Chinese people always love to reminisce about the "Jiang-Hu era." The reason is simple: they don't like today. But remove the people from the picture, keep only the system, and this nostalgia immediately collapses.

I. Swap the People, Keep the Story

Put the beggar version of Winnie in the 1990s: foreign capital just entering, dollars not yet piled up, fiscal pockets not full, technical means incomplete. Want to hammer society? Beyond capability, costs too high to sustain. Result: can only slide into the track of "stable growth, less trouble."

Put Jiang Zemin in today: internet governance system, platform discipline, offline surveillance cameras all in place, external environment turning confrontational, system's risk preference naturally tightens. Whoever sits in this position will use this toolkit.

Conclusion: not who is more enlightened, but what could be done at the time was limited. Not unwilling, but unable.

II. How the "Enlightened" Illusion Came About

The illusion comes from contrast effects. Compare today's tightening with the semi-tightening of those years, and the "better back then" narrative automatically holds. But those years were also tightening, just that capability boundaries determined the granularity and frequency of tightening.

Add another layer: the buyout chain hadn't broken. Orders, foreign exchange, infrastructure dividends could paper over many contradictions with money. When money is sufficient, governance appears "loose"; when money is insufficient, governance becomes "hard." Persona is just a filter from start to finish.

III. The System's Three-Piece Set (Determining Upper and Lower Limits)

Cash flow: External cash flow from reform-opening—WTO accession—globalization is the background color of twenty years of stability. Can pay wages, can prop up real estate, can extend local fiscal life, then can "buy time."

Information/organizational tools: From ministries to platforms to community grids, the more complete the online and offline control infrastructure, the lower the unit control cost, the more normalized tightening becomes.

International environment friction: External error tolerance decreases, system choosing "preventive tightening" is rational choice. Not someone's "preference" victory, but risk model victory.

IV. Why the Ministry of Truth "Low Intelligence Is Enough"

You say they're "very low," correct. But low intelligence is enough.

The public's information budget only wants to buy plots, not structure; only wants to watch "him vs him," not "how the system runs." Thus, "faction dramas" and "persona dramas" occupy all attention.

The rest: just continuously produce simplified narratives and maintain daily rations within tolerable range, society will automatically enter the "obey—complain—nostalgize" cycle. Extremely low cost, extremely stable effect.

V. Misreading Hu Jintao Is the Template

The era of "banning Japanese anime during prime time," many people today package it as an "enlightened period." Why? Because later became tighter, the previous stage was washed into "lenient." This isn't historical fact change, but reference frame shift.

Any era, just adjust the reference frame to "today is worse," the previous term will be elevated to "decent." This is nostalgic inflation.

VI. Media and Public's Shared Illusion

Media needs soap operas, public needs emotional outlets. Both sides reach unconscious collusion on "who is more enlightened": using individual personality to explain structural results.

But really transplant Jiang's strategy to today, or force Xi's strategy back to the 1990s, the system immediately destabilizes. Not leaders "suddenly going crazy," but constraint conditions changed.

VII. Conclusion

Swap the people, don't swap the toolkit and cash flow, the final policy curve will automatically converge to each era's feasible solutions.

So stop asking "who is more enlightened." The answer never changed: neither is enlightened. Just that back then couldn't be more unenlightened.

And the laughable thing about "two-legged sheep" isn't "stupidity"—but that the reference frame is fed, and this passivity is mistaken for judgment.

Colonizers and "colonized people" are indeed mutually attracted: one side provides simplified narratives, the other contributes stable obedience. Persona drama ends, system continues performing.