【美联英语】李世默-李世默TED演讲稿：两种制度的传说2

合集下载

克林顿在北京大学的英文演讲稿：人权与民主的重要性

克林顿在北京大学的英文演讲稿：人权与民主的重要性Ladies and gentlemen,It is an honor to be here at Beijing University today to speak to you about the importance of human rights and democracy. As I stand here today, I am reminded of the incredible progress that has been made in China over the past few decades. China has become a global economic powerhouse, lifting millions of its people out of poverty, and has made remarkable strides in science, technology, and culture.But as impressive as this progress has been, it is important to recognize that there is still much work to be done. Human rights and democracy are crucial to the continued success of any society, and China is no exception. For all of the progress that China has made, there are still major challenges that must be confronted if the country is to continue on its path to greatness.One of the biggest challenges facing China today is the issue of human rights. Despite the many advances that have been made in recent years, China continues to facesignificant challenges when it comes to protecting the rightsof its citizens. From the curtailing of freedom of speech and the press to the mistreatment of political dissidents and minority groups, there are many areas where China must do better.But this is not just a moral imperative 鈥?it is also in China's long-term interest to protect human rights. A society that values the dignity and freedom of all of its citizens is one that is better able to attract foreign investment, build strong relationships with other countries, and foster a thriving culture of innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In short, protecting human rights is not just the right thing to do 鈥?it is also the smart thing to do.Another vital area in which China must make progress is democracy. Democracy is the cornerstone of any free and open society, and without it, progress is slowed and the voices of the people are silenced. China has made progress in recent years in terms of expanding political freedoms, but there is still a long way to go.To fully embrace democracy, China must work to create a more transparent and inclusive political system. This meansexpanding the role of the media and ensuring that political decisions are made in a participatory and accountable manner. It also means opening up the political system to a wider range of voices and viewpoints.But democracy is not just about the political system鈥?it is also about the social and economic structures that underpin it. To fully embrace democracy, China must also work to create a more open and inclusive economy that gives all of its citizens the opportunity to thrive and succeed. This means investing in education, expanding access to healthcare, and promoting entrepreneurship and innovation.In conclusion, as China continues to build on the incredible progress that has been made over the past few decades, it is important to recognize that there is still much work to be done. Protecting human rights and promoting democracy are not just moral imperatives 鈥?they are also vital to the long-term success of any society. By embracing these values, China can continue to be a global leader in the years to come. Thank you.。

TED中文演讲稿

我知道你们在想什么，你们觉得我迷路了，马上就会有人走上台温和地把我带回我的座位上。

（掌声）。

我在迪拜总会遇上这种事。

“来这里度假的吗，亲爱的？”（笑声）“来探望孩子的吗？这次要待多久呢？恩，事实上，我希望能再待久一点。

我在波斯湾这边生活和教书已经超过30年了。

（掌声）这段时间里，我看到了很多变化。

现在这份数据是挺吓人的，而我今天要和你们说的是有关语言的消失和英语的全球化。

我想和你们谈谈我的朋友，她在阿布达比教成人英语。

在一个晴朗的日子里，她决定带她的学生到花园去教他们一些大自然的词汇。

但最后却变成是她在学习所有当地植物在阿拉伯语中是怎么说的。

还有这些植物是如何被用作药材，化妆品，烹饪，香草。

这些学生是怎么得到这些知识的呢？当然是从他们的祖父母，甚至曾祖父母那里得来的。

不需要我来告诉你们能够跨代沟通是多么重要。

but sadly, today, languages are dying at an unprecedented rate. a language diesevery 14 days. now, at the same time, english is the undisputed global language. couldthere be a connection? well i dont know. but i do know that ive seen a lot of changes.when i first came out to the gulf, i came to kuwait in the days when it was stilla hardship post. actually, not that long ago. that is a little bit too early. but nevertheless, i wasrecruited by the british council along with about 25 other teachers. and we were the first non-muslims to teach in the state schoolsthere in kuwait. we were brought to teach english because the government wanted tomodernize the country and empower the citizens through education. and of course, theu.k. benefited from some of that lovely oil wealth. 但遗憾的是，今天很多语言正在以前所未有的速度消失。

TED演讲：两种制度的传说

TED演讲：两种制度的传说因为每一个个人都是理性的，一旦有了权选举，必然会选出好政府，随后就可以在好政府的领导下，过上幸福的生活，相当于实现大同社会——又是一个人间天堂。

以下小编整理的TED演讲：两种制度的传说，供大家参考，希望大家能够有所收获!TED演讲两种制度的传说李：早上好!我叫(Eric Li)李世默，我出生在这里(图示：高楼大厦林立，街道上星光灿烂的上海)，喔，不，不是这里，是这里，我出生在“文化大革命”高潮时的上海(图示：文革期间红卫兵游行的场面)。

外婆后来告诉我，她当时抱着襁褓之中啼哭不止的我，心惊胆战地听着“武斗”的枪声。

Good morning. My name is Eric Li, and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution. My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.在我少年时，我被灌输了一个关于人类社会发展规律的大故事，这个“元叙事”是这样说的：When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity. It went like this.所有的人类社会都遵循一条线性的目标明确的发展规律，即从原始社会开始，经由奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会、社会主义社会，最终过渡到(我们猜猜这个终点是什么?)共产主义社会。

All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, (guess where we end up?) Communism!共产主义社会是人类政治、社会发展的最高阶段，所有的人类社会，不管民族、文化、语言有何异同，或早或晚都将演绎到这一阶段。

经典演讲之十八——论奴隶制度【美国】道格拉斯

论奴隶制度（1852年7月）【美国】道格拉斯弗里德里克·道格拉斯（1817-1895），美国19世纪著名人权领袖之一。

争取黑人平等自由的战士。

本篇是1852年7月4日道格拉斯在美国纽约州罗彻斯特市举行的“国庆庆祝大会”上发表的著名演说。

公民们，请原谅，恕我问一下为什么今天邀我来此演讲？我，或者我所代表的那些人与你们的民族独立有什么关系？独立宣言中所体现的政治自由和生而平等的伟大原则会赐予我们吗？而为此缘故，就邀我把我们卑下的礼品奉献给美国的圣餐吗？就让我承认这恩典并且要向由你们的独立为我们带来的恩惠表示虔诚的的感激吗？为了你们，也为了我们，我真希望这些问题能得到肯定的回答！那样，我的任务将很容易完成，我的负担将变得轻松并令人愉快。

因为，有谁会如此冷漠以致全国的同情都不能使他动情？有谁那样无情无义而对感恩的要求都不理不睬？竟至不愿感恩戴德地领谢无法估价的善行吗？又有谁会这般迟钝而自私，竟然在奴役的锁链从他的肢体扯下来的时候，他却不愿开口为一国之狂欢佳节的欢呼助威呢？我不是那种人。

