狼狈为奸的腐败的当地官员征收农民的土地相关的。这有多和谐啊？
Are you watching China, actually? It seems to me you are sitting in a darkened room, immersing yourself in CCP propaganda.
你真的在观察中国？在我看来，你似乎正坐在一间漆黑的房间，自我陶醉于共产党的宣传当中。
Recommended (149)PermalinkReport abuse
这篇是支持的。
Nirvana-bound wrote: Feb 19th 2010 12:29 GMT @ watchingchina:
Great analysis! Scintillating & cogent! We need more commentators like you, to dispel the fog of ignorance, arrogance & jealousy, emanating from western media & western onlookers.
分析得好！睿智而有说服力！我们需要更多像你这样的评论员以驱散西方媒体和西方观察人士散播的无知、自大和妒忌的浓雾。
China-bashing seems to be on the upsurge, ever since the Chinese economy started to boom. Malice unrequited, albeit premeditated.
自中国经济开始繁荣以来，中国的冲击力似乎就正在激增。恶意没有得到回应，尽管这是有预谋的。
Human frailties soaring by the number, sad to say..
人性的弱点越来越多，真令人伤心。。
Recommend (146)PermalinkReport abuse
中国人懂英语的太多，也不知道底下那些支持中国的到底是谁顶上去的。不过看底下评论，无论褒贬，似乎都对中国了解颇深。甚至让我感觉是中国人拿英语在讨论。
另外，这个网站的评论推荐制不错。
另外，这个网站的评论推荐制不错。
支持楼主
继续。
Global Perspective wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 1:19 GMT
Re: watchingchina
回watchingchina
"Dear Economist;
Your article is sensible enough, and balanced, but your leader: "China's tetchy and brutal leadership" is really offensive.
For the benefit of readers everywhere, I would like to restate my circumstance. I am a foreigner (Canadian) living in Shanghai, and have been here for some years now. This is not my country, and I do not have a defense contract with it."
“亲爱的《经济学人》，
你的文章足够明智和平衡，但你说“中国的领导层是臭脾气的野蛮的”就实在是得罪人。
为了各个地方的读者的利益，我愿意再一次说说我本人的情况。我是一名外国人（加拿大人），住在上海，已经住了好几年了。中国不是我的祖国，而且我也没有受聘为其辩护。”
Watchingchina, you live in Shanghai, not China, big difference. Spend some time out in the provinces where the majority of the population lives and works then you'll get a sense for how people really feel about the government. Make friends with Chinese businessmen and you'll get to know how they feel about their government. Chinese are very patriotic and very proud of their culture, as they should be. But trust me, the success China has seen over the last thirty years is in spite of the government, not because of it, and most real Chinese business people know that.
Watchingchina，你住在上海，不是中国，这有着天渊之别。在中国大多数人口居住和工作的省份待待吧，然后你会知道人们对政府的实际态度。和中国商人做朋友吧，然后你会知道他们对政府的态度。中国人非常爱国，对他们的文化非常自豪，正如他们应该做的那样。但相信我，中国过去三十年取得的成就与政府的关系，是“让步”的关系，而不是“因果”的关系，而且大多数真正的中国商人都知道这个道理。
And for all of you out there who keep asking "look where democracy landed the U.S. and Western Europe? Economic crisis, etc..." Remember that one economic crisis does not an indicator make. The U.S. and Western Europe are the most powerful because their governments allow their citizens to innovate, create, and be free without stifling censorship, regulation, or worrying about "upsetting the harmonious society." You see, China is the world's factory. That means it is a manufacturer, not innovator. China can never exceed those economies which it produces for because it is limited to the innovations of other economies. Until China becomes an innovator, and not just a manufacturer, it will never be the super power it otherwise could be. And the people of China will never have the freedom to innovate until just that, they are free.
