羅思義：“民主峯會”是一場地緣政治攻擊，但中國不用擔心

【文/觀察者網專欄作者 羅思義】

美國總統拜登將於12月9日至10日召開一場被荒謬地命名為“民主峯會”的會議，然而這場峯會的特徵卻是與民主背道而馳的，在下文中我將詳細分析。這其中的部分真相在中國已經形成了廣泛而正確的共識：這不僅是一場針對中國的地緣政治攻擊，同時更是一場意識形態攻擊。

對於這樣一場國際討論，中國無需擔心。相反，中國可以從中獲益良多，因為中國在提高本國人民生活水平方面取得巨大成就。世界人民越是瞭解中國在這方面取得的非凡成就，他們就越希望自己的國家也能讓本國人民生活水平得到同等程度的改善，從而他們就會越支持中國。

但瀏覽中國媒體就會發現，美國借“民主”和“人權”之名攻擊中國時，部分中國媒體總會犯錯跟着對方的調子走，回擊不到點子上。這些錯誤包括錯誤地接受美國的民主理念。因此，中國媒體和大眾應該如何認清美式“人權”“民主”的虛偽性和欺騙性就顯得尤為重要。

這反過來引申出社會主義和自由資本主義之間存在差異這一最重要的核心問題。馬克思正是通過對自由資本主義錯誤之處的批判和對人類現實生活狀況的分析，成為了一個社會主義者，並創立了馬克思主義！馬克思的這一分析為批判自由資本主義的所有錯誤和展示社會主義（包括中國社會主義）的優越性，提供了全面的框架。因此，領悟馬克思所批判的這些問題，對於當下回應美國對中國的種種錯誤攻擊具有非常重要的現實意義和理論價值。

因此，下文將不僅列舉關乎真正的人權和民主的重要實踐案例，而且也將呈現馬克思劃時代的分析——這為弄清何謂真正的人權和民主，提供了基礎。這也是筆者在12月2日中國外交部組織的“中外學者談民主”高端對話會上的演講稿加長版。

下文將圍繞如下方面進行論述：

·美國和中國在人權和民主方面的真正區別是什麼？

·為什麼中國在現實生活中的人權和民主表現遠優於美國？

·馬克思是如何分析這些問題的核心問題的？為什麼他的理論框架可以從他自己的初始分析推及人類生活中大部分最重要的問題？

·美國偽“民主峯會”的實質是什麼？

中國婦女VS印度婦女，誰在“享有民主”？

歐洲語言中的“民主”一詞源自 “demos（people）”和“kratos（rule）” 兩個希臘單詞。因此，“民主”一詞的字面意思是“人民治理”。

因此，民主問題天然地與人權問題，即“民權”息息相關。正是在這個基本的定義之下，事實證明中國無論是在人權和民主方面的理念框架還是實現方式上都遠遠優於西方。

與“民治”這一理念相反的是，西方（更確切地説資本主義國家）往往試圖單純地用自己已經具備的特定製度模式和行政結構來定義“民主”——比如議會制，即所謂的“分權制”。但這種做法是錯誤的。真正的民主應該是關乎如何在現實中讓“民治”落到實處。

為印證這一點，我將以佔世界人口五分之一的中國婦女和印度婦女的地位舉例説明。

爭取婦女權益的印度女性示威者（圖片來源：視覺中國）

印度女性預期壽命為71歲，中國女性為79.2歲——中國女性壽命比印度女性長8年。

中國女性識字率為95%，印度女性則為65%。

印度婦女死於分娩的風險是中國的8倍。

對任何思維正常的人而言，在現實世界中，中國婦女享有的人權遠遠優於印度婦女。(雖然我説的是事實，但我一點也不為此高興，我希望印度婦女的人權得到改善，享有與中國婦女同等的權利）。

然而，美國依據自身的“民主”理念荒謬地宣稱，印度婦女的人權遠優於中國婦女——原因是，印度婦女生活在一個“議會制共和國”國家。那麼問題來了，美國是如何得出這樣一個明顯荒謬的結論的？

再以新冠疫情為例。在中國大陸，不到5000人死於新冠疫情；在美國，77.8萬人死於新冠疫情。但中國人口是美國的四倍多。如果中國的人均死亡人數與美國相同，那麼中國的死亡人數將是339萬，而非不到5000。但美國宣稱，美國的人權和民主好於中國。是什麼樣荒唐的推理才能證明出這樣一個違背所有事實的結論？

