The Imperialism of Democracy and Human Rights and the Democracy and Human Rights of Imperialism

The West’s harsh rhetoric against China has persisted for a considerable period, essentially because the U.S. leadership has gradually come to realize that their earlier assumption—that strengthening trade and engagement with China would lead it to emulate and establish a Western neoliberal financialized capitalist system—has failed: China continues to adhere to the socialist path. Former U.S. President George W. Bush and then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to blame the 2008 financial crisis on China and Chinese savings, but in reality, it was funds from Europe that fueled America’s bad credit and real estate bubble. Thus, this financial crisis was less a global crisis than a North Atlantic financial crisis. In 2011, former U.S. President Obama implemented the “Pivot to Asia” policy. Ultimately, when former U.S. President Trump declared a “new Cold War” policy against China, the intensity of Sino-U.S. contradictions reached its peak. At that time, the pandemic was raging, and China’s performance in public health and the economy starkly exposed the chaos of the U.S. pandemic response and its sharply declining economy.

西方针对中国的强硬话术已经持续了很长一段时间，本质上是因为美国的领导层逐渐开始明白，他们以前曾假设只要加强与中国的贸易和交往就会使中国模仿建立西方新自由主义金融化的资本主义制度，但现在这个假设失败了：中国继续坚持走社会主义道路。美国前总统小布什与时任美联储主席的本·伯南克(Ben Bernanke)试图把2008年金融危机归罪于中国和中国人的储蓄，但实际上，正是来自欧洲的资金滋长了美国的不良信贷和房地产泡沫，因此，这场金融危机与其说是全球危机，不如说是北大西洋的金融危机。2011年，美国前总统奥巴马实施了“重返亚太”政策。最终，当美国前总统特朗普宣布对中国实行“新冷战”政策时，中美矛盾的激烈程度达到了顶峰，当时疫情肆虐，中国在公共健康和经济领域的表现让美国混乱的抗疫表现和急剧下降的经济无所遁形。

Although current U.S. President Biden opposed Trump during the election campaign, his first year in office showed that, whether on economic, foreign policy, climate change, immigration, or racial justice issues, he continued rather than interrupted the Trump administration’s policies. Indeed, Biden, like Trump or even more so, actively pursued the U.S. new Cold War against China, only with different rhetoric. Biden abandoned Trump’s “America First” stance and returned to the traditional yet hypocritical imperialist position, pretending that everything is for the good of the world, while actually seeking to dominate, oppress, and exploit other countries, and destroying them if these goals are not achieved. Thus, he once again bet on human rights and democracy. When Western countries are plagued by inequality, poverty, distrust, social division, political discontent, and polarization, and when the anti-democratic intentions of U.S. imperialism become increasingly clear, this stance can only face growing contradictions. This article aims to explore these contradictions.

尽管美国现任总统拜登在竞选时就反对特朗普，但他任职的第一年显示，无论是在经济、外交政策、气候变化、移民还是种族正义问题上，他继续而不是中断特朗普政府的政策。的确，拜登与特朗普一样或更甚，积极推行美国对中国的新冷战，只是言辞不同。拜登抛弃了特朗普“美国优先”的立场，重返传统而虚伪的帝国主义立场，假装一切为了世界美好，实际上是寻求统治、压迫、剥削他国，达不到目的就摧毁它们，所以他再次在人权和民主上下注。当西方国家深受不平等、贫困、不信任、社会分裂、政治不满与极化的困扰时，当美国帝国主义的反民主意图变得越来越清晰可见时，这种立场只能面临日益加剧的各种矛盾。本文意在探讨这些矛盾。

I. Imperialism, Human Rights, and Democracy

一、帝国主义、人权与民主

At the 47th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, but in fact much earlier in the “court” of Western public opinion, which increasingly resembles a kangaroo court, the United States, with the assistance of its Western ally, primarily Canada, once again repeated the accusation that China is committing “genocide”

在联合国人权理事会第47届会议上，但实际上早在越来越像袋鼠法庭的西方舆论“法庭”上，美国在西方盟友，主要是加拿大的协助下，再次重复了对中国正在对新疆的维吾尔族穆斯林进行“种族灭绝”的指控。在毫无根据的情况下，他们声称代表约44个西方国家、盟友和委托国(尽管乌克兰后来退出)发言，反对联合国人权理事会中65个国家对该指控提出的反对意见。

