从朱元璋毛泽东非主权在民式反殖官主义的失败， 看中国治理范式转型的必然要求
【附录二】
从朱元璋毛泽东非主权在民式反殖官主义的失败，
看中国治理范式转型的必然要求
Viewing the Inevitable Requirement of China's Governance Paradigm Shift from the Failure of Zhu Yuanzhang and Mao Zedong's Non-Sovereignty-in-the-People Anti-Colonial Officialism
Archer Hong Qian
中国历史上有一个帝王制一个党国制政权，试图反殖官主义，一个是真的苦寒出身的朱元璋，一个是知识官人毛泽东，但他们都失败了。因为他们自己就被权力腐蚀了，当然没有“主权在民实施宪政”的真性情，照样掉进了“反孔尊孔陷阱”“黄宗羲陷阱”“黄炎培陷阱”，结果都遭遇了殖官主义反噬。此篇综述透过对朱、毛失败的深度剖析，论证了“非主权在民宪政”治理模式的不可持续性，旨在为《论殖官主义》提出的“共生治理”方案提供历史坐标。
一、 历史的宿命：非主权在民式反抗的逻辑盲点
在中国历史的漫长进程中，朱元璋与毛泽东是两位试图彻底根除“殖官主义”（官僚体系对社会的内部殖民）的领袖。一位出身贫苦，一位身为底层知识分子，他们对盘剥百姓、虚化主权的官僚阶层有着深刻的仇恨：
朱元璋：试图以极端的“皇权原教旨主义”清洗官僚，用剥皮实草的严刑峻法维系行政纯洁。
毛泽东：则试图以激进的“群众运动”冲击官僚，追求一种大鸣大放式的、打破科层制的社会格局。
然而，这两场波澜壮阔的尝试最终皆归于失败。其根本原因在于，两者的反抗均建立在“非主权在民”的底色之上——他们试图用另一种形式的“绝对权力”来消灭权力腐蚀，这本身就是一种范式内的自我矛盾，最终导致他们在试图摧毁官僚体系的同时，却不可避免地被这套体系所反噬。
二、 三大陷阱的锁死：殖官主义的反噬机制
由于缺乏“主权在民”的真性情与法治架构，朱、毛政权最终都未能逃脱中国治理逻辑中的三大恶性循环：
“反孔尊孔陷阱”：当“非主权在民”的统治者试图稳定秩序时，必然会从早期的“反对旧传统（反孔）”回归到利用“等级伦理（尊孔）”，重新依靠官僚体系来维持统治，从而导致殖官主义在伦理支撑下死灰复燃。
“黄宗羲陷阱”：缺乏受治者（人民）直接授权与监督的行政改革，最终都会被官僚体系中饱私囊。朱、毛的改革虽然初衷利民，但在信息垄断的殖官架构下，反而增加了社会的运行成本与生存压力。
“黄炎培陷阱”：即历史周期率。在非主权在民的范式下，领袖的强力干预只能带来短暂的净化；一旦强力消退，官僚集团必然进行“制度性修复”，重新确立其作为内部殖民者的权力租金。
三、 治理范式转型：从“内部殖民”到“共生治理”的必然要求
《论殖官主义》核心论点强调，朱、毛的失败昭示了：单纯的治理效能提升或政治动员或反腐倡廉，都已走入死胡同，必须进行从底层逻辑出发的范式转型：
殖官主义的反噬：官僚体系不仅是管理工具，更是一个具有扩张性的、垄断价值的独立主体。在非主权在民的状态下，它会自动将权力转化为对社会的“殖民资产”。
主权在民的实体化：范式转型的核心在于“主权”的真正归属。必须从“代理人主权”转向“本体主权”，即权力的合法性、解释权与监督权必须回归每一位公民。
“孞烎（真诚与透明）”的技术治理：利用透明的价值承兑系统与信用体系，取代官僚对信息的垄断，从技术维度消解“殖官”的生存空间。
四、 现实路径与文明协同：川普账户的符号启示
通过分析《附录：殖官主义、政治正确、共生治理及川普账户》，我们可以看到：
解构官僚中间商：现代政治（无论东西方）正遭遇官僚体系利用“政治正确”进行的隐形殖民。川普账户代表了一种“去中间化”的尝试，即主权者与代议制领导人直接交互，绕过官僚体系的过滤与解构。
赋能与降本：转型的目标是实现共生治理，通过降低衣食住行学养医保等基础生活成本，将新生代和社会从“生存焦虑”中解放出来，转向生命自组织连接平衡的新文明建构。
五、 结论：走出循环的唯一出口
朱元璋与毛泽东的历史悲剧证明：如果不确立“主权在民”的真性情，任何反官僚的努力最终都会演变成一场新的官僚殖民。
中国治理范式的转型不再是可选项，而是历史的必然要求。这要求我们跳出“打江山、坐江山”的权力存量逻辑，转向基于交互主体性、真诚与透明的全息共生治理体系。唯有如此，才能真正打破殖官主义的反噬，实现中华文明乃至全球现代性的范式跃迁。
Viewing the Inevitable Requirement of China's Governance Paradigm Shift from the Failure of Zhu Yuanzhang and Mao Zedong's Non-Sovereignty-in-the-People Anti-Colonial Officialism
Historically, there were two regimes that attempted to oppose colonial officialism. One was Zhu Yuanzhang, who truly came from a background of bitter hardship, and the other was Mao Zedong, a scholar official. But they both failed because they themselves were corrupted by power. Lacking the true disposition of “sovereignty in the people and implementing constitutionalism,” they still fell into the “anti-Confucian yet honoring Confucianism trap,” the “Huang Zongxi trap,” and the “Huang Yanpei trap,” ultimately suffering a backlash from colonial officialism. This review, through a deep analysis of the failures of Zhu and Mao, argues for the unsustainability of the “non-sovereignty-in-the-people constitutionalism” governance model, aiming to provide historical coordinates for the “symbiotic governance” solution proposed in “On Colonial Officialism”.
