编者按：2024年8月5日，四国合作智库研究报告发布暨国际研讨会上发布了《攻坚：新时代中国全面深化改革和高水平对外开放进程及2029、2035畅想》研究报告。加拿大曼尼托巴大学政治学教授、地缘政治经济研究小组联合主任拉迪卡·德赛（Radhika Desai）线上出席会议并发表主旨演讲，现将其发言内容（中英文）及视频整理发布如下：

▲点击查看视频

自1978年以来，实际上是自1949年以来，中国经济的成功令人既钦佩又嫉妒。但无论是钦佩还是嫉妒，大多数人都没有意识到中国所取得的成就有多么伟大。通常将中国与西方国家或美国进行比较时，都忽略了一个关键事实：中国经济和社会进步的起点比西方国家要落后得多，其进步是在帝国主义强加的历史挫折下取得的、是在没有享有西方国家的帝国主义好处的情况下取得的、是在帝国主义不断抵制其发展努力的情况下取得的，而这一发展努力是任何严肃的反帝国主义事业的基础。如今，这种帝国主义对中国发展的抵制仍在继续，甚至连美国政府高级官员也承认这一点，并公开表示美国的目标是“阻碍”中国发展。

面对帝国主义，这种发展并非易事，历史上也有许多失败的努力。然而，所有国家的发展史，无论是发达国家还是发展中国家，都告诉我们，与西方向世界其他国家提出的“发展的最佳方式是让市场来管理经济”的建议相反，放任的自由市场和自由贸易的发展方式的必然结局是屈从于帝国主义、经济迟滞、技术落后和贫困，而不是真正的强劲发展。实际情况是，如果国家没有做出明确的努力来促进增长、技术发展和所有资源的充分使用，就不可能实现发展。这是一个漫长的过程，必然会有许多失败，值得庆幸的是这种失败是短暂和局部的。然而，对局部或暂时失败的反应不能是放弃国家指引的道路。我们必须下定决心，从困难和失败中汲取教训，再接再厉。太多国家放弃了这条道路，选择了新自由主义的自由市场和自由经济的政策。

从这个角度来看，最近的三中全会决议堪称典范。不出所料，三中全会的成果在西方受到了广泛批评，原因很简单，因为它敢于提出西方希望中国永远不会做的事情，以及西方至今仍无法相信中国有能力做到的事情，即掌握生产力，使之领先于腐朽的金融化资本主义经济——资本主义和帝国主义的大本营。

《金融时报》就是典型的例子。它对三中全会“没有解决中国的紧迫挑战”表示失望，并列举了增长缓慢、失业、房地产不景气、地方政府债务、社会老龄化和通货紧缩风险等问题。在敷衍地感叹“在解决这些根深蒂固的问题上缺乏果断是错失良机”之后，这份商业报纸直奔主题：“这对于中国在西方的贸易伙伴来说，又是一个令人失望的疏漏。早在2004年，中国政府就承诺调整经济增长模式，从过度依赖投资和出口转向家庭消费。西方政府长期以来一直希望，这将有助于减少中国的巨额贸易顺差，提振全球需求。”现在我们明白了，他们的真正意图就是：西方希望中国更多地消费自己的商品，而不是出口这些商品，西方也希望向中国出口更多自己的商品。毋庸置疑的是，西方不希望中国继续投资其技术实力，并对西方在高科技生产线上的传统主导地位构成技术竞争威胁。

三中全会，以及《攻坚》报告都表示：“想得美”。虽然三中全会决议确实承诺扩大消费，而且是大规模扩大消费。毕竟，如果不能大幅度提高人民的生活水平，那么发展又有什么意义呢？但中国既没有必要也没有动力将扩大后的市场拱手让给西方商品，因为西方商品不太可能比中国生产的产品质量更高、成本更低。此外，三中全会关于改革开放的重大意义，提出了“开启了新时代全面深化改革、系统整体设计推进改革新征程，开创了我国改革开放全新局面”；在发展新质生产力方面，承诺“推动技术革命性突破、生产要素创新性配置、产业深度转型升级，推动劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象优化组合和更新跃升，催生新产业、新模式、新动能，发展以高技术、高效能、高质量为特征的生产力。”

这些是决议的内容。如果以过去的经验为指导，中国共产党领导层将兑现所有承诺，除了可能会出现的一些小延误外。它深知，许多为新自由主义而放弃国家基本作用的领导层都没有做到这一点；它深知，应对这些失败的方法不是放弃，而是从错误和失败中吸取教训，进而加强国家的基本作用、指导作用和基础职能。

这种态度在三中全会决议中得到了充分体现，也得到了包括人大重阳在内的众多机构与知识分子的支持，他们也认识到了这些事实。正如报告中所言：

“新时代全面深化改革开放和扩大开放绝非轻轻松松，而是不断需要把握经济社会发展规律进行精准前瞻与战略决断；需要根据自身能力与目标导向进行持续规划与持续落实；需要妥善国家社会主要矛盾与次要矛盾之间的关系完成矛盾分歧协调与利益统筹；需要直面反华势力对中国的讹诈、遏制、封锁、极限施压实现围堵突围与发展突破。”