在那种情况下，哑人也会雄辩地演讲，“跛者亦会如鹿踊跃”。

但事实真相并非如此。

我是怀着我们之间有嫌隙的悲哀感觉才说这话的。

这光荣的周年纪念日的围栏里不包括我。

你们高贵的独立呈现的只是我们之间无法度量的差距。

你们今天欢庆的幸事并非普天同庆。

有资格享受你们父辈流传的平等、自由、繁荣和宝贵遗产的是你们，而不是我。

为你们带来光明和安逸的阳光，却为我带来鞭笞和死亡。

这个七月四日是你们的，却不是我的。

你们可以欢庆，我却只有悲哀。

把一位身披枷锁的人拖进这宏伟、灯火辉煌的自由庙宇，并且请他与你们一道欢唱颂歌，这简直是无道的嘲弄和渎神的讽刺。

公民们，你们不会是用请我今天在此讲话的方式来嘲笑我吧？如果是，那就适得其反。

请准我告诫诸位：曾经有个国家的罪恶堆积如山，结果被全能的上帝不费吹灰之力就摧毁了，并使之不复存在。

重蹈这个国家的覆辙是危险的。

李世默--两种制度的传说

李世默--两种制度的传说第一篇：李世默--两种制度的传说Good morning, and my name is Eric Li, and I was born here.No, I wasn’t born there;this was whereI was born.Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity.It went like this.All human society develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of the culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s people will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught the grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.Then the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows: all societies, regardless of culture,be a Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they are all rational, once given the vote, they produce the good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth,again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on then is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese did not buy it.Fool me once, the rest is history.In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to a second-largest economy.650 million people were lifted out of poverty.80% of th e entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate all mygrandmother’s portions.So I ask myself, what is wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bound.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expending in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correcti on.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here is the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than another country in the recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then the privatization of farmland, then the Cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimag inable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule les to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatoryretirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decide a priori what kinds of change they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is political reform have never pared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10years ago, every aspect of Chinese society how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hand of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem.But let’s first look at the larger context.Now this may be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the pare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you will find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful politicalinstitution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like university or community program.They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called keyuan.Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of position is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city distract to manger in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju, and ju levels.There, they enter high officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a distract with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of millions of dollars in revenue.Just show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and onlu 40,000 fuju and ju levels.Afer the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes a two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, theOrganization Department runs a modernized version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is a son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career tool a 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion US dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it is just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “the party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of legitimacy?”Isaid, “how about competency?” we all know the facts.In 1949, when the party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old.Today it is the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew research polls Chinese public attitudes and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago: 70%.Those who expect the future to be better a whopping 82%.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes, and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.93% of China’s Generation Y are optimistic about their country’sfuture.Now if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.Idon’t need to elaborate this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of the developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil ernments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling.Pollution is one, food safety, population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its legitimacy.But most analystmis-diagnose the disease.They say the corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore in order to cure it you have to do away with the entire system.But more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s still moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, is 94 and dropping.For the hundreds or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries cannot fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on theline and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the US and become the largest economy in the world;income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, not eliminated and China will move up 10-20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will be holding firm.We live in the dust of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significa nce of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of munism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there is only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong and it is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a moreinteresting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you.第二篇：李世默演讲观后感如果他们在台下——李世默演讲观后感白荷菲 201355003笔者总结李世默的演讲，主要有两个方面的内容：1、元叙事危害着社会的正常发展。

李世默--两种制度的传说

Good morning, and my name is Eric Li, and I was born here. No, I wasn’t born there;this was whereI was born. Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution. My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries. When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity. It went like this.All human society develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of the culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire world’s people will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph. That of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught the grand story day in and day out. It became part of us, and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta- narrative. Then the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie. Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end. This one went as follows: all societies, regardless of culture, be a Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are all rational, once given the vote, they produce the good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth,again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil. The good belongs to those who are democracies and charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010. In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on then is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Chinese did not buy it. Fool me once, the rest is history. In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to a second-largest economy. 650 million people were lifted out of poverty. 80% of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point. Needless to say, I ate all my grandmother’s portions. So I ask myself, what is wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bound. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expending in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system isoperationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system. Now most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here is the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than another country in the recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then the privatization of farmland, then the Cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule les to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform. But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias. See, some have decide a priori what kinds of change they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is political reform have never stopped. Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10years ago, every aspect of Chinese society how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today. Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform. The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hand of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem. But let’s first look at the larger context. Now this may be counterintuitive to you. The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members. In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings. The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you will find the Party being near the top in upward mobility. The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department. The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like university or community program. They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called keyuan. Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu. Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business. The range of position is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city distract to manger in a company. Once a year, the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. Theyvet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys. Then they promote the winners. Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju, and ju levels. There, they enter high officialdom. By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a distract with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of millions of dollars in revenue. Just show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and onlu 40,000 fuju and ju levels. Afer the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee. The process takes a two to three decades. Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernized version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system. China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is a son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job. Even for him, the career tool a 30 years. He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion US dollars. Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it is just a statement of fact. George W. Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown. Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department. Now, westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, “the party wasn’t voted in by election. Where is the source of legitimacy?”Isaid, “how about competency?” we all know the facts. In 1949, when the party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old. Today it is the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity. Pew research polls Chinese public attitudes and here are the numbers in recent years. Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent. Those who think they’re better off than five years ago: 70%. Those who expect the future to be better a whopping 82%. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes, and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. 93% of China’s Generation Y are optimistic about their country’s future. Now if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. Idon’t need to elaborate this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of the developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling. Pollution is one, food safety, population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is corruption. Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its legitimacy. But most analystmis-diagnose the disease. They say the corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore in order to cure it you have to do away with the entire system. But more careful look would tell us otherwise. Transparency International ranksChina between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s still moving up. India, the largest democracy in the world, is 94 and dropping. For the hundreds or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies. So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries cannot fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist. I make bets. It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions. So here they are. In the next 10 years, China will surpass the US and become the largest economy in the world; income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries. Corruption will be curbed, not eliminated and China will move up 10-20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking. Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will be holding firm. We live in the dust of an era. Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st. meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside. Now I want to clarify something. I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy. On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and the creation of the modern world. It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is the heart of the West’s current ills. If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance. China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist. Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children there is only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong and it is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality. Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you.。