而对于所有不在中国，不停地问“看看民主体制把美国和西欧带到哪里去了？经济危机，...等等”的人，记住，一场经济危机并不标志着什么。美国和西欧是力量最强的，因为他们的政府允许他们的公民创新、创造和自由自在而不用遭受令人窒息的审查、管制或者“破坏和谐社会”的担忧。你知道，中国是世界工厂。这意味着它是一个制造者，不是创新者。中国永远不能超过它为之生产的那些经济体，因为它受制于其他经济体的创新。除非中国成为一个创新者，而不是仅仅一个制造者，它永远不会成为一个超级强国。而中国人民永远不会有创新的自由，除非他们是自由的。
My posts are made to dispel what I see as mis-statements or twisted observations about this County - often consisting of outright falsehoods - and done for no good reason. The range of incorrect, or just plain stuupid, comments about China is staggering.
我回帖是为了驱散我所认为的关于中国的错误陈述或者歪曲的观察——通常这些错误由一派胡言所构成——而这样做是毫无道理可言的。关于中国的不正确的或者简直就是愚蠢的评论，所涉及的范围之广是惊人的。（注：这段是直接用watchingchina的原话。）
然后有人对此回了两帖。
Jean Michel wrote:
Global Perspective,
You wrote "You see, China is the world's factory. That means it is a manufacturer, not innovator. China can never exceed those economies which it produces for because it is limited to the innovations of other economies. Until China becomes an innovator, and not just a manufacturer, it will never be the super power it otherwise could be. And the people of China will never have the freedom to innovate until just that, they are free."
你说“你知道，中国是世界工厂。这意味着它是一个制造者，不是创新者。中国永远不能超过它为之生产的那些经济体，因为它受制于其他经济体的创新。除非中国成为一个创新者，而不是仅仅一个制造者，它永远不会成为一个超级强国。而中国人民永远不会有创新的自由，除非他们是自由的。”
I think before you make such statement you should first check how many patents have been registered by the Chinese last year and the trend of patent registration over the last five years.
我认为在你作出这样的陈述前，你应该先查查上年中国人注册了多少专利和在过去5年的专利注册的趋势。
I think that someone, like watchingchina, who lives in Shanghai is in China and knows much more about China than someone like you who lives tens of thousands of kilometres from China. Furthermore, living in Shanghai must have permitted him to take the train and visit other parts of China, now that the rail system has improved considerably.
我认为像watchingchina这样的人，居住在上海就是居住在中国，而且比像你这样的住在离中国十万八千里的地方的人对中国要懂得多得多。此外，住在上海一定能让他乘火车游览中国的其他地方，既然铁路系统已经大为改善。
然后Global Perspective回复了，还用中文留言。
Global Perspective wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 12:18 GMT Re: Jean Michel
You wrote: [I think that someone, like watchingchina, who lives in Shanghai is in China and knows much more about China than someone like you who lives tens of thousands of kilometres from China. Furthermore, living in Shanghai must have permitted him to take the train and visit other parts of China, now that the rail system has improved considerably.]
你这样写道：“我认为像watchingchina这样的人，居住在上海就是居住在中国，而且比像你这样的住在离中国十万八千里的地方的人对中国要懂得多得多。此外，住在上海一定能让他乘火车游览中国的其他地方，既然铁路系统已经大为改善。”
Jean Michel, 我也在中国中外合资工作， 我也有中国文化，经济，教育经验。 虽然我只是外国人但是我会评价中国目前的情况。
顺治
诚挚敬意，
这位中国老兄的回帖很搞笑。
Dragon Warrior wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 5:36 GMT
We ,China, will not hurt any one when become strongger,OK?
Why the articles about china are MOST COMMENTS?
I cannt understand,so right for china.
We dont bite man That's all.
我们中国在变强的时候不会伤害任何人，OK？
为什么关于中国的文章都是“最多评论的”？
我不能明白，所以中国是正确的。
我们不咬人。这就是全部。
Global Perspective wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 1:19 GMT
Re: watchingchina
回watchingchina
"Dear Economist;
Your article is sensible enough, and balanced, but your leader: "China's tetchy and brutal leadership" is really offensive.
For the benefit of readers everywhere, I would like to restate my circumstance. I am a foreigner (Canadian) living in Shanghai, and have been here for some years now. This is not my country, and I do not have a defense contract with it."
