This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
When lies become a tool of rule and suffering becomes the price, who will seek justice for the people?
Sometimes, I am truly so angry that I cannot speak.
Sometimes, when my anger reaches its limit, the tears simply will not stop.
I am angry because I see too many innocent people enduring suffering they should never have had to bear; I weep because I know that they, too, have parents, spouses, and children; they, too, have dreams and long to live with dignity, hope, and freedom.
But when power goes unchecked, when lies become a tool of rule, when a regime places its own interests above the lives and dignity of its people, what can ordinary people do?
I am just an ordinary person.
I have no power, no resources, and no ability to change a vast political machine. I have compassion in my heart, yet I often feel powerless. I even ask myself: When others are suffering and I can do nothing, is that itself a kind of failing?
But I have gradually come to understand that being unable to change everything does not mean accepting injustice; being unable to help everyone does not mean we may turn a blind eye to suffering.
A person’s strength may be small, but that is no reason to abandon the pursuit of justice.
That is also why I want to question the communist utopia today.
一、Why must an ideology that promises to liberate all humanity always demand that the people pay a price for its ideals?
The most compelling aspect of communism is the future it depicts—a future without exploitation or oppression, where everyone is equal.
Who does not long for fairness?
Who does not hope that the poor will receive help, the vulnerable will be protected, and workers will be able to share in the fruits of their labor?
There is nothing wrong with these aspirations in themselves. What truly deserves to be questioned is this: Who has the authority to define this ideal? Who will supervise those responsible for realizing it? When ideals come into conflict with reality, is it the ideal that should be put to the test, or must the people submit to the ideal?
When a political ideology claims to possess the ultimate answer of history, when a political party claims to represent the people yet refuses to let the people genuinely supervise or criticize it, or replace it through free elections, danger begins.
For it no longer needs to prove that it is right; it only needs to declare its opponents wrong.
It no longer regards human freedom as the bottom line of a political system, but treats human obedience as a necessary condition for realizing its ideals.
Thus, ideals become a shield for power, criticism becomes hostile conduct, questioning becomes an ideological problem, and the people are required to sacrifice the present for a future that can never be fulfilled.
The most frightening utopia is not one that depicts a beautiful future, but one that demands that people in the present give up their freedom, dignity, and even their lives for the sake of that future.
If an ideology claims to represent all humanity yet cannot tolerate one specific person speaking freely; if a political party claims to act for the people yet fears the people freely choosing their own government, should we believe its slogans, or the reality experienced firsthand by the people?
二、Why must even a perfectly good road be dug up again and again?
I once thought of a seemingly minor phenomenon that is, in fact, deeply thought-provoking.
A road has just been repaired: smooth and wide, allowing pedestrians and vehicles to move along without difficulty. Yet before long, someone comes to dig it up again; once it is repaired, it is dug up again; once dug up, it is repaired again.
Of course, this does not mean that every construction project is problematic. Cities need maintenance, and underground utility lines need to be upgraded.
What truly deserves to be questioned is this: Why do some public-works projects in certain places keep being repeatedly torn up and redone? Where is the planning? Where is the accountability? How are the budgets disclosed? Who supervises the quality of the work? If repeated construction causes waste, who ultimately bears responsibility?
In a transparent and accountable system of governance, taxpayers have the right to ask questions, the media can investigate, audit institutions can examine the accounts, and voters can use their ballots to punish those who fail in their duties.
But when power lacks effective oversight, the situation may look very different: projects can be redone again and again, funds can continue to be poured in, yet no one is ever held responsible.
This is not merely a matter of a few truckloads of asphalt or a few budget allocations.
It reflects a fundamental question: Do public resources belong to the people, or have they become something that those in power may dispose of at will?
Do the people work so hard to pay their taxes only to support a machine that is not required to explain itself to them?
What the people need is a steady, down-to-earth life, not endless disruption; they need things to be done properly, not one grand-looking display of “achievement” after another.
The purpose of governance, in the first place, is to make ordinary people’s lives more stable, convenient, and dignified.
If a system cannot even give the people confidence in these most basic matters, yet continually demands that they praise its greatness, is it truly serving the people, or is it serving its own power?
三、Why borrow money with one hand and forgive debts with the other? Who has the right to be generous on the people’s behalf?
There is another question that cannot be avoided.