TED英语演讲：我们需要谈谈不公正

TED英语演讲：我们需要谈谈不公正演说题目：我们需要谈谈不公正!演说者：Bryan Stevenson演讲稿Well this is a really extraordinary honor for me.I spend most of my time in jails, in prisons, on death row. I spend most of my time in very low-income communities in the projects and places where theres a great deal of hopelessness. And being here at TED and seeing the stimulation, hearing it, has been very, very energizing to me. And one of the things thats emerged in my short time here is that TED has an identity. And you can actually say things here that have impacts around the world. And sometimes when it comes through TED, it has meaning and power that it doesnt have when it doesnt.很荣幸来到这里我大多数时候都在管教所，在监狱里，在死囚室中大部分时间我在低收入的社区里工作在充满绝望的地区，做前途暗淡的项目今天来到TED 看到听到这些激动人心的演讲给了我一针强心剂在这短短的时间里，我注意到 TED有自己的定位你可以看到这里发生的事情影响全世界有时当事情发生在TED的讲台上比发生在别处更有意义，更有影响And I mention that because I think identity is really important. And weve had some fantastic presentations. And I think what weve learned is that, if youre a teacher your words can be meaningful, but if youre a compassionate teacher, they can be especially meaningful. If youre a doctor you can do some good things, but if youre a caring doctor you can do some other things. And so I want to talk about the power of identity. And I didnt learn about this actually practicing law and doing the work that I do. I actually learned about this from my grandmother.我提起这个是因为我觉得自我定位很重要我们已经听了一些精彩的演说我们已经体会到作为一个老师，你的话是有影响力的如果你是个很慈善的老师你的教导就格外意味深长作为一个医生，你能够帮助人如果你是个体恤病人的医生，你能帮助更多所以我想讲讲定位的重要性我不是从做律师或者做其他项目学到怎样自我定位的我其实是从我外婆那里学到的I grew up in a house that was the traditional African-American home that was dominated by a matriarch, and that matriarch was my grandmother. She was tough, she was strong, she was powerful. She was the end of every argument in our family. She was the beginning of a lot of arguments in our family. She was the daughterof people who were actually enslaved. Her parents were born in slavery in Virginia in the 1840s. She was born in the 1880s and the experience of slavery very much shaped the way she saw the world.我的家庭是一个传统的黑人家庭只有一个女家长就是我的外婆她很坚韧，也很强壮威风凛凛家里有争执，她有决定权不过很多事儿也是她挑起来的她的父母曾是真正的黑奴弗吉尼亚州19世纪40年代，她父母落草为奴我外婆是十九世纪八十年代生的这段父母被奴役的经历决定了她看世界的角度And my grandmother was tough, but she was also loving. When I would see her as a little boy, shed come up to me and shed give me these hugs. And shed squeeze me so tight I could barely breathe and then shed let me go. And an hour or two later, if I saw her, shed come over to me and shed say, Bryan, do you still feel me hugging you? And if I said, No, shed assault me again, and if I said, Yes, shed leave me alone. And she just had this quality that you always wanted to be near her. And the only challenge was that she had 10 children. My mom was the youngest of her 10 kids. And sometimes when I would go and spend time with her, it would be difficult to get her time and attention. My cousins would be running around everywhere.我的外婆很强势，但她也很慈爱当我是个小男孩时每次见到她都拥抱我她抱得那么紧，我都透不过气来然后她才会放开我一两个小时之后，当我再见她她会过来问我：还能感觉我的拥抱么? 如果我说感觉不到了，她就再度出击直到我说感觉得到，她才放开我她就是有这个能力让你老是想亲近她唯一的挑战是她有十个儿女我妈妈是十个里最年轻的常常当我去和外婆亲近时很难让她注意到我，有时间陪我我的表兄妹们总是无处不在And I remember, when I was about eight or nine years old, waking up one morning, going into the living room, and all of my cousins were running around. And my grandmother was sitting across the room staring at me. And at first I thought we were playing a game. And I would look at her and Id smile, but she was very serious. And after about 15 or 20 minutes of this, she got up and she came across the room and she took me by the hand and she said, Come on, Bryan. You and I are going to have a talk. And I remember this just like it happened yesterday. I never will forget it.我记得，当我八九岁时的一次我早上醒来，跑到客厅所有的表兄妹都在我外婆坐在房间的另一端盯着我看一开始我以为我们在玩游戏我就看回去，对她笑笑但我外婆是很严肃的大概十五还是二十分钟之后她站起来，穿过房间牵住我的手对我说：过来，布莱恩，我们得谈谈。

李世默ted英文演讲稿

李世默ted英文演讲稿篇一：李世默TED演讲稿(中英文)李世默TED：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结Good morning. My name is Eric Li, and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution. My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries. When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity. It went like this. All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up Communism! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph. That,of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out. It became part of us, and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative. Then, the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie. Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end. This one went as follows. All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote. Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countriesand all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil. The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections. Now. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in XX. In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it. Fool me once… The rest is history. In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty. Eighty percent ofthe entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point. Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions. So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-partysystem. Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policieshas been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. Onething we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform. But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias. See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is, political reforms have never stopped. Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are uecognizable today. Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform. The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context. Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you. The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25members. In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings. The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Partybeing near the top in upward mobility. The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department. The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program. The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruitcollege grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu. Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay It’s serious business. The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company. Once a year, the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys. Then they promote the winners. Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels. There, they enter high, officialdom. By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Just to show you how competitive the system is, in XX, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels. After the ju levels, the bestfew move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee. The process takes two to three decades. Does patronage play a role Yes of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system. China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job. Even for him, the career took 30 years. He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of trillion dollars. Now, please don’t getme wrong, okay This is not a putdown of anyone. It’s just a statement of fact. George W. Bush, remember him This is not a putdown. Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department. Now, Westerners always assume thatmulti-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election. Where is the source of Legitimacy” I said, “How about competency”: We all know the facts. In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old. Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity. Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years. Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent. Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%. Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future. Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need toelaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling. Pollution is one. Food safety. Population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is篇二：李世默TED演讲稿(中英文)李世默TED：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结Good morning. My name is Eric Li, and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where Iwas born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution. My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries. When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity. It went like this. All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up Communism! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph. That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out. It became part of us, and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative. Then, theworld changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie. Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end. This one went as follows. All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote. Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth, again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countriesand all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil. The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a missionof spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections. Now. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in XX. In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it. Fool me once… The rest is history. In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty. Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per monthat one point. Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions. So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system. Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policieshas been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform. But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias. See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. Thetruth is, political reforms have never stopped. Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are uecognizable today. Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform. The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context. Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you. The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members. In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings. The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was evensmaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Partybeing near the top in upward mobility. The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department. The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program. The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu. Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay It’s serious business. The range of positions is wide, from running health carein a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company. Once a year, the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys. Then they promote the winners. Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels. There, they enter high, officialdom. By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Just to show you how competitive the system is, in XX, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels. After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee. The process takes two to three decades. Does patronage play a role Yes of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job. Even for him, the career took 30 years. He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of trillion dollars. Now, please don’t getme wrong, okay This is not a putdown of anyone. It’s just a statement of fact. George W. Bush, remember him This is not a putdown. Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department. Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election. Where is the source of Legitimacy” I said, “How about competency”: We all know the facts. In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreignaggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old. Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity. Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years. Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent. Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%. Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future. Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a fewmonths and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling. Pollution is one. Food safety. Population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is篇三：李世默TED演讲稿李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说〖文字大小：大中小〗〖打印〗推荐访问：TED演讲稿演讲稿【 - 李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说】下面是由出国留学整理的《李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说》，提供中英文对照，欢迎阅读。

TED掌门人的演讲经

TED掌门人的演讲经接手TED15年，安德森觉得，与其说自己是演讲家，不如说是演讲教练和TED策展人，他多次通过文章和视频教授人们演讲技能，在他看来，演讲是一种非常必要的技能，并且在未来会更加重要克里斯・安德森（Chris Anderson）几年前在世界各地寻找有价值的内容分享者，“他们不一定是伟大的演说家，我们可以帮助他们找到有效的方法来表达”。