These accusations are part of the discourse of Western human rights imperialism — imposing centuries of economic and political domination on Third World countries in the name of promoting human rights in those countries. For a long time, Western countries have justified their imperialism — whether direct colonialism or indirect political domination over the ruling strata of Third World countries — through hypocritical discourse. In the 19th century, they openly propagated racism, speaking of the "white man's burden" and their mission to civilize the rest of the world. By the mid-20th century, in a magnificent "revolt against the West," decolonization became inevitable and racism became intolerable due to the growing resistance to imperialism from communism and nationalism. Now, the most popular discourse is development, as Western countries try to attract Third World countries with promises not only of material prosperity but even of "catching up" and surpassing Western living standards (though the promises, of course, remain far from reality). However, by the end of the Cold War, Western capitalism had already begun its economic decline under the rule of neoliberalism. Now, it is too weak and too predatory even to provide modest development for Third World countries. Since then, their discourse has shifted to the non-material realm of democracy and human rights.

这些指控是西方人权帝国主义话术的一部分——以促进第三世界国家的人权为名，将其长达几个世纪的经济和政治统治强加于这些国家。长期以来，西方国家通过虚伪的话术证明其帝国主义——直接的殖民主义或间接影响第三世界国家的政治统治阶层——的正当性。在19世纪，他们公开宣扬种族主义，谈论“白人的负担”及其让世界其他地区变文明的使命。20世纪中叶，在一场波澜壮阔的“反抗西方的起义”中，由于共产主义和民族主义对帝国主义的抵抗不断增长，非殖民化变得不可避免，种族主义变得不可忍受。现在，最受欢迎的话术是发展，西方国家试图用不仅是物质繁荣，甚至是“追赶”、超越西方生活水平的承诺(当然，承诺仍然与现实相去甚远)来吸引第三世界国家。然而，冷战结束时，西方资本主义已经在新自由主义的统治下开始经济衰退。现在，它们太虚弱，掠夺性太强，甚至无法为第三世界国家提供适度的发展。从那时起，它们的话术就转向了非物质的民主与人权。

There are at least two problems here. Internally, because neoliberalism has weakened the productive economy and financialized it, the social compromise between the working class and the capitalist ruling class that emerged during the "golden age" of capitalism and liberal democracy after the Second World War is gone forever. The West boasts of its long "democratic tradition," but universal adult suffrage was largely obtained only after the Second World War, and the appearance of "genuine democracy" that Western democracy prided itself on in the postwar decades depended on the social compromise between workers and capitalists. Gone forever along with this social compromise is the stability of the liberal democratic system. Unable to secure substantive consent from the masses through material concessions, liberal democratic states have become increasingly hollowed out over the past decade. Entering the 21st century, hardly any country can deny the "hollowing out of Western democracy," not only in the capitalist Third World countries but also at the core of imperialist liberal democracy itself. Western governments in the neoliberal era have become increasingly stingy and harsh, unable to provide the people with basic material security, let alone prosperity; instead, they comprehensively suppress them, as shown by the "Black Lives Matter" movement in the United States or the "Idle No More" movement among Indigenous peoples in Canada.

这其中至少存在两个问题。在内部，由于新自由主义削弱了生产性经济并使其金融化，第二次世界大战后资本主义和自由民主的“黄金时代”出现的工人阶级与资本家统治阶级之间的社会妥协一去不复返。西方吹嘘自己有着悠久的“民主传统”,但是，成年人的民主普选权在很大程度上是第二次世界大战后才获得的，而且西方民主在战后数十年中为之自豪的“真实民主”的表象依赖于工人与资本家之间的社会妥协。与这种社会妥协一起一去不复返的就是自由民主制度的稳定。由于无法通过物质上的让步获得大众的实质性同意，自由民主国家在近十年间变得越来越空心化。进入21世纪，几乎没有国家能否认“西方民主的空心化”,不仅在资本主义的第三世界国家，而且在帝国主义自由民主的核心国家亦是如此。新自由主义时代的西方政府变得越来越吝啬和苛刻，不能为人民提供基本的物质安全，更不用说富裕了，相反，只会全面压制他们，正如美国“黑人的命也是命”运动或加拿大土著民族的“不再懈怠”运动所显示的那样。

Internationally, also due to neoliberalism, the imperial power of the West is weakening. Neoliberalism has not fulfilled its promise of revitalizing the vitality of capitalist production; instead, it has left the productive economy prostrate and encouraged predatory, speculative financialization to advance by leaps and bounds across all industries. Even if the empire once provided moderate material benefits to keep countries within its camp, this has now been replaced by an increasingly greedy and predatory relationship. This necessarily requires that governments subservient to the West — whether on the periphery of Europe or in the Third World — remain in power, even though these governments have almost no legitimacy. Western imperialism, while proclaiming the promotion of democracy and human rights, engages in color revolutions and demonizes genuine popular forces. Of course, this strategy will not succeed forever. As more and more countries leave the imperialist camp, the imperialist discourse of democracy and human rights becomes increasingly inconsistent with the actual state of democracy and human rights within imperialist countries themselves.