When some governments provide loans overseas in the name of development, aid, or strategic cooperation, and later announce that they will forgive part of those debts, how should we view this?
International aid is not inherently wrong, and debt relief can indeed sometimes help countries and people in distress. Not every aid project can simply be dismissed as wasteful.
But the questions are these: What is the basis for the decision? Has the project undergone an independent evaluation? Can the loan be repaid? Who did the funds ultimately benefit? Did the debt relief genuinely help local people? Are these decisions subject to public audits and scrutiny?
If decision-makers do not need to explain themselves to taxpayers and do not have to bear responsibility for failure, public finances may become a tool for a small number of people to display political influence.
Is the people’s money not earned through their labor, one penny at a time?
How many ordinary families at home are still struggling with housing, education, healthcare, and retirement? How many workers are carefully calculating every expense on incomes of only a few thousand yuan?
When ordinary people must take responsibility for every one of their own expenses, why can certain enormous public expenditures be decided so easily without sufficient transparency?
Truly responsible aid must be based on thorough analysis and public oversight; truly reasonable public spending must withstand the people’s questions.
If a policy genuinely benefits the people, its rationale, costs, and results should be disclosed openly and without fear. If even these questions cannot be answered, yet the people are asked to believe unconditionally, then what they are being asked to give up is perhaps not only the right to question, but also the right to oversee power.
四、Why is a system that claims to pursue equality so afraid of its people gaining freedom?
This is the deepest contradiction.
If a system truly believes that its path is correct, why can it not allow different voices to exist?
If a political party truly represents the people, why can it not allow the people to criticize it freely?
If a society truly possesses confidence in its system, why can it not accommodate independent media, an independent judiciary, freedom of association, and genuinely competitive elections?
Why are some regimes so eager to teach their people obedience, yet unwilling to let them truly possess the institutional tools needed to supervise power? Why do they always emphasize the greatness of the collective, yet refuse to acknowledge that every individual possesses rights that cannot be arbitrarily taken away?
When rulers regard criticism as hostility, differing opinions as threats, and independent thought as dangerous, society as a whole may gradually lose its ability to correct itself.
Errors that cannot be corrected in time will accumulate; problems that cannot be discussed openly will worsen; power that cannot change hands peacefully may turn the flaws of a system into a disaster for the entire nation.
The Great Leap Forward and the famine it caused, as well as the persecution and social destruction of the Cultural Revolution, have already left us with painful lessons. We cannot reduce all historical tragedies to a single abstract term, but neither can we avoid this fact: when the cult of personality, political campaigns, information blockades, and unchecked power come together, ordinary people often become those who pay the heaviest price.
A truly mature society is not one that never makes mistakes, but one that allows people to point them out and possesses institutions capable of correcting them.
A truly strong country is not one that makes everyone speak the same words, but one that, even when faced with different voices, can resolve disagreements through the rule of law and open procedures.
The people are not appendages of the state, and the state is not the private property of any political party. If power comes from the people, it must be subject to the people’s constraints.
五、When will the communist utopia finally collapse?
I know there is no answer to this question that can be written accurately on a calendar.
History is not a clock, and authoritarian regimes will not automatically collapse tomorrow simply because we are angry.
A political system that has existed for a long time may maintain stability through organizational control, propaganda machinery, the distribution of benefits, and coercive force; economic hardship, social discontent, and crises of legitimacy may not immediately bring about systemic change.
So I do not want to deceive myself or others with a glib prediction.
But I believe in one principle:
The true crisis of a system often begins when it no longer allows itself to be tested; its deeper decline may begin when more and more people stop believing in its promises.
When people discover that slogans cannot replace a livelihood, propaganda cannot replace facts, praise for a leader cannot replace impartial justice, and so-called grand blueprints cannot replace the peace and stability of every family’s daily life, the sacred halo of the utopia will gradually fade.
When more and more people begin to ask:
- Why can’t we criticize the government?
- Why can’t we express ourselves freely?
- Why can’t we replace those in power through fair elections?
- Why can’t courts rule on cases independently?
- Why can’t the news media investigate those in power?
- Why can’t the people know where public funds have actually gone?
Once these questions become impossible for society to avoid, power cannot rely on slogans to sustain everything forever.