他在肯尼亚首都内罗毕遇到了12岁的理查德・图雷雷（Richard Turere），图雷雷用废旧的太阳能电池板、车用蓄电池和摩托车指示器制成可以连续开关的灯光系统，让自家牛群在夜间免受狮子攻击，也保护了被村民猎杀的狮子男孩的故事打动了安德森，可是不太流利的英语加上腼腆的性格，他能走上TED舞台吗？“多数情况下，演讲者都缺乏自信，我们做的第一件事就是鼓励他。

”“你有一个非凡的故事，人们准保会喜欢的。

”他对男孩说因为这一发明，图雷雷获得了肯尼亚最好几所学校的奖学金，并多次在学校演讲。

很快，他受邀来到加利福尼亚，那是他人生第一次坐飞机，也是第一次面对1400位观众演讲。

“我们看过他的脚本，提了一些建议”，《一个与狮子和平共处的发明》最终大获成功。

18分钟分享一个想法如果将演讲比作旅行，演讲者就是导游，尽管已经找到了绝佳的路线通往目的地，但带领观众到达之前，必须让他们喜欢这次旅行紧张是演讲者经常会面临的问题，安德森的建议是，上台之前5分钟喝点水、深呼吸他说起自己在2014年TED大会上采访美国国家安全局的专责小组负责人，开场前10分钟，他躲在后台走廊使劲做俯卧撑，演讲时对着观众席上的和善面孔说话，即使紧张也不用担心，坦然承认，专注于所讲内容即可面对所有潜在的TED演讲者，安德森最重要的建议是聚焦想法。

把所有枝节内容砍掉，聚焦到一个单一的想法。

安德森称之为“直通线”式演讲，每个例子、每个故事都围绕论点打造，这种方法比宽泛总结更让人印象深刻这个想法首先要值得分享，“Ideas worth spreading”，正是他为TED提出的口号。

2019-李世默TED演讲稿-两种制度的传说-范文模板 (1页)

2019-李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说-范文模板
本文部分内容来自网络，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将予以删除！
== 本文为word格式，下载后可随意编辑修改！ ==
李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说
下面是由整理的《李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说》，提供中英文对照，欢迎阅读。

李：早上好!我叫(Eric Li)李世默，我出生在这里(图示：高楼大厦林立，街道上星光灿烂的上海)，喔，不，不是这里，是这里，我出生在“文化大革命”高潮时的上海(图示：文革期间红卫兵游行的场面)。