这就是为什么我们可以期待，也就是说，中国共产党，以及无数包括人大重阳在内的、支持党和国家决策发展的人士的认识是清晰的。正如三中全会所预测的那样，这些是中国不断发展壮大的重要原因。

以下为演讲内容的英文版

China’s economic success, not just since 1978 but since 1949, has excited both admiration and envy. However, most, whether admiring or envious, do not appreciate just how great is the magnitude of China’s achievement. Usual comparisons of China with Western countries or the United States forget a key fact: that China’s economic and social advances have been achieved from a starting point that was farther back from that of the West given the setbacks imposed by imperialism, that they were achieved without the benefit of imperialism that Western countries enjoyed when they industrialized, and that these achievements were made in the teeth of continuing imperialist resistance to the development efforts that formed the foundation of any serious anti-imperialist project. Such imperialist resistance to China’s development continue today and are even admitted by high-level US state officials who openly state that the US aims to ‘hobble’ China.

Such development in the face of imperialism is not easy and the history of efforts is littered with many failures. However, what the history of development of all countries, whether developed or still developing, tells us is that, contrary to the usual advice given by the West to the rest of the world, that the best way to develop is by leaving the market to manage the economy, such laissez-faire free market and free trade approaches to development are, in fact, sure fire recipes for subordination to imperialism, economic retardation, technological backwardness and poverty, and not for genuine and strong development. In reality, without some clearly defined state effort to foster growth, technological development and full employment of all resources, no development is possible has ever taken place. This is a long process and there are bound to be many failures, hopefully temporary and local. However, the reaction to local or temporary failures cannot be the abandonment of the state-directed path. It has to be a determination to learn from the difficulties and failures and to try again. Too many countries have given up this effort in favor of neoliberal free market, free trade policies.

Seen in this light, the Resolution of the recent Third Plenum is exemplary. The outcome of the Third Plenum has been, as expected, widely criticized in the West for the simple reason that it dares to propose what the West wishes China will be never do and what the west simply still cannot believe China is capable of doing, that is to say, mastering the productive forces in a way that puts it ahead of their decaying financialized capitalist economies of the homelands of capitalism and imperialism.

The Financial Times was typical. It foregrounded a disappointment that the Plenum did not address the country’s ‘pressing challenges’, which it listed as slow growth, unemployment, property slump, local government debt, an ageing society and risk of deflation. It perfunctorily lamented that ‘lack of assertiveness on resolving these deep-seated woes is a missed opportunity’, the business paper came to the real point: ‘For China’s trade partners in the west, there was another disappointing omission. As long ago as 2004, Beijing pledged to reorientate its growth model away from an over-reliance on investment and exports towards household consumption. This, western governments have long hoped, would help reduce China’s huge trade surpluses and invigorate global demand.’ There we have it: the West wants China to consume more of its own goods, rather than export them, and it want to export more of its own goods to China. And needless to say, the West does not want China to continue investing in its technological prowess and pose a technological competitive threat to the West's traditional dominance of high technology lines of production.

Nice try, no cookie, says the Third Plenum, and indeed from the Chongyang Institute's new report, Decisive Battle. While the resolution does indeed promise to expand consumption and to expand it massively – after all what is the point of engaging in development if it does not lead to massive increases in the standards of living of the ordinary people? So, it does promise to expand consumption. However, it has neither need not incentive to surrender the expanded market that China will then have to western goods which are unlikely to be of higher quality and lower cost than what China can produce. Moreover, at the same time, it proposes take forward both the reform and opening up – promising ‘new journey of comprehensively deepening reform in the new era with systematic and holistic plans, thus paving the way for a brand new stage in China’s reform and opening up endeavors’ – and the development of new productive forces, promising to work to facilitate revolutionary breakthroughs in technology, innovative allocation of production factors, in-depth industrial transformation and upgrading, and the optimal combination of laborers, means of labor, and subjects of labor as well as their renewal and upgrading. All this will give rise to new industries, new business models, and new growth drivers and promote the development of productive forces that are characterized by high technology, high performance, and high quality

These are the words of the resolution. And if the past is any guide, barring small delays here and there, the CPC leadership will deliver on it all. It knows that so many leaderships who abandoned the essential state role in favour of neoliberalism did not: It knows that the way to react to these failures is not to give up, but to learn from the mistakes and failures and strengthen the essential, guiding and foundational role of the state.

In this attitude, which is fully reflected in the Third Plenum Resolution, the CPC party state is supported by important organizations and intellectuals like the Chongyang Institute who recognise these facts. As it says in its report,The comprehensive deepening of the reform and opening up in the new era will not be easy. Instead, we need to have precise foresight and strategic decision-Making by constantly grasping the laws of economic and social development; to conduct continuous planning and implementation according to our abilities and goal orientations; to deal with dispute coordination and interest integration by continuing to properly handle the relationship between primary and secondary contradictions of our country and society; to accomplishment Containment Breakout and Development Breakthrough by facing up to the blackmails, containment, blockades, and pressures from anti-China forces.

This is the key reason why we may expect, that is to say, the clarity of the understanding of the CPC and the myriad of important organisations like the Chongyang Institute, who support the Party state's development efforts. Those are the key reasons China to go from strength to strength, as the Third Plenum projects.

Thanks very much. Bye-bye.

(欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博：@人大重阳 ；微信公众号：rdcy2013)