看清了“議會民主”的假象，馬克思成為了一名社會主義者

這其中所涉及的問題可以追溯到社會主義的理論起源，而社會主義正是對自由/議會民主制理論及其侷限性進行批判而發展起來的。

馬克思從自由民主主義者轉變為社會主義者的思想進程，是從1843年撰寫《黑格爾法哲學批判》時開始的。其中的原因在於馬克思發現，國家的真正作用是捍衞現有的財產關係——當然，在當時的德國，財產關係與資本主義關係較為接近。從那時起，這一理論分析得到了無數實例的充分印證。每當有人試圖讓資本主義向社會主義和平過渡，甚至接近於這一點時，資本主義國家就會出手干預——非但不會允許這一過渡按照民主原則進行，而且為了維護資本主義毫不猶豫地顛覆民主。

國際上最臭名昭著的例子是1973年智利針對民選總統薩爾瓦多·阿連德（Salvador Allende）的政變，此外我還可以舉出許多其他類似的例子——比如危地馬拉（1954年）、巴西（1964年）、洪都拉斯（2009年）、玻利維亞（2019年）。

在認清資本主義國家本質的第二年，馬克思在其著作《論猶太人問題》中對“自由民主”的資本主義國家的虛假意識形態，作出了代表性的分析。他對德國的猶太人地位進行分析時發現，自由/議會民主制理論與實踐之間存在差異。他認為，對德國的猶太人的正式限制和法律限制的取消，並沒有帶給他們真正的平等。儘管馬克思的論述是基於他所在的那個時代緊迫的政治議題，即德國猶太人的地位問題，但這一分析和前文中所涉及中國婦女和印度婦女的實際人權之間的差異分析是異曲同工的。

《論猶太人問題》和《<黑格爾法哲學批判>導言》（圖片來源：人民畫報）

馬克思圍繞“政治解放”與“人類解放”——政治中純粹形式上的平等和權利與現實世界中的極度不平等和權利缺失之間的區別，進行了分析。這部作品準確地描述了西方議會民主制的現實，是一部值得詳細引用的作品，因為其他任何話可能僅僅只能總結馬克思的分析，且不及他本人的論述來得準確。

馬克思立足於分析自由主義/議會民主制中，理論上的“人類解放”和“民治”和實際的區別，他指出：“人從某種限制中解放出來……以抽象的、有限的、局部的方式超越了這一限制。”這是因為自由/議會民主制所宣揚的“平等”，然而這種平等在現實世界並不存在。

正如馬克思就資本主義/議會民主制理論指出：“當國家宣佈出身、等級、文化程度、職業為非政治的差別，當它不考慮這些差別而宣告人民的每一位成員都是人民主權的平等享有者，當它從國家的觀點來觀察人民現實生活的一切要素的時候，國家是以自己的方式廢除了出身、等級、文化程度、職業的差別。”但實際上，這些真正的差別都沒有廢除：“儘管如此，國家還是讓私有財產、文化程度、職業以它們固有的方式，即作為私有財產、作為文化程度、作為職業來發揮作用並表現出它們的特殊本質。國家根本沒有廢除這些實際差別，相反，只有以這些差別為前提，國家才會存在。”

“天國”和“塵世”，哪裏才需要民主？

因此，馬克思發現，自由民主制的神話和現實之間有着天壤之別。關於自由民主制神話的核心，馬克思有一段經典論述：“在政治國家真正形成的地方，人不僅在思想中，在意識中，而且在現實中，在生活中，都過着雙重的生活——天國的生活和塵世的生活。前一種是政治共同體中的生活；後一種是市民社會中的生活。”

他接着説：“政治國家對市民社會的關係，正像天國對塵世的關係一樣，也是唯靈論的。政治國家與市民社會也處於同樣的對立之中……人在其最直接的現實中，在市民社會中，是塵世存在物……相反，在國家中，即在人被看作是類存在物的地方，人是想象的主權中虛構的成員；在這裏，他被剝奪了自己現實的個人生活，卻充滿了非現實的普遍性。”

馬克思認為，在德國社會中，猶太人一度走向純粹形式上的平等，但這掩蓋了真正存在的不平等。自由/議會民主制僅以狹隘、人為和刻板的方式定義“平等”和“民主”，掩蓋了真相，同時忽視了存在的真正的不平等和歧視。