“亲爱的《经济学人》，
你的文章足够明智和平衡，但你说“中国的领导层是臭脾气的野蛮的”就实在是得罪人。
为了各个地方的读者的利益，我愿意再一次说说我本人的情况。我是一名外国人（加拿大人），住在上海，已经住了好几年了。中国不是我的祖国，而且我也没有受聘为其辩护。”
Watchingchina, you live in Shanghai, not China, big difference. Spend some time out in the provinces where the majority of the population lives and works then you'll get a sense for how people really feel about the government. Make friends with Chinese businessmen and you'll get to know how they feel about their government. Chinese are very patriotic and very proud of their culture, as they should be. But trust me, the success China has seen over the last thirty years is in spite of the government, not because of it, and most real Chinese business people know that.
Watchingchina，你住在上海，不是中国，这有着天渊之别。在中国大多数人口居住和工作的省份待待吧，然后你会知道人们对政府的实际态度。和中国商人做朋友吧，然后你会知道他们对政府的态度。中国人非常爱国，对他们的文化非常自豪，正如他们应该做的那样。但相信我，中国过去三十年取得的成就与政府的关系，是“让步”的关系，而不是“因果”的关系，而且大多数真正的中国商人都知道这个道理。
And for all of you out there who keep asking "look where democracy landed the U.S. and Western Europe? Economic crisis, etc..." Remember that one economic crisis does not an indicator make. The U.S. and Western Europe are the most powerful because their governments allow their citizens to innovate, create, and be free without stifling censorship, regulation, or worrying about "upsetting the harmonious society." You see, China is the world's factory. That means it is a manufacturer, not innovator. China can never exceed those economies which it produces for because it is limited to the innovations of other economies. Until China becomes an innovator, and not just a manufacturer, it will never be the super power it otherwise could be. And the people of China will never have the freedom to innovate until just that, they are free.
而对于所有不在中国，不停地问“看看民主体制把美国和西欧带到哪里去了？经济危机，...等等”的人，记住，一场经济危机并不标志着什么。美国和西欧是力量最强的，因为他们的政府允许他们的公民创新、创造和自由自在而不用遭受令人窒息的审查、管制或者“破坏和谐社会”的担忧。你知道，中国是世界工厂。这意味着它是一个制造者，不是创新者。中国永远不能超过它为之生产的那些经济体，因为它受制于其他经济体的创新。除非中国成为一个创新者，而不是仅仅一个制造者，它永远不会成为一个超级强国。而中国人民永远不会有创新的自由，除非他们是自由的。
My posts are made to dispel what I see as mis-statements or twisted observations about this County - often consisting of outright falsehoods - and done for no good reason. The range of incorrect, or just plain stuupid, comments about China is staggering.
我回帖是为了驱散我所认为的关于中国的错误陈述或者歪曲的观察——通常这些错误由一派胡言所构成——而这样做是毫无道理可言的。关于中国的不正确的或者简直就是愚蠢的评论，所涉及的范围之广是惊人的。（注：这段是直接用watchingchina的原话。）
然后有人对此回了两帖。
Jean Michel wrote:
Global Perspective,
You wrote "You see, China is the world's factory. That means it is a manufacturer, not innovator. China can never exceed those economies which it produces for because it is limited to the innovations of other economies. Until China becomes an innovator, and not just a manufacturer, it will never be the super power it otherwise could be. And the people of China will never have the freedom to innovate until just that, they are free."
你说“你知道，中国是世界工厂。这意味着它是一个制造者，不是创新者。中国永远不能超过它为之生产的那些经济体，因为它受制于其他经济体的创新。除非中国成为一个创新者，而不是仅仅一个制造者，它永远不会成为一个超级强国。而中国人民永远不会有创新的自由，除非他们是自由的。”
I think before you make such statement you should first check how many patents have been registered by the Chinese last year and the trend of patent registration over the last five years.
我认为在你作出这样的陈述前，你应该先查查上年中国人注册了多少专利和在过去5年的专利注册的趋势。
I think that someone, like watchingchina, who lives in Shanghai is in China and knows much more about China than someone like you who lives tens of thousands of kilometres from China. Furthermore, living in Shanghai must have permitted him to take the train and visit other parts of China, now that the rail system has improved considerably.