外婆后来告诉我，她当时
抱着襁褓之中啼哭不止的我，心惊胆战地听着“武斗”的枪声。

大学英语视听说第三版答案

大学英语视听说第三版答案【篇一：新视野大学英语视听说3(第三版)答案u3-u5】actice in listeningunit3 1 q: what are the speakers doing?d they are discussing their curriculum schedules. 2 q: what do we know about the christmas party lastyear?b it was not well-organized.3 q: what is the man supposed to do now according tothe conversation?c look after the woman’s children.4 q: what does the woman think of her new neighbor?b she thinks he is always very frank.5 q: what is the man going to do this weekend?c he is going to help mr. smith move to a new house. q1:why is the woman asking for two weeks off from work?c because she wants to volunteer for an organization.q2:which of the following statements is true?b over 150,000 volunteers worked for the building ofhouses after the hurricane.q3:according to the woman, why is she willing to volunteer for habitat for humanity?c because she enjoys developing friendships andbuilding communities through volunteer work.q4:what do we know about the man from the conversation?b he finally agreed to let the woman take 14 days off.q1: what question did the research group try to find ananswer to?b how well do people know their neighbors?q2: which age group is more likely to know their neighbors?d 55 - to 64-year-olds.q3: which of the following statements is true according to the passage?c women are more likely to know their neighbors than men.q4: what do the website’s comments mentioned at the end of the passage imply?d it is hard to get to know our neighbors.1) illegal2) taking family vacations3) acquaintances4) throwing a party5) verbal6) tolerant7) intervene8) splits the difference9) resolve10) talk it outunit41 q: what does the woman mean?d ted is not capable of setting up his computercompany.2 q: what is the man worried about?b he is worried about the price of the tiny engines.3 q: what can we infer from the conversation?c the man thinks intelligent cars might be expensive.4 q: what are they talking about?aa business idea brought forth by an airline.5 q: what does the woman suggest the man do?d she suggests the man edit videos for peopleonline. q1: what’s the problem with the man?b he has no idea about his new writing assignment.q2: how does the woman get her ideas before painting?c she draws inspiration by taking long walks in nature.q3: what is the man’s attitude toward the woman’s wayof getting inspiration?d disapproving.q4: what does the woman suggest the man do at thetrain station?b get creative ideas from real daily life.q1: who invented the first toilet according to the passage?b sir john harrington.q2: what was one of the problems with harrington’s water closet?c the basin had to be emptied and cleaned constantly.q3: how did inventors improve the original toilet according to the passage?a they improved the pipes that were attached to thebottom.q4: which of the following can best summarize the passage?d the development of the toilet.1) vary2) a large portion of3) well-being4) profound5) accessible6) ultimately7) have a harmful effect on8) went against9) aviation10) is not worth pursuingunit4short conversations1 q: what is the man’s advice for the woman?b. she should keep shut until a better job is available.2 q: what does the woman imply?b. the man should earn the bread.3 q: what does mrs. smith imply?a. the man is ungrateful in deciding to leave.4 q: what does the man mean?d. he cannot afford to have a coffee break.5 q: what can we learn about jane from the conversation?c. she was fed up with counting money at her job.long conversation1q: what is the man complaining about?b. awful job, hot weather and working outside.2q: what does the man dream of being?a. a self-made millionaire.3q: what is the woman’s attitude toward the man’s dream?b. sarcastic.4q: what does the woman dream of doing?d. becoming a ballroom dancer.passage 11q: why did the speaker get tired of her job at the company?d. because she had no passion anymore.2q: which of the following is true about money according to the speaker?a. money can buy you nice things.3q: what can bring satisfaction according to the speaker?b. doing jobs that express your passion.4q: what does the speaker find most suitable for her now?d. sharing ideas and thoughts through blogging. passage 21) suffer from2) enthusiastic3) erodes4) competent5) clear-cut6) labeling7) comes down to8) commonplace9) tend to10) focusing on【篇二：第三版新视野大学英语3视听说】aringt2 daredevil bungee jumpingcup of tea feel goodachievement t3 c-d-e-b-at4 1 2 4t5 b c b c bt6 started offa huge businessteachertaught me so muchabout lifeimprisonedsurvivedinpressedability or the skillslisteningt2-11,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11viewingt2-1 3t2-2 e g c b f a dt2-3 90 minutes true landmark 10 times focus makethis challenge seven miles four months outstanding achievementshot conversation b c a d clong conversation b a a cpassage1 d c a bpassage2 believe in circumstancessearching fora strong sense ofresponsibility insecurityintegrity accomplishing are longing forprioritiesunite testpart1 bcadcpart2 dabccpart3 bcaadpart4opening struggled progress remaining emerged continuedenlarge crawlingget through as strong asunite 2sharingt2moodsunsmilefeelingt3b-e-a-d-ct43 5t5success of the businesslast junevegetables and floweravisit my fatheramazing sightsapplicantsgetting a joblisteningt2-1people are getting angrier controlling their temperleave us feeling angry in a controlled way feel much better laughter therapy they make them laugh doing something funny theydon’t need medicinet2-21 4viewingt2-11eager pleased 2nervous awkward 3expectant excited4agitated contentedshot conversationd caadlong conversationc badpassage 1b c a apassage 2exerting fabuloustake them out approacheshad for efficient is linked withcompare favorably to boostsessionunite testpart 1 c d a a cpart 2 b c c b cpart 3 a d b a apart 4 at wheeltone expression honey divorcespeed talk me out bank accounts everything i needunite 3sharingt2 block a few of similar quite a lot wellt3 b-d-a-ct41 4 4 5 2 4 1 3 1 4t5exist as wellloud musicrespecting privacyparticipatingneeds helpconsideratepropertyfriendlyt62 3viewingt2-1 e-a-f-b-d-ct2-2 aa b cshot conversationd b c b clong conversationc b c bpassage 1 b d c dpassage 2 illegal taking family vacationsacquaintances throwing a partyverbal tolerant intervene splits the differenceresolve talk it outunit testpart 1 a c a c bpart 2 b b d a cpart 3 c b d ddpart 4winter literally community widersiblings woods explorecatching would run golf courseunit 4sharingt2c-d-a-bt3 2 3 4 5t4amazingchanged my lifemobile phoneemailscameratakinga picturefantasycakesartscreativitylisteningt2-1cheaperbetteroilsadsafetyappetiteprecisionpurplet2-2which soft drink,want things,how consumersbehave,above,a bigger share,small,i deserve the best,steam,cigarette smoke,smile,a tick symbol,positive,built-in associations,sports equipmentviewingt2-1a b cshort conversation:d b c a dlong conversation:b c d bpassage 1b c a dpassage 2vary /a large portion of /well-being /profound/accessible/ultimately /have a harmful effect on /went against/aviation /is not worth pursuingunit testpart1 b c a c dpart2 cc d a dpart3 d a b a apart4 biological /firmly / efforts /isolation /objectors/originality /modest /improve the health /morally/legislationunit 5sharingt2producerenjoysin a successful banddream jobst31 2 3 8 9 11t4footballerenoughprofessionalperformingbandworld-famoussportslater onserving peoplet5e-b-a-d-ct61 4listeningt2-1 b-c-at2-2 a b b a c a c c a bt2-3loved fashion,amazing for me,hard work,look good all the time,feeling terrible,eating delicious food,get paid,getbored,work off,i gave it up,wonderfully romantic,howtiring,ruin the grapes,worry about the weather,absolutely fascinatingviewingt2-1b d b dshort conversation:b b a d clong conversation:b a b dpassage 1d a b dpassage 2suffer from /enthusiastic /erodes /competent /clear-cut/labeling /comes down to /commonplace /tend to /focusing on part2 d c a b bpart3 a c a a dpart4 predict /identical /typical /boring /variety/dangerous /normal /some robbers /captured /right thereunit 6sharingt2readingmodern worldopportunitiesinfluencedbettert3education/right to vote/technologies/medicine/a betterlife/person of today/more values/great causes/imaginations/a bad thingt4e-b-a-c-dt52 4 6 8 9 10viewingt2-11 2 4short conversation:c a b a blong conversation:a c c bpassage 1a d bbpassage 2estimated /assassinated /was intended to /released from/made a contract with /gave way /ensued /survived /victims/perishedunit testpart1 c b a c dpart2 cc d a bpart3 c a d c dpart4 beneficial /fought /strengthened /pulled out /part /serve as/amazing /stood /sought /civilization【篇三：新视野大学英语(第三版)视听说2网课答案】=txt>网课答案unit 1 (1)sharing .............................................................................................. .. (1)listening ............................................................................................ . (1)viewing .............................................................................................. .. (2)role-play .................................................................................................... .. (2)conversations .................................................................................. (3)passage ............................................................................................ . (3)unittest .................................................................................................... . (4)unit 2 (4)sharing .............................................................................................. .. (4)listening ............................................................................................ . (5)viewing .............................................................................................. .. (6)role-play .................................................................................................... .. (6)presenting ........................................................................................ (7)conversations .................................................................................. (7)passage ............................................................................................ . (7)unittest .................................................................................................... . (8)unit 3 (9)sharing .............................................................................................. .. (9)listening ............................................................................................ . (9)viewing .............................................................................................. (10)role-play .................................................................................................... (10)presenting ........................................................................................ . (11)conversations .................................................................................. . (11)passage ............................................................................................ .. (12)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (12)unit 4 (13)sharing .............................................................................................. (13)listening ............................................................................................ .. (14)viewing .............................................................................................. (14)role-play .................................................................................................... (15)presenting ........................................................................................ . (15)conversations .................................................................................. . (16)passage ............................................................................................ .. (16)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (16)unit 5 (17)sharing .............................................................................................. (17)listening ............................................................................................ .. (18)viewing .............................................................................................. (18)role-play .................................................................................................... (19)conversations .................................................................................. . (19)passage ............................................................................................ .. (20)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (20)unit 6 (21)sharing .............................................................................................. (21)listening ............................................................................................ .. (21)viewing .............................................................................................. (22)role-play .................................................................................................... (22)presenting ........................................................................................ . (23)conversations .................................................................................. . (23)passage ............................................................................................ .. (23)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (24)unit 7 (25)sharing .............................................................................................. (25)listening ............................................................................................ .. (25)viewing .............................................................................................. (26)role-play .................................................................................................... (26)presenting ........................................................................................ . (27)conversations .................................................................................. . (27)passage ............................................................................................ .. (28)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (28)unit 8 (29)sharing .............................................................................................. (29)listening ............................................................................................ .. (30)viewing .............................................................................................. (30)role-play .................................................................................................... (31)presenting ........................................................................................ . (31)conversations .................................................................................. . (32)passage ............................................................................................ .. (32)unittest .................................................................................................... .. (32)unit 1sharingtask 2(1) new things(2) at the moment(3) quite difficulttask 31, 3, 7, 8task 41. (1) ever learned2. (1) a combination3. learning to drive4. (1) nine cases5. french6. hatedlisteningtask 2activity 1e-c-a-g-d-h-b-factivity 2(1) speak(2) saying the wrong(3) native speakers(4) pronunciation(2) found (2) body movements (2) by most standards(5) talking to himself(6) making mistakes(7) listening skills(8) listeningactivity 31. (1) embarrassed2. anything you like3. (1) voice4. (1) how it sounds5. on the internet6. sound likeviewingtask 2activity 1babaactivity 2dabadrole-playtask 2activity 11activity 2g：1, 3, 5(2) hear (2) pronunciation (2) the news (3) english television r：2, 4, 6, 7activity 31. (1)2. (1)3. (1)4. (1) you should eat should not spend why dontits a good(2) (2) (2) (2) a good youre am not sure thats suppose so conversationstask 1bddcatask 2cdacpassagetask 1dacdtask 2(1) alternative(2) numerous(3) traditional(4) academic(5) countryside(6) athletes(7) take advantage of(8) secondary(9) in a collective effort(10) serve as。