後來，馬克思所分析的這種形勢一發不可收拾，最終導致人類歷史上最深重的罪行之一——德國的反猶主義演變為納粹大屠殺。

二戰期間，德國的反猶主義演變為納粹大屠殺（圖片來源：視覺中國）

這種對德國的猶太人地位的分析，為分析資本主義的真實情況，提供了一種模式。中印婦女地位的差異，以及中美新冠死亡人數的差異，均印證了這一點。

西方資本主義理論認為，印度婦女的人權優於中國婦女，因為其生活在擁有議會民主制的國家。但這恰恰體現了馬克思所稱的“天國”權利（不存在的權利）與“塵世生活”（真正的權利）之間的區別。

顯然，在現實世界中，中國婦女的人權遠遠優於印度婦女。但自由民主制理論荒謬地宣稱，印度婦女的人權優於中國婦女，因為議會民主制賦予她們純粹形式上的平等的“天國的生活”——這在現實中並不存在。

總之，自由民主制理論對民主的定義本末倒置。形式民主——刻板的、實際上並不存在的平等是最重要的，實質民主——塵世的生活則不那麼重要，正如西方國家對印度婦女與中國婦女實際的生活環境優劣對比視而不見。正如馬克思的分析中，德國的猶太人擁有的形式上的平等和現實生活中的真正的平等存在的差異一樣。

中國的民主道路

與之相反，奉行社會主義的中國遵循正確的立場。所以，中國認為，最重要的是中國婦女應該多活8年，應該識字，在分娩時死亡的風險應該大大降低。也即是説，中國最在意的是中國民眾是否得到了真正的實惠，生活品質是否真正得到了提升。而這正是“民治”和“人權”理念得到實踐的體現。

中國將適用於中國婦女的同樣原則推廣到社會的各個方面。

中國已經使8.5億人脱離了國際貧困線——中國減貧人口占同期全球減貧人口70%以上。

1949年的中國幾乎是世界上最貧窮的國家，現在的中國按照本國標準已進入小康社會。此外，按照世界銀行標準，中國將在兩到三年內躋身高收入經濟體。

中國對人類的“塵世生活”做出了巨大的貢獻，實現了人類歷史上最多數量人口生活條件的最大改善。

中國在消除貧困改善人民生活上取得了舉世矚目的成就（圖片來源：視覺中國）

也即是説，中國的政治制度是由實際結果——人民實際生活的改善程度決定，而非由刻板的程序決定。

因為中國是一個社會主義國家，所以可以將其經濟置於“民治”之下，而真正的“民治”則被資本主義私有財產經濟統治體系所排斥。

當然，在上述框架中處於次要地位的具體政治形式是由中國的歷史決定的。正如習近平所説，鞋子合不合腳，自己穿了才知道。中國當前的政治制度立足於中國共產黨的領導作用和中國共產黨全面領導的多黨合作，而這種制度是中國所特有的。中國不會建議任何其他國家照搬這套制度。

但中國所在意的是實現人民對美好生活的嚮往。也即是説，中國對民主的定義是人民當家作主，而人民當家作主才是人權得到進步的體現。中國的歷史和現實社會政治發展印證了這一點。

“民主峯會”的鬧劇

綜上所述，我們可以得出結論：資本主義國家的自由民主理念具有欺騙性和虛偽性。當然，同樣的分析適用於當下的國際問題——清晰地展現出拜登將於12月9日至10日召開的“民主峯會”是多麼的荒唐虛偽和名不符實。這恰恰是由地球上最反民主的國家主導的一場會議。

無數事實表明，美國政府在國際社會有着系統性地侵犯民主的記錄。沒有其他國家在入侵其他國家、支持反民主的政變和其他形式的侵略他國等方面可與美國相提並論。僅入侵伊拉克、空襲利比亞，發動針對阿連德政權的政變，無視聯合國幾乎一致的投票、對古巴實施長達數十年的經濟封鎖這些例子就足以證明，美國聲稱其政策以民主為準則是一場徹底的欺騙。

這些例子表明，美國政府支持哪些國家？唯一依據是誰聽命於美國，美國就支持誰！包括那些沒有任何哪怕是形式民主的國家，比如沙特。美國侵犯哪些國家？那些維護其國家利益而反對美國的國家！無論該政府實行什麼樣的政治制度。因此，即便是完全認同（錯誤的）西方自由民主理念的國家也被排除在峯會之外，比如玻利維亞和尼加拉瓜。

事實上，參加這次會議的核心成員國家幾乎都有着長期的殖民歷史，並且參與了國際法和聯合國框架之外的反民主行動，例如入侵伊拉克。正如對中國和印度婦女真實狀況的分析或者馬克思對德國的猶太人地位的分析一樣，美國打着“人權”和“民主”旗號的意識形態主張實際上是為了掩蓋一個事實——美國及其主要盟友才是國際人權事業的最大侵犯者。