在国际上，同样由于新自由主义，西方的帝国力量也在减弱。新自由主义并没有实现其复兴资本主义生产活力的诺言，反而使生产性经济一蹶不振，并鼓励掠夺投机成性的金融化在各行业突飞猛进。即使帝国曾经为了让各国留在其阵营内而为它们提供适量的物质利益，但现在也被一套日益贪婪和掠夺性的关系所取代。这必然要求无论是在欧洲边缘地区还是在第三世界地区附庸西方的政府一直当权，尽管这些政府几乎没有合法性。西方帝国主义一边宣称促进民主和人权，一边又干着颜色革命和妖魔化真正的民众力量的勾当。当然，这种策略并不会永远成功，随着越来越多的国家离开帝国主义的阵营，帝国主义的民主和人权话术越来越不符合帝国主义国内的民主和人权的实际情况。

Therefore, both domestically and internationally, it is increasingly impossible for Western countries to conceal the fact that the imperialist Western countries are far from being models of democracy and human rights; rather, they are the world's primary violators of democracy and human rights.

因此，在国内和国际上，西方国家越来越不可能掩盖这样的事实：帝国主义的西方国家远不是民主和人权的典范，而是世界上民主和人权的主要侵犯者。

II. The Decline of Western Liberal Democracy

二、西方自由民主的衰落

In his U.S. presidential campaign, Biden proposed establishing a "league of democracies" among the United States and its allies to confront countries more or less regarded as "dictatorships," with the main target being, of course, China. Although his election raised hopes that he would stop Trump's new Cold War against China, it soon became clear that Biden waged this war with equal or even greater enthusiasm, albeit with slightly different means. While he likewise continued the trade war and technology war that marked the Trump era, he shifted the rhetoric of his new Cold War from "America First" to the lofty realm of democracy and human rights. He clearly hopes this will attract allies to support this already feeble and weak action, and to weaponize democracy in a new way. This will no longer be merely a pretext for economic coercion and overseas military operations; it will also serve to defend domestic democracy — making opposition to so-called "Russian interference" and "Chinese propaganda" a national security issue. The military-industrial complex, especially U.S. information/disinformation technology companies, can look forward to lucrative government contracts.

拜登在美国总统竞选中提出，在美国及其盟国之间建立一个“民主国家联盟”,以对抗那些或多或少被视为“独裁”的国家，其主要目标当然是中国。尽管他的当选燃起了人们的希望，即他将阻止特朗普对中国的新冷战，但很快就可以看出，拜登以同样甚至更大的热情来发动这场战争，只是手段略有不同而已。虽然他同样继续了标志着特朗普时代的贸易战和技术战，但他将其新冷战的言辞从“美国优先”转向了民主和人权的崇高领域。他显然希望这能吸引盟友来支持这本来就很虚弱无力的行动，并以一种新的方式把民主当作武器。这将不再仅仅是经济胁迫和海外军事行动的借口，还将捍卫其国内民主——使反对所谓“俄罗斯干涉”“中国宣传”等成为一个国家安全问题。军事工业复合体，特别是美国信息/虚假信息技术公司可以期待有利可图的政府订单。

The timing of this idea could not be better. The fate of American democracy, which has been on a downward trajectory for decades, has now reached a new low, as demonstrated by the “Black Lives Matter” protests in the summer of 2020 and the disgraceful 2020 U.S. election, with its disputed results and the occupation of the Capitol. No wonder we read in the *New York Times* that many in the Biden administration would prefer to hold a Summit for Democracy at home—focusing on U.S. injustices and inequalities, including issues such as voting rights and disinformation.

这个想法的时机再好不过。美国民主的命运，几十年来一直在走下坡路，现在已经走到了一个新低点，正如2020年夏天的“黑人的命也是命”抗议活动和不光彩的2020年美国大选，质疑选举结果和占领国会山所显示的那样。难怪我们在《纽约时报》上读到，拜登政府中的许多人更愿意在国内举行民主国家峰会——集中讨论美国的不公正和不平等，包括投票权和虚假信息等问题。

The decay of American democracy is easy to summarize. Abraham Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” By these three criteria, how does American democracy measure up?