I. The Fate of History: The Logical Blind Spot of Non-Sovereignty-in-the-People Style Resistance
Throughout the long process of Chinese history, Zhu Yuanzhang and Mao Zedong were two leaders who attempted to thoroughly eradicate “colonial officialism” (the internal colonization of society by the bureaucracy). One came from poverty, the other was an intellectual from the lower strata, both harboring a deep hatred for the official class that exploited the people and diluted sovereignty:
Zhu Yuanzhang attempted to cleanse the bureaucracy with extreme “imperial fundamentalism,” using harsh laws like skinning and stuffing with straw to maintain administrative purity.
Mao Zedong attempted to impact the bureaucracy with radical “mass movements,” pursuing a social pattern of “four big freedoms” and breaking the hierarchy.
However, both of these grand attempts ultimately ended in failure. The fundamental reason lies in the fact that their resistance was based on a background of “non-sovereignty-in-the-people”—they attempted to use another form of “absolute power” to eliminate power corruption, which itself is an internal contradiction within the paradigm, ultimately leading them to be inevitably backlash by the very system they tried to destroy while attempting to destroy the bureaucracy.
II. The Locking of the Three Traps: The Backlash Mechanism of Colonial Officialism
The dialogue points out that due to the lack of the true disposition of “sovereignty in the people” and a rule-of-law framework, the Zhu and Mao regimes ultimately failed to escape the three vicious cycles in China's governance logic:
The “anti-Confucian yet honoring Confucianism trap”: When rulers of “non-sovereignty-in-the-people” attempt to stabilize order, they inevitably revert from early “opposition to old traditions (anti-Confucianism)” to utilizing “hierarchical ethics (honoring Confucianism),” relying on the bureaucracy to maintain rule, thus leading to the resurgence of colonial officialism with ethical support.
The “Huang Zongxi trap”: Administrative reforms lacking the direct authorization and supervision of the governed (the people) will ultimately be embezzled by the bureaucracy. Although the initial intention of Zhu and Mao's reforms was to benefit the people, under the framework of colonial officialism's information monopoly, they instead increased society's operating costs and survival pressure.
The “Huang Yanpei trap”: That is the historical cycle rate. In the paradigm of non-sovereignty-in-the-people, the strong intervention of leaders can only bring temporary purification; once the strong power fades, the bureaucracy will inevitably conduct “institutional restoration,” re-establishing its power rent as internal colonizers.
III. The Governance Paradigm Shift: The Inevitable Requirement from “Internal Colonialism” to “Symbiotic Governance”
The core argument of “On Colonial Officialism” emphasizes that the failures of Zhu and Mao indicate that simply improving governance efficiency, political mobilization, or anti-corruption efforts has hit a dead end, and a paradigm shift from the bottom-level logic must be carried out:
Defining the backlash of colonial officialism: The bureaucracy is not just a management tool, but an independent entity with expansiveness and monopoly value. In a state of non-sovereignty-in-the-people, it automatically transforms power into “colonial assets” for society.
The substantialization of sovereignty in the people: The core of the paradigm shift lies in the true ownership of “sovereignty.” It must shift from “agent sovereignty” to “ontological sovereignty,” meaning the legitimacy, interpretation power, and supervision power of power must return to every citizen.
The technical governance of “Xin Ying (sincerity and transparency)" : Utilizing a transparent value acceptance system and credit system to replace the bureaucracy's monopoly on information, thus dissolving the living space of “colonial officials” from a technical dimension.
IV. Realistic Path and Civilization Synergy: The Symbolic Revelation of the Trump Account
Through analyzing “Appendix: Colonial Officialism, Political Correctness, Symbiotic Governance, and the Trump Account,” we can see:
Deconstructing bureaucratic intermediaries: Modern politics (both East and West) is facing the invisible colonization carried out by the bureaucracy using “political correctness.” The Trump account represents an attempt at “disintermediation,” where the sovereign and the leader interact directly, bypassing the bureaucracy's filtering and deconstruction.
Empowerment and cost reduction: The goal of the transformation is to achieve symbiotic governance, by reducing basic living costs (clothing, food, housing, transportation, education, healthcare, insurance), liberating the new generation and society from “survival anxiety,” and turning towards “civilization synergy.”
V. Conclusion: The Only Exit from the Cycle
The historical tragedies of Zhu Yuanzhang and Mao Zedong prove: If the true disposition of “sovereignty in the people” is not established, any anti-bureaucratic efforts will ultimately evolve into a new bureaucratic colonization.
The transformation of China's governance paradigm is not just an option, but a historical necessity. This requires us to leap out of the power stock logic of “conquering the country and sitting on the country,” and move towards a holistic symbiotic governance system based on intersubjectivity, sincerity, and transparency. Only in this way can we truly break the backlash of colonial officialism and achieve the paradigm shift of Chinese civilization and even global modernity.
AI responses may include mistakes. Current limitations only allow part of the document to be used for this answer. Learn more