一言以蔽之，説這次會議的目的是關於“民主”毫無可信度。相反，這次會議的真正目的是美國政府試圖利用“劃清界限”挑起分裂，以掩蓋其真正的政治企圖。

結論

自1949年以來，中國在提高人民生活水平方面取得了巨大成就，超過同期任何主要國家——中國是切實改善人類的“塵世生活”（現實生活），而非“天堂生活”——這是自由資本主義民主的錯誤的意識形態主張。因此，中國將在國際人權和民主討論中獲得廣泛的道義支持。但要做到這一點，中國內外宣媒體就絕不能被具有欺騙性和虛偽性的西方自由民主理念所迷惑，也絕不能對這樣的理念投降。人類歷史上最偉大的天才之一——馬克思的經歷可以給我們以指導，他的理論破除了自由主義民主的神話，也由此轉變為一名社會主義者。這不僅僅是歷史給與我們的禮物，也是回擊美國當前針對中國人民和人類真正利益的意識形態攻勢的最佳方式。

The absurdly misnamed “Democracy Summit”, to be hosted by Biden on 9-10 December, the real “non-democratic” character of which is analysed below, is widely and rightly understood in China as part of the fact that the US simultaneously launched not only an international geopolitical attack on China but also an ideological one.

China has nothing whatever to fear, and on the contrary a great deal to gain, from such an international discussion - due to the overwhelming achievements of China in improving the lives of its own people. The more the people of the world understand China’s extraordinary achievements in this the more they will want the same scale of improvement in the conditions of their people to be enjoyed by their own countries and therefore the more favourable they will be to China.

But reading the Chinese media, in some sections of this mistakes are made in replying to US attacks on “democracy” and “human rights”. These mistakes consist of falsely accepting the US framework of discussion on these issues. Therefore, it is important to clearly understand the entirely wrong basis of the US claims on “human rights” and “democracy”. This, in turn, leads to analysis of the core of the most fundamental issues of the difference between socialism and liberal capitalism. Marx precisely became a socialist (founding Marxism!) through his criticism of the errors of liberal capitalism and his analysis of the real practical situation of life of human beings. This analysis provides the comprehensive framework for critique of all the errors of liberal capitalism and demonstration of the superiority for humanity of socialism, including China’s. Therefore, understanding of these issues is of very great practical importance, as well as theoretical clarity, in replying to false US attacks on China.

The following article therefore deals both with key practical examples of the real bases of human rights and democracy and relates them to Marx’s epoch-making analysis – which provides the foundation for all real examination of the issues of human rights and democracy. It is an expanded version of a speech made on these issues to a conference organised by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 December.

This article therefore deals with:

· What are the real differences regarding human rights and democracy between the US and China?

· Why China’s position on human rights and democracy, in the real life of real human beings, is far superior to the US?

· How Marx analysed the fundamental issues on these questions - and why his framework could be expanded from his own first analysis to all the most important issues of humanity’s life?

· What is the real character of the US pseudo “summit on democracy”?

“Democracy” means the people rule – what are the practical implications of this?

The word democracy in European languages, derives from two Greek words “demos (people)” and “kratos (rule)”. So, “democracy” means literally “rule by the people”.

Democracy is presented as integrally linked to human rights, that is “people’s rights”. This is correct and will be used here. This reality shows that China’s framework and delivery on human rights and democracy is far superior to the “West’s”.

But, contrary to this fundamental concept of “rule by the people” an attempt is made in the West, more accurately by capitalist countries, to claim that democracy is instead defined purely in terms of certain formal and official structures which they possess – for example Parliament, so called “division of powers” etc. This is false. The issue of democracy is about how much in reality “rule by the people” exists.

The position of women in China and India shows the fake US definition of human rights

To illustrate the real issues involved in the issue of human rights and democracy let us start with an enormous practical example affecting almost one fifth of humanity – women’s position in China and India.

An Indian woman’s life expectancy is 71, in China it is 79.2 – a Chinese woman lives 8 years longer than an Indian woman.

In China female literacy is 95%, in India it is 65%.

The risk of a woman dying in childbirth is 8 times higher in India than in China.

In the real world, for the thinking of any normal human being, the real human rights of a Chinese woman are therefore far superior to those of an Indian woman (I say this with no pleasure at all, I would like the human rights of an Indian woman to improve to become the  equal of those of a Chinese woman).