美国民主的衰败是很容易概括的。亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln)对民主的著名定义是“民有、民治、民享”。按照这三个标准，美国民主的表现如何?

Is American democracy “of the people”? An obscenely wealthy elite dominates America’s elected institutions. Most current members of Congress are millionaires, led by the richest among them. Given the wealth of many long-serving legislators, serving in Congress is profitable. No wonder Americans’ discontent with U.S. political institutions has boiled over, sending Trump to the White House.

美国的民主是“民有”吗?一个富裕得令人发指的精英阶层支配着美国的民选机构。大多数现任国会议员都是百万富翁，他们受其中最富有的人领导。考虑到许多长期任职的议员的财富，在国会任职是有利可图的。难怪美国人对美国政治机构的不满情绪沸腾起来，将特朗普送进了白宫。

Congress may become more socially diverse, with more women and non-white members. However, it is far from truly representative of the American electorate; the women and non-white members come from the same wealthy elite. Such a political class can only practice plutocracy, not democracy.

国会可能会变得更加反映社会多元化，有更多女性和非白人议员。然而，它远远不能真正代表美国选民，其中的女性和非白人议员来自同样富裕的精英阶层，这样一个政治阶层只可能实行财阀统治，而不是民主。

American democracy is “of the people” only in a bitterly ironic sense: it is the rule of ordinary people by a rich, stingy, and punitive elite. The policies of the ruling class have created a financialized rentier economy that benefits the tiny elite they serve—the 1% that the “Occupy Wall Street” movement spoke of—in exchange for their privilege of being part of the 10%. Everyone else endures stagnant wages, increasingly unstable and scarce employment, deteriorating public services, gutted public education, bleak prospects… the list is long. The inevitable social anomie and protests are met with repression by heavily militarized police.

美国的民主只是在黑色讽刺意义上是“民有”,是一个富有而吝啬、并喜刑罚的精英阶层对普通人的统治。统治阶层的政策创造了金融化的食利经济，使他们所服务的极少数精英受益，即“占领华尔街”运动所说的1%受益，以换取他们成为10%的人的特权。其他人则承受着停滞不涨的工资，越来越不稳定和稀缺的就业，不断恶化的公共服务，被砍掉的公共教育，黯淡的前景……这个名单很长。不可避免的社会反常行为和抗议则面临着武装到牙齿的军事化警察的镇压。

Is American democracy based on “by the people”? Universal adult suffrage may exist, but it is recent and highly unstable. America’s Jim Crow laws denied formal suffrage to African Americans in the South until 1965, and they did not gain truly effective voting rights until the 1970s, precisely when the U.S. was the leader of the “free world.” Since then, neoliberal policies have created and consolidated new class divisions marked by racial distinctions, maintained by widespread voter apathy and voter suppression.

美国的民主是基于“民治”吗?普遍的成人选举权可能存在，但它是最近才有的，而且很不稳定。美国的《吉姆·克劳法》让南方非裔美国人直到1965年才有正式选举权，而且他们一直到20世纪70年代才获得真正有效的选举权，而那时正是美国作为“自由世界”领导者的年代。从那时起，新自由主义政策创造并巩固了新的以种族区分为标志的阶级划分，普遍存在的选民冷漠和对选民的压制使这种阶级划分保持不变。

Moreover, these formal democratic arrangements tell us almost nothing about how U.S. elections actually operate. They combine polling, advertising, and media in a toxic mix that incredibly distorts the truth. Campaign finance rules allow candidates to raise astronomical sums from America’s richest people. Since 1960, every president except Trump has won election by outspending their opponent. The 2020 election cost about $140 billion, double that of 2016, with Biden outspending Trump by a ratio of roughly 2:1; Biden won by a narrow margin. Elections have been reduced to an auction where the rich buy the next government. One need not admire Trump to note that he won in 2016 by exploiting the system’s weaknesses, while Biden won in 2020 by deepening them.