李世默TED演讲稿(英文)

Good morning. My name is Eric Li, and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution. My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries. When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity. It went like this. All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph. That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out. It became part of us, and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative. Then, the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie. Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end. This one went as follows. All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote. Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth, again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil. The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections. Now. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010. In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it. Fool me once… The rest is history. In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty. Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point. Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions. So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid,politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system. Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform. But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias. See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is, political reforms have never stopped. Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today. Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform. The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context. Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you. The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members. In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings. The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility. The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department. The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program. The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu. Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business. The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company. Once a year, the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys. Thenthey promote the winners. Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels. There, they enter high, officialdom. By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels. After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee. The process takes two to three decades. Does patronage play a role? Yes of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system. China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job. Even for him, the career took 30 years. He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars. Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone. It’s just a statement of fact. George W. Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown. Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department. Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election. Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts. In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old. Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity. Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years. Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent. Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%. Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future. Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling. Pollution is one. Food safety. Population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is corruption. Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy. But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease. They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system. But a more careful look would tell us otherwise. Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up. India, the largestdemocracy in the world, 94 and dropping. For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies. So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist. I make bets. It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions. So here they are. In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S. and become the largest economy in the world. Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries. Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I. ranking. Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm. We live in the dusk of an era. Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st. Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside. Now, I want to clarify something. I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy. On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world. It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills. If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance. China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist. Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong. It is irresponsible. And worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality. Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it?。

【美联英语】李世默-李世默TED演讲稿：两种制度的传说6

两分钟做个小测试，看看你的英语水平/test/quwen.aspx?tid=16-73675-0中国的政治模式不可能取代选举民主，因为中国从不将自己的政治制度包装成普世通用的模式，也不热衷于对外输出。

这正是关键的所在。

进一步说，中国模式的重要意义，不在于为世界各国提供了一个可以替代选举民主的新模式，而在于从实践上证明了良政的模式不是单一而是多元的，各国都有可能找到适合本国的政治制度。

China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.让我们为“元叙事”的时代画个句号吧。

共产主义和民主可能都是人类最美好的追求，但它们普世化的教条时代已经过去。

我们的下一代，不需要被灌输说，世界上只有一种政治模式，所有社会都只有一种归宿。

这是错误的，不负责任的，也是乏味的。

多元化正在取代普世化。

一个更精彩的时代正缓缓拉开帷幕，我们有没有勇气拥抱它呢?Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong. It is irresponsible. And worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you .采访环节。

(TED英文演讲)我们不要墨守成规,一成不变的教育!——观后感[修改版]

第一篇：(TED英文演讲)我们不要墨守成规,一成不变的教育!——观后感No more stereotypical education! ——Feedback Education has always been a complicated subject. A great number of renowned educators have spent their lifetime on it. But it didn’t work for long. Just like the attractive old man suggested, the education system has been stuck to a stiffness. Many kids went to school to study, and they just graduated from schools. If someone ask what they learned, they can seldom say something. It’s still worth thinking although the speech was for American education. As the lecturer said, all kids should be provided with fair education. We need to see the justice between rich kids and poor kids so that all of them can receive good education. And the most significant problem is innovation. Just like the speaker experienced, our education similarly changed nothing. Students went to school year after year, but how many succeeded in their fields? A tiny bit of them. I think this phenomenon really means something. So, what we are studying for? More than one educationists mentioned about this, but there won’t be any changes even for a while. The dilemma of education is the inner power against the innovation, which is tough to break through but we have to.Despite we might face huge challenges and failures happen, it shouldn’t stop us from making the next attempt. The other thing is that educational innovation should imitate the science innovation, innovation is expected to be processed scientifically in order to avoid unnecessary troubles. As the saying goes, education is the foundation lasting for generations. These kids nowadays are going to play important roles in our country’s rise. I believe we will witness prosperity in reality as long as our kids suffer no more from education.第二篇：ted演讲稿我们为什么要睡眠英文ted演讲稿我们为什么要睡眠英文欢迎来到聘才网，以下是聘才小编为大家搜索整理的，欢迎大家阅读。