Yet according to the US concept of “democracy” the ridiculous claim is made that the rights of an Indian woman are superior to those of a Chinese woman – because an Indian woman lives in a “Parliamentary Republic”. What concept leads to such an obviously ridiculous conclusion?

Or take Covid. Less than 5,000 people in Mainland China have died from Covid. In the US 778,000 people have died from Covid. But China’s population is more than four times that of the US. If the same number of people per capita had died in China as in the US there would be 3,390,000 Chinese people dead instead of less than 5,000. But the US claims human rights and democracy are better in the US than China! What type of absurd reasoning can try to justify such a conclusion which in violation of all the facts on the most fundamental issues of life and death?

Marx became a socialist through analysis of the errors of liberalism

The issues involved in this, go right back to the origins of socialism – which was developed precisely as a critique of the theory and limits of liberal/parliamentary democracy.

The work in which Marx became a socialist, making his transition from a liberal democrat, is his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right of 1843. Marx showed that the real role of the state was to defend the existing property relations – at that time in Germany these were approaching capitalist relations. This analysis has been fully factually confirmed by innumerable practical examples since that time. Every time that an attempt has been made on a peaceful basis to make the transition from capitalism to socialism, or even to come close to this, the capitalist state has intervened not in order to allow this transition to take place on democratic principles but, on the contrary, to overthrow democracy in order to preserve capitalism. The most infamous example of this internationally was the coup d’etat against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 but numerous other examples could be given – for example the Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), Honduras (2009), Bolivia (2019).

Having analysed the material role of the capitalist state then, the next year, Marx in his work On the Jewish Question, gave his classic analysis of the false ideology of the “liberal democratic” capitalist state. Marx demonstrated, via analysis of the position of Jews in Germany, the difference between the “official” and “formal” claims of liberal/parliamentary democracy and reality. He demonstrated that removal of formal and legal restrictions on Jews in Germany did not lead to their real equality. It is this analysis which directly relates to the difference between the real human rights of Chinese women and Indian women already considered - although Marx, dealing with an urgent political issue of his period, analysed it regarding the position of Jews in Germany.

Marx designated the difference between what he termed “political emancipation” and “human emancipation” – between purely formal equality and rights in politics and the fundamental inequality and lack of rights in the real world. This so classically sets out the reality of Western parliamentary democracy that it is worth quoting in detail – any other words would simply summarise an analysis that could not be put more clearly.

Marx put it regarding the difference between formal and real human freedom, and the real “rule of the people” that in parliamentary/liberal democracy: “man liberates himself from a restriction… in an abstract and restricted manner”. This is while liberal/parliamentary democracy proclaimed “equality” this was a fiction in the real world in which human beings lived.

Marx put it regarding the purely formal statements of capitalist/parliamentary democracy: “The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty.” But in reality, none of these real distinctions was removed: “Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their special nature. Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence.”

Marx’s analysis of the difference between the real position of Jews in Germany and the false claims of liberal democracy

Therefore, Marx showed there was a complete distinction between the myths of liberal democracy and the reality of human beings life: In a classic passage, going to the core of the myths of liberal democracy: “Where the political state has attained its true development, man – not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life – leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society”.

He went on: “The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. The political state stands in the same opposition to civil society… in the same way as religion prevails over… the secular world… In his most immediate reality, in civil society, man is a secular being…. In the state, on the other hand… he is the imaginary member of an illusory sovereignty, is deprived of his real individual life and endowed with an unreal universality.”

Marx showed that there was a move towards a purely formal equality of Jews in German society, but this concealed the real existing inequality. Liberal/parliamentary democracy obscured this reality by defining “equality” and “democracy” in only a narrow artificial and formal way while ignoring the real inequalities, and the discriminations, that existed.

This situation, and Marx’s analysis of it, later, of course, culminated in one of the greatest crimes in human history - the development of German antisemitism into the Nazi holocaust.

This analysis of the position of the Jews in Germany provided a model for the analysis of the real situation in capitalism. It is exactly this which is shown by the difference of the position of women in China and India, or the difference in deaths from Covid.  

The claim by Western capitalist theory is that women in India enjoy better human rights than women in China because of the existence of Parliamentary democracy. This precisely shows the difference between what Marx termed the “heavenly” rights, that is non-existent ones, and “earthly life” – the real one.