此外，这些形式上的民主安排几乎没有告诉我们美国选举的真正运作方式。他们将民意调查、广告和媒体有毒地结合在一起，令人难以置信地扭曲了真相。竞选筹资规则允许候选人从美国最富有的人那里筹集天文数字的资金。自1960年以来，除特朗普外，其他每一位总统都是通过比对手花更多钱的方式来赢得选举。2020年的选举费用约为140亿美元，是2016年的两倍，拜登花的钱与特朗普花的钱比率约为2∶1,拜登以微弱优势赢得了选举。选举已经沦为富人购买下届政府的活动。人们不必钦佩特朗普，就能注意到他在2016年通过利用该系统的弱点来获胜，而拜登在2020年则通过加深弱点来获胜。

As for “for the people,” the bipartisan neoliberal consensus—Republican neoliberalism of tax cuts for the rich, Democratic neoliberalism of inventing new ways for the rich to get richer, such as Obamacare—is one piece of evidence that American democracy is not for the people. Over the past 40 years, these policies have created a desperate economy for ordinary people.

至于“民主为民”,跨党派的新自由主义共识——共和党的新自由主义为富人减税，民主党的新自由主义为富人发明新的致富方式，如奥巴马医改——是证明美国民主不为民所用的证据之一。在过去的40年里，这些政策给普通人创造了一个绝望的经济。

Due to economic inequality, social and political divisions have also become entrenched. The American Marxist Mike Davis, analyzing the 2020 U.S. election, argued that before neoliberalism began, U.S. presidential elections were like “World War II, (where both sides) moved quickly, with large swaths of territory rapidly gained and lost.” Forty years of neoliberalism have turned presidential elections into something more like “World War I, with a single, largely immobile front and endless trench warfare.” Waging such a war, the two parties have become accountable only to a very narrow set of specific groups, resulting in legislative gridlock.

由于经济的不平等，社会和政治分裂也变得根深蒂固。美国的马克思主义者迈克·戴维斯(Mike Davis)在分析2020年美国大选时认为，在新自由主义开始之前，美国的总统选举竞争就像“第二次世界大战，(战争双方)快速移动，大片阵地迅速得失”。40年的新自由主义把总统大选变成了更像“第一次世界大战，只有一条基本不移动的战线和无休止的战壕战”。在进行这样的战争时，两党变得只对极少的特定群体负责，结果就是出现立法的僵局。

Rather than dreaming of leading a “Summit for Democracy,” President Biden should reflect on the rotten environment of his own office and listen to the voices of those within it: “If the United States barely has a functioning democratic system at home, how can it spread democracy or set an example for others?” Physician, heal thyself!

拜登总统与其梦想领导“民主国家峰会”,不如反思一下他的办公室所处的这种腐朽的环境，听听身处这种环境的人的意见：“如果美国国内几乎没有一个正常运作的民主制度，它怎能传播民主或为他人树立榜样?”医生，先治好你自己吧!

III. Liberal Democracy in Macpherson’s Mirror

三、麦克弗森镜子中的自由民主国家

Today’s Western arrogance on democracy is best placed in historical context. There was a time when Western critical thinkers would take seriously the democratic claims of the non-Western world. The insights of Canada’s most famous Marxist philosopher, Crawford B. Macpherson, reveal a profound and ironic asymmetry of engagement.

今天西方国家在民主上的傲慢最好放在历史背景下来看。曾经有一段时间，西方的批判思想家会认真对待非西方世界的民主主张。加拿大最著名的马克思主义哲学家克劳福德·麦克弗森(Crawford B. Macpherson)等人的见解，揭示了一种深刻的、具有讽刺意味的不对称接触。

China’s proposal of whole-process people’s democracy allows the world to understand the continuous improvement of China’s democratic process, while Biden’s “democracy alliance” cares nothing about whether American democracy is healthy, focusing solely on attacking countries designated as “authoritarian.”

中国提出的全过程人民民主让世人理解中国民主过程的不断改善，而拜登的“民主联盟”却不关心美国民主是否健康，只专注于攻击被指定为“威权主义”的国家。

As early as 2018, Biden spoke at the founding ceremony of the “Alliance of Democracies” in Copenhagen about the shortcomings of American democracy. Yet he merely indulged in partisan attacks on Trump, complaining that the U.S. was vulnerable to populism, but saying nothing about its root causes—the power of corporate money and media in maintaining a neoliberal order favorable to capital and property. Because of this order, the vast majority of American citizens suffer from stagnant wages, rising inequality, high unemployment, racism, distrust, and hopelessness.