TED演讲：自律的人生才自由中英双语演讲稿

Why somepeople findexercise harderthan othersEmily Balcetis: Vision is the most important and prioritized sense that we have. We are constantly looking at the world around us, and quickly we identify and make sense of what it is that we see.Let's just start with an example of that very fact. I'm going to show you a photograph of a person, just for a second or two, and I'd like for you to identify what emotion is on his face. Ready? Here you go. Go with your gut reaction. Okay. What did you see? Well, we actually surveyed over 120 individuals, and the results were mixed.People did not agree on what emotion they saw on his face. Maybe you saw discomfort. That was the most frequent response that we received. But if you asked the person on your left, they might have said regret or skepticism, and if you asked somebody on your right, they might have said something entirely different, like hope or empathy.So we are all looking at the very same face again. We might see something entirely different, because perception is subjective. What we think we see is actually filtered through our own mind's eye.Of course, there are many other examples of how we see the world through own mind's eye.I'm going to give you just a few. So dieters, for instance, see apples aslarger than people who are not counting calories. Softball players see the ball as smaller if they've just come out of a slump, compared to people who had a hot night at the plate. And actually, our political beliefs also can affect the way we see other people, including politicians. So my research team and I decided to test this question.In 2008, Barack Obama was running for president for the very first time, and we surveyed hundreds of Americans one month before the election. What we found in this survey was that some people, some Americans, think photographs like these best reflect how Obama really looks. Of these people, 75 percent voted for Obama in the actual election. Other people, though, thought photographs like these best reflect how Obama really looks. 89 percent of these people voted for McCain. We presented many photographs of Obama one at a time, so peopl e did not realize that what we were changing from one photograph to the next was whether we had artificially lightened or darkened his skin tone. So how is that possible? How could it be that when I look at a person, an object, or an event, I see something very different than somebody else d oes?Well, the reasons are many, but one reason requires that we und erstand a littl e bit more about how our eyes work. So vision scientists know that the amount of information that we can see at any given point in time, what we can focus on, is actually relatively small. What we can see with great sharpness and clarity and accuracy is the equivalent of the surface area of our thumb on our outstretched arm. Everything else around that is blurry, rendering much ofwhat is presented to our eyes as ambiguous. But we have to clarify and make sense of what it is that we see, and it's our mind that helps us fill in that gap. As a result, perception is a subjective experience, and that's how we end up seeing through our own mind's eye.So, I'm a social psychologist, and it's questions like these that really intrigue me. I am fascinated by those times when people do not see eye to eye. Why is it that somebody might literally see the glass as half full, and somebody literally sees it as half empty? What is it about what one person is thinking and feeling that leads them to see the world in an entirely different way? And does that even matter? So to begin to tackle these questions, my research team and I decided to d elve deeply into an issue that has received international attention: our health and fitness.Across the world, people are struggling to manage their weight, and there is a variety of strategies that we have to help us keep the pounds off. For instance, we set the best of intentions to exercise after the holidays, but actually, the majority of Americans find that their New Year's resolutions are broken by Valentine's Day. We talk to ourselves in very encouraging ways, telling ourselves this is our year to get back into shape, but that is not enough to bring us back to our ideal weight. So why?Of course, there is no simple answer, but one reason, I argue, is that our mind's eye might work against us. Some people may literally see exercise as more difficult, and some peopl e might literally see exercise as easier. So, as a first step to testing these questions, we gathered objective measurements ofindividuals' physical fitness. We measured the circumference of their waist, compared to the circumference of their hips. A higher waist-to-hip ratio is an indicator of being l ess physically fit than a lower waist-to-hip ratio. After gathering these measurements, we told our participants that they would walk to a finish line while carrying extra weight in a sort of race. But before they did that, we asked them to estimate the distance to the finish line. We thought that the physical states of their body might change how they perceived the distance. So what did we find?Well, waist-to-hip ratio predicted perceptions of distance. People who were out of shape and unfit actually saw the distance to the finish line as significantly greater than people who were in better shape. People's states of their own body changed how they perceived the environment. But so too can our mind. In fact, our bodies and our minds work in tandem to change how we see the world around us. That led us to think that maybe people with strong motivations and strong goals to exercise might actually see the finish line as closer than people who have weaker motivations. So to test whether motivations affect our perceptual experiences in this way, we conducted a second study.Again, we gathered objective measurements of people's physical fitness, measuring the circumference of their waist and the circumference of their hips, and we had them do a few other tests of fitness. Based on feedback that we gave them, some of our participants told us they're not motivated to exercise any more. They felt like they already met their fitness goals and theyweren't going to do anything else. These people were not motivated. Other people, though, based on our feedback, told us they were highly motivated to exercise. They had a strong goal to make it to the finish line. But again, before we had them walk to the finish line, we had them estimate the distance. How far away was the finish line? And again, like the previous study, we found that waist-to-hip ratio predicted perceptions of distance. Unfit individuals saw the distance as farther, saw the finish line as farther away, than people who were in better shape. Importantly, though, this only happened for people who were not motivated to exercise. On the other hand, peopl e who were highly motivated to exercise saw the distance as short. Even the most out of shape individuals saw the finish line as just as close, if not slightly closer, than people who were in better shape.So our bodies can change how far away that finish line l ooks, but people who had committed to a manageable goal that they could accomplish in the near future and who believed that they were capable of meeting that goal actually saw the exercise as easier.That led us to wonder, is there a strategy that we could use and teach people that woul d help change their perceptions of the distance, help them make exercise look easier? So we turned to the vision science literature to figure out what should we do, and based on what we read, we came up with a strategy that we call ed, "Keep your eyes on the prize." So this is not the slogan from an inspirational poster. It's an actual directive for how to look around your environment. People that we trained in this strategy, we told them tofocus their attention on the finish line, to avoid looking around, to imagine a spotlight was shining on that goal, and that everything around it was blurry and perhaps difficult to see. We thought that this strategy would help make the exercise look easier. We compared this group to a baseline group. To this group we said, just look around the environment as you naturally woul d. You will notice the finish line, but you might also notice the garbage can off to the right, or the people and the lamp post off to the l eft. We thought that people who used this strategy would see the distance as farther.So what did we find? When we had them estimate the distance, was this strategy successful for changing their perceptual experience? Yes. People who kept their eyes on the prize saw the finish line as 30 percent closer than peopl e who looked around as they naturally would. We thought this was great. We were really excited because it meant that this strategy helped make the exercise l ook easier, but the big question was, could this help make exercise actually better? Coul d it improve the quality of exercise as well?So next, we told our participants, you are going to walk to the finish line while wearing extra weight. We ad ded weights to their ankles that amounted to 15 percent of their body weight. We tol d them to lift their knees up high and walk to the finish line quickly. We designed this exercise in particular to be moderately challenging but not impossible, like most exercises that actually improve our fitness. So the big question, then: Did keeping your eyes on the prize and narrowly focusing on the finish line change their experience of the exercise? It did. People who kept their eyes on the prize told us afterward thatit required 17 percent less exertion for them to do this exercise than people who l ooked around naturally. It changed their subjective experience of the exercise. It also changed the objective nature of their exercise. People who kept their eyes on the prize actually moved 23 percent faster than people who looked around naturally. To put that in perspective, a 23 percent increase is like trading in your 1980 Chevy Citation for a 1980 Chevrolet Corvette.We were so excited by this, because this meant that a strategy that costs nothing, that is easy for people to use, regardless of whether they're in shape or struggling to get there, had a big effect. Keeping your eyes on the prize made the exercise look and feel easier even when people were working harder because they were moving faster.Now, I know there's more to good health than walking a little bit faster, but keeping your eyes on the prize might be one additional strategy that you can use to help promote a healthy lifestyle. If you're not convinced yet that we all see the world through our own mind's eye, let me leave you with one final example.Here's a photograph of a beautiful street in Stockholm, with two cars. The car in the back looks much larger than the car in the front. However, in reality, these cars are the same size, but that's not how we see it. So does this mean that our eyes have gone haywire and that our brains are a mess? No, it d oesn't mean that at all. It's just how our eyes work. We might see the world in a different way, and sometimes that might not line up with reality, but it doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. We all see the worldthrough our mind's eye, but we can teach ourselves to see it differently.So I can think of days that have gone horribly wrong for me. I'm fed up, I'm grumpy, I'm tired, and I'm so behind, and there's a big black cloud hanging over my head, and on days like these, it l ooks like everyone around me is down in the dumps too. My colleague at work looks annoyed when I ask for an extension on a deadline, and my friend looks frustrated when I show up late for lunch because a meeting ran long, and at the end of the day, my husband looks disappointed because I'd rather go to bed than go to the movies. And on days like these, when everybody looks upset and angry to me, I try to remind myself that there are other ways of seeing them. Perhaps my colleague was confused, perhaps my friend was concerned, and perhaps my husband was feeling empathy instead. So we all see the world through our own mind's eye, and on some days, it might look like the world is a dangerous and challenging and insurmountable place, but it doesn't have to look that way all the time. We can teach ourselves to see it differently, and when we find a way to make the world look nicer and easier, it might actually become so.Thank you.(Applause)为什么有些人觉得锻炼更难（自律的人生才自由）Emily Balcetis: 视觉是我们所有感觉中最重要和最优先的。

艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿中英文

艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿中英文艾玛·沃特森(Emma Watson)，1990年4月15日出生于法国巴黎，英国女演员。