But I must also acknowledge that the road to historical change may be long, tortuous, and even painful. Change in a society requires the growth of civic consciousness, the spread of truthful information, and the establishment of independent institutions; even more importantly, it requires political arrangements that place power under constraint.
What we hope for should not be a nation descending into chaos, nor should ordinary people have to exchange their blood for another struggle for power.
What we truly hope for is a system capable of correcting its mistakes peacefully; a country that no longer treats its people as the price to be paid; a nation able to break out of the cycle of unchecked power through the rule of law, freedom, and democracy.
What we want is not for one strongman to take the same seat after another has fallen.
What we want is this: from now on, no one should be able to sit in a seat beyond supervision.
This is the direction of historical progress truly worth anticipating.
六、Why am I angry? Because I refuse to become numb to human suffering
Some may ask: What good is your anger as an ordinary person?
Yes—what can I do?
I cannot immediately free everyone who has been persecuted, clear every injustice at once, or make every dictator step off the stage of history immediately.
Sometimes, I even feel ashamed of my own helplessness.
But I refuse to become numb because of it.
I refuse to pretend that nothing has happened simply because suffering far away has nothing to do with me; I refuse to hide my conscience because speaking the truth may be unpopular; and I refuse to conclude that justice is meaningless simply because one person’s strength is small.
I am angry because I still believe that people should not be treated as tools.
I weep because I still believe that those who suffer deserve to be seen.
I question because I still believe that power must answer the people’s questions.
I write because I hope those who come later will know that, in the face of lies and fear, there were people who refused to go along with the crowd; that, while the innocent were suffering, there were people who did not treat the pain of others as something unrelated to themselves.
But anger cannot become an excuse for hatred, and the pursuit of justice cannot become a reason to harm the innocent.
What we oppose is a system that oppresses people, the abuse of power, and the lies that defend injustice—not the transfer of hatred onto every ordinary person.
We cannot oppose authoritarianism while longing to replace it with another form of authoritarianism; we cannot denounce injustice while abandoning respect for human beings.
Justice is not revenge, and tolerance is not indulgence.
Tolerance does not mean abolishing responsibility; understanding does not mean abandoning accountability; and respecting human dignity absolutely does not mean bowing to injustice.
Within the limits of my abilities, I am willing to speak up for those who suffer, share information, and help those who need help.
I cannot help everyone, but I can refuse to let my conscience fall asleep.
I cannot decide when history will turn, but I can decide which side I stand on.
Conclusion: Utopia will ultimately face reality, and the people should not have to pay for lies forever
When will the communist utopia collapse?
Perhaps no one can give an exact date.
But there is one question we can answer today:
When a political ideal cannot withstand the test of reality, when a system of rule does not allow people to speak freely, and when power refuses to submit to the law and public oversight, we have reason to question its legitimacy and its future.
True progress is not making the people believe forever in an unreachable tomorrow, but giving them more freedom today, a more reliable rule of law, a fairer system, and the right to determine their own destiny.
I look forward to the day when the people of China no longer fear speaking the truth, no longer face persecution for holding to their convictions, and no longer worry about retaliation for criticizing those in power; when children can think freely, parents can live in peace, workers can work with dignity, and every ordinary person can receive equal protection before the law.
I look forward to the day when a country no longer needs to create enemies to prove its greatness, no longer needs to block information to preserve its own correctness, and no longer needs to make generation after generation sacrifice their real lives to sustain a political myth that can never be fulfilled.
I do not know when that day will come.
But I know that history should not belong forever only to those who hold power; it should also belong to those who were once oppressed, forgotten, and forced into silence, yet never gave up their dignity.
If one day that seemingly indestructible utopia truly comes crashing down, I hope what falls is not merely a political myth, but also the old order in which power goes unchecked and people cannot freely choose their own destiny.
I hope what arrives is not new hatred and revenge, but a freer, fairer, and more peaceful China.
Because what we truly seek is not to make anyone suffer, but to ensure that suffering is no longer used as a tool to rule the people; not to silence anyone forever, but to let every person speak freely; not to make an ideology triumph forever, but to enable every individual to live with dignity.
May truth no longer be buried by fear, may justice no longer bow to power, and may freedom be more than a distant dream.
May those who suffer receive help, may those who are oppressed gain freedom, may those in power respect justice, and may all peoples live in dignity and peace.