Obviously, the real human rights of a Chinese woman are far superior to those of an Indian woman – that is her real “earthly life”. But the theory of liberal democracy ridiculously claims that the human rights of an Indian woman are superior to those of a Chinese woman because of her “heavenly life” in a purely formal equality in Parliamentary Democracy – an equality which in reality does not exist.

In the theory of liberal democracy the world is “standing on its head”

In summary, in the theory of liberal democracy everything is “standing on it head”. The least important, a formal and in reality non-existent equality, is declared to be the most important while the “earthly life” is declared to be less important – precisely as the difference in real life conditions between a Chinese woman and an Indian woman. Or, in Marx’s analysis, the difference between the formal equality of Jews in Germany and their real life.

Socialism, and China, puts everything the right way up. It says that it is the most fundamental that a Chinese women should live 8 years longer, that she should be literate, that she should have a hugely lower risk of dying in childbirth. And then China and socialism starts from what system actually delivers this improvement in the real life of human beings. That is its conception of “rule by the people” and “human rights” is strictly practical.

China extends the same principle as applies to Chinese women to all aspects of society.

China has lifted 850 million people out of internationally defined poverty – that is more than 70% of all those who have been lifted out of poverty in the world.

China has raised itself from almost the world’s poorest country in 1949 to “moderate prosperity” by its national standards and to within two to three years of being a “high income” economy by World Bank standards.

China has produced in the “earthly life” of real human beings, the greatest improvement in the conditions of life of the greatest number of people in human history.

That is, China has a political system which is determined by real results, that is improvement in the real lives of people, not by formal processes.

Because it is a socialist country, China’s economy can be brought under “rule by the people” – which is excluded by the capitalist system of rule of the economy by private property.

Naturally the specific political form, which is secondary in the framework above, is determined by China’s history. As Xi Jinping put it, the person wearing the shoe knows whether it fits or not. China’s present political system based on the leading role of the CPC, with other political parties in alliance with the overall lead of the CPC, is specific to China. It does not propose it for any other country.

But what China has defined is the real improvement of the real conditions of humanity. That is the real improvement of the “rule by the people”. That is what has been demonstrated by China’s history and real social and political development.

The farce of the so called “democracy summit”

Finally, so far, the analysis has been made of the false analysis of liberal democracy within the framework of the nation state. But, of course, the same analysis applies to international issues – showing even more clearly the farce of the claim that Biden has called on 9-10 December a ludicrously misnamed ‘Summit for Democracy’. On the contrary, in the international sphere, this is a meeting led by the most anti-democratic countries in the world.  

Numerous facts show that US administrations have a record of systematic violations of democracy in the international sphere. No other country approaches the US in a record of invasion of other states, support of anti-democratic coups, and other forms of aggression against countries etc. It is sufficient to mention only the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the coup against Allende, the decades long economic embargo against Cuba in defiance of almost unanimous votes in the UN, to see that the claim by the US that its policies are motivated by “democracy” is quite false.

In reality these facts show that the only basis on which US administrations act is support for countries which subordinate themselves to the US, including those that have no form of democracy whatever such as Saudi Arabia. US aggression is carried out against countries which stand up for their national interests against the US whatever their form of government. Thus, even countries which fully confirm to the (false) Western liberal concepts of democracy are excluded from the summit – such as Bolivia and Nicaragua.

The facts show that key countries joining this meeting have long histories of colonialism and were participants in anti-democratic actions outside international law and the framework of the United Nations such as the invasion of Iraq. As with the analysis of the real situation of women in China and India, or Marx’s analysis of the position of Jews in Germany, the ideological claims of the US on “human rights” and “democracy” are to conceal the reality that the US, and its key allies, are the greatest practical international violators of the real rights of countries and peoples.  

In short, no credibility can be given the claim that the purpose of this meeting is about “democracy”.  It is instead about attempts by the US administration to draw false lines of divide to attempt to conceal its real policies.  

Conclusion

China’s gigantic achievements since 1949 in improving the real lives of its people, the greatest in human history in such a time frame, exactly correspond to the improvement in the “earthly life”, that is the real life, of human beings, as opposed to their non-existent “heavenly life” – that is the false ideological claims of liberal capitalist democracy.  That is why China will win in a real international discussion on human rights and democracy. But to do so its media, both international and domestic, must not allow itself to be confused by and make concessions to fake Western liberal democratic concepts. It can be guided by one of the greatest examples of genius in human history – Marx’s demolition of the myths of liberal democracy and why, therefore, he became a socialist. This is not merely an historical tribute, it is the best way to deal with the current ideological offensives of the US against the Chinese people and against the real interests of humanity.

本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。