以下是店铺整理了艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿，希望你喜欢。

艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿中英文Emma Watson: Gender equality is your issue too艾玛沃森：性别平等也关乎你Speech by UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson at a special event for the HeForShe campaign, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 20 September 2014联合国妇女亲善大使艾玛?沃森在2014年9月20日纽约联合国总部为“他为她”运动举行的特别活动上的演讲Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—and to do that we need everyone to be involved.This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender e quality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.今天，我们启动了一项名为“他为她”的运动。

我向你伸出手，因为我需要你的帮助。

我们希望终结性别不平等——为此，我们需要所有人都参与其中。

【最新推荐】李世默TED演讲稿-两种制度的传说-范文word版 (1页)

本文部分内容来自网络，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议请及时联系，本司将予以删除== 本文为word格式，下载后方便编辑修改，也可以直接使用==
李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说
下面是由整理的《李世默TED演讲稿:两种制度的传说》，提供中英文对照，欢迎阅读。

外婆后来告诉我，她当时抱着襁褓之中啼哭不止的我，心惊胆战地听着“武斗”的枪声。

TED演讲：两种制度的传说（3）

TED演讲：两种制度的传说(3)Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.当然，我不想造成一种误会，认为中国成为超级大国已经指日可待了。

中国当前面临重大挑战，巨大变迁带来的经济、社会问题数不胜数，譬如环境污染，食品安全、人口问题。

TED演讲—JosephNye《21世纪权力的变迁》（中英对照）5篇

TED演讲—JosephNye《21世纪权力的变迁》（中英对照）5篇第一篇：TED演讲—Joseph Nye《21世纪权力的变迁》(中英对照) I'm going to talk to you about power in this 21st century.And basically, what I'd like to tell you is that power is changing, and there are two types of changes I want to discuss.One is power transition, which is change of power amongst states.And they are the simple version of the message, is it's moving from West to East.The other is power diffusion, the way power is moving from all states, West or East, to non-state actors.Those two things are the huge shifts of power in our century.And I want to tell you about them each separately and then how they interact and why, in the end, there may be some good news.我想讨论的是21世纪的权利。

基本上我想告诉大家的是权利的变化，有两种变化是我想探讨的。

一种是权利的转移，国家和国家之间的权利变化。

这是对权利转移的简单解读，即权利正从西方转移到东方。

另一种是权利的分散，即权利的转移是从西方和东方的各个国家到非国家的范围。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

两分钟做个小测试，看看你的英语水平
/test/quwen.aspx?tid=16-73675-0
前者肩负着在全世界推动民主的使命，必要时甚至可以动用武力，来打击那些不投票不选举的邪恶势力。

(老布什、小布什、奥巴马对自由、民主和选举的发言)上述宏大叙事同样传播甚广。

根据“自由之家”的统计，全世界采用选举民主制的国家，从1970年的45个已增至2010年的115个。

近20多年来，西方的精英人士孜孜不倦地在全世界奔走，推荐选举民主这一救世良方。

The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.(。

) Now. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010. In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus.
他们声称，实行多党制和全民选举是拯救发展中国家于水火的唯一良药，只要吃下它，就一定会实现繁荣，否则，永无翻身之日。

但这一次，中国敬谢不敏。

我又被愚弄了一把。

Multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Ch inese didn’t buy it. Fool me once… (Laughter)(Applause)
历史是最好的裁判。

仅仅30多年间，中国就从世界上最贫困的农业国，一跃而为世界第二大经济体，实现6.5亿人脱贫。

The rest is history. In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.
实际上，这期间全世界80%的减贫任务是由中国完成的。

也就是说，如果没有中国的成绩，全世界的减贫成就不值一提。

换句话说，所有老的、新的民主国家的脱贫人口加起来，都不及中国一个零头。

而取得这些成绩的中国，没有实行他们所谓的选举，也没有实行多党制。

Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. 看，这是我小时候的生活必需品：粮票，上海一时每人每月肉类定额是300克。

不用说，我把外婆的份额全给吃了。

所以，我禁不住问自己，我眼前画面到底哪里不对劲儿?我的故乡上海，一切都已今非昔比，我自己的事业也蒸蒸日上，新生企业如雨后春笋般发展起来，中产阶级以史无前例的速度和规模在增长。

但根据那个宏大叙事，这一切繁荣景象本都不可能出现。

See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point. Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions. So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented
in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.
面对这一切，我开始做我唯一可以做的事，即研究它!中国的确是个一党制的国家，由中国共产党长期执政，不实行西方意义上的选举。

按照当代主流的政治理论，人们据此可以生成三个判断，即这个体制在体制上一定是僵化的、政治上是封闭的、道德上不具合法性的。

So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid(勃列日涅夫的苏联), politically closed(金氏家族的朝鲜), and morally illegitimate(伊朗).
但这些论断被证明是完全错误的。

事实恰恰相反，中国的一党制具有与时俱进的能力、选贤任能的体制、深植于民心的政权合法性，这些是确保其成功的核心要素。

Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system. 大多数政治学家断言，一党制天生缺乏自我纠错能力，因此很难持久。

但历史实践却证明这一断言过于自信。

中共已经在中国这个世界上最大的国家之一连续执政64年，其政策调整的幅度超过近代任何国家。

从激进的土改到“大跃进”运动，再到土地“准私有化”;从“文化大革命”到邓小平的市场化改革。

邓小平的继任者江泽民更进一步，主动吸纳包括民营企业家在内的新社会阶层人士入党，而这在毛的时代是不可想象的。

事实证明，中共具有超凡的与时俱进和自我纠错能力。

Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here
are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization(激进的土改) to the Great Leap Forward(大跃进), then privatization of farmland(土地私有化), then the Cultural Revolution(文化大革命), then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform(市场改革), then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.
两分钟做个小测试，看看你的英语水平
/test/quwen.aspx?tid=16-73675-0。

【美联英语】李世默-李世默TED演讲稿：两种制度的传说2

克林顿在北京大学的英文演讲稿：人权与民主的重要性

TED中文演讲稿

TED演讲：两种制度的传说

经典演讲之十八——论奴隶制度【美国】 道格拉斯

李世默--两种制度的传说

李世默--两种制度的传说

TED英语演讲：我们需要谈谈不公正

李世默ted英文演讲稿

TED掌门人的演讲经

2019-李世默TED演讲稿-两种制度的传说-范文模板 (1页)

大学英语视听说第三版答案

李世默TED演讲稿(英文)

【美联英语】李世默-李世默TED演讲稿：两种制度的传说6

(TED英文演讲)我们不要墨守成规,一成不变的教育!——观后感[修改版]

TED演讲：自律的人生才自由 中英双语演讲稿

艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿中英文

【最新推荐】李世默TED演讲稿-两种制度的传说-范文word版 (1页)

TED演讲：两种制度的传说（3）

TED演讲—JosephNye《21世纪权力的变迁》（中英对照）5篇

经典演讲之十八——论奴隶制度【美国】道格拉斯

TED演讲：自律的人生才自由中英双语演讲稿