我认为像watchingchina这样的人，居住在上海就是居住在中国，而且比像你这样的住在离中国十万八千里的地方的人对中国要懂得多得多。此外，住在上海一定能让他乘火车游览中国的其他地方，既然铁路系统已经大为改善。
然后Global Perspective回复了，还用中文留言。
Global Perspective wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 12:18 GMT Re: Jean Michel
You wrote: [I think that someone, like watchingchina, who lives in Shanghai is in China and knows much more about China than someone like you who lives tens of thousands of kilometres from China. Furthermore, living in Shanghai must have permitted him to take the train and visit other parts of China, now that the rail system has improved considerably.]
你这样写道：“我认为像watchingchina这样的人，居住在上海就是居住在中国，而且比像你这样的住在离中国十万八千里的地方的人对中国要懂得多得多。此外，住在上海一定能让他乘火车游览中国的其他地方，既然铁路系统已经大为改善。”
Jean Michel, 我也在中国中外合资工作， 我也有中国文化，经济，教育经验。 虽然我只是外国人但是我会评价中国目前的情况。
顺治
诚挚敬意，
这位中国老兄的回帖很搞笑。
Dragon Warrior wrote: Feb 23rd 2010 5:36 GMT
We ,China, will not hurt any one when become strongger,OK?
Why the articles about china are MOST COMMENTS?
I cannt understand,so right for china.
We dont bite man That's all.
我们中国在变强的时候不会伤害任何人，OK？
为什么关于中国的文章都是“最多评论的”？
我不能明白，所以中国是正确的。
我们不咬人。这就是全部。
回复 27# 重庆崽儿
多谢支持。翻译比我想象中要辛苦啊，我自己看帖的话很多单词看不懂跳过算了，但翻译时还是要逐个逐个查词典，累人啊@-@
多谢支持。翻译比我想象中要辛苦啊，我自己看帖的话很多单词看不懂跳过算了，但翻译时还是要逐个逐个查词典，累人啊@-@
翻译辛苦，稍稍有点别扭。
这 经济学人 的文章看着就一股冲天酸味，
这 经济学人 的文章看着就一股冲天酸味，
经济学人。。。
MS考研英语的阅读不少都是出自这杂志。
MS考研英语的阅读不少都是出自这杂志。
Ai Weiwei,仍然在北京自由自在，而且和往常一样公开发表言论。
看看这个帖子“未未老师，你蹿得太快了”，http://bbs.cjdby.net/thread-870478-1-1.html
就理解了:D
中国人懂一点英语的是多，但是要把英文文章写得地道是不容易的，6级600+都远远不够。一般非英语母语者写出来的英语还是可以“品鉴“出来的。
亮点在于他们拿自己的体制同我们比较，这是我们经常做的，看来双方都在比较。西方总是试图找到一种监管体制，永久性的有效，让政府对每个人民负责。而我们早就认识到，这是不可能的。
一方面要激励有才能的勤奋的人，靠他们提升国家在外部的竞争力；另一方面要安抚在国内竞争中落后的失意者，给他们东山再起的希望，使国家不从内部崩塌。让冲突双方达到一种并不完全满意，也不完全绝望的调和，经营一个国家就这么简单。
一方面要激励有才能的勤奋的人，靠他们提升国家在外部的竞争力；另一方面要安抚在国内竞争中落后的失意者，给他们东山再起的希望，使国家不从内部崩塌。让冲突双方达到一种并不完全满意，也不完全绝望的调和，经营一个国家就这么简单。
LZ翻译的不错
有兴趣的话去ECO中文论坛，那里的爱好者组成团队专门翻译经济学人的文章。
http://bbs.ecocn.org/index.php
有兴趣的话去ECO中文论坛，那里的爱好者组成团队专门翻译经济学人的文章。
http://bbs.ecocn.org/index.php
中华飞刀 发表于 2010-2-26 12:45
以前传言全真七子经常出没其间。
经常读，经常翻译。
就算今年的火锅英语（一）轻轻松松也拿个六七十分。
以前传言全真七子经常出没其间。
经常读，经常翻译。
就算今年的火锅英语（一）轻轻松松也拿个六七十分。
楼主翻译的不错啊 支持一下