早在2018年，拜登在哥本哈根举行的“民主国家联盟”成立典礼上谈到了美国民主的不足之处。然而，他只是沉浸在对特朗普的党派攻击中，抱怨美国容易受到民粹主义的影响，但对其根本原因——企业资金和媒体在维持有利于资本和财产的新自由主义秩序方面的力量——却只字不提。由于这种秩序，绝大多数美国公民遭受着工资停滞、不平等加剧、高失业率、种族主义、不信任和无望的折磨。

Biden’s approach also undermines international understanding of democracy. In fact, as an imperialist power, the United States does not comply with democracy and only makes concessions when forced by the reality of the balance of power. Biden seeks to replace the multilateral dialogue and negotiation of the United Nations with a “rules-based international order” concocted to serve Western corporate interests. This alliance justifies aggressive hybrid interventions, including “color revolutions,” and the disciplining of allies who are pro-China Germany or who kowtow to Russia.

拜登的做法也破坏了国际上对民主的理解。事实上，作为一个帝国主义大国，美国不会遵从民主，且仅在均势的现实迫使下才会作出让步。拜登试图用为西方企业利益服务而炮制的“基于规则的国际秩序”取代联合国的多边对话和谈判。该联盟为攻击性的混合干涉正名，这些干涉包括“颜色革命”,以及对如亲中国的德国或向俄罗斯服软的盟友进行惩戒。

As early as the 1970s, Macpherson foresaw this. For him, liberal democracy in Western capitalism, as well as democracy in socialist countries and developing countries, all “have a genuine historical claim to the title of democracy.” Whether liberal or not, the “ultimate goal” of all democracies is “the same—to provide conditions for the full and free development of the basic human capacities of all members of society.” In fact, he argued, capitalist liberal democracy faces many obstacles in achieving this goal, because its formal institutions are liberal and representative, designed to protect the rights of private property owners. Parliaments elected by groups of capitalists and feudal property owners were arenas for brokering their different interests. Only later, through the struggles of the working people, did these parliaments become “democratic.” Through a long process, parliaments gradually expanded the franchise, but not without setbacks.

早在20世纪70年代，麦克弗森就预见到了这一点。对他来说，西方资本主义的自由民主以及社会主义国家和发展中国家中的民主都是“对民主这一称号有着真正的历史诉求”。无论它们是不是自由主义，所有民主的“最终目标”都是“相同的——为社会所有成员充分和自由地发展人类的基本能力提供条件”。事实上，他认为，资本主义自由民主在实现这一目标方面障碍重重，因为它们形式上的机构是自由主义和代议制的，旨在保护私有产权者的权利。由资本家和封建有产者群体选举产生的议会，是为他们的不同利益牵线搭桥的舞台。直到后来，由于劳动人民的斗争，这些议会才变得“民主”起来。经过一个漫长的过程，议会才逐渐扩大了选举权，但并不是没有遭受挫折。

Although fascism was the most serious setback, until the 1970s laws in the southern United States prevented black citizens from voting. Even today, black votes are suppressed by Republicans and ruthlessly manipulated by Democrats. Moreover, Macpherson argued that liberal institutions became more "democratic," but also made democracy more "liberal." Constitutions and laws, along with concessions to the working people, force and fraud in elections, were combined in various ways to ensure that democratic institutions would not erode private property rights.

虽然法西斯主义是最严重的挫折，但直到20世纪70年代，美国南方的法律仍阻止黑人公民投票。即使在今天，黑人的选票也被共和党人压制，被民主党人无情地操纵。此外，麦克弗森认为，自由主义制度变得更加“民主”,但也让民主更加“自由”。宪法和法律以及对劳动人民的让步、选举中的武力和欺诈，经过不同的组合，确保了民主制度不会侵蚀私有产权。

Today, the deepening corruption of American democracy has its roots in the attempt to preserve wealth and privilege, even when its capacity to serve its own interests has sharply declined. Macpherson even warned that when socialist countries and developing countries demonstrate that protecting the rights and privileges of a minority of property owners is no longer necessary for expanding productive forces and improving efficiency, liberal democracy may prove inferior. Decades after his death, China's development achievements—the ability of the Communist Party of China to organize the greatest industrialization process in history and achieve technological and ecological leadership—have confirmed Macpherson's prediction.

今天，美国民主的腐败日益加深，其根源在于试图维护财富和特权，甚至在它为自身利益服务的能力已经急剧下降时，依然如此。麦克弗森甚至警告说，当社会主义国家和发展中国家表明，保护少数有产者的权利和特权不再是扩大生产力和提高效率的必要条件时，自由民主可能会被证明是低劣的。在他去世几十年后，中国的发展成就——中国共产党有能力组织历史上最伟大的工业化进程，并取得技术和生态方面的领导地位——证明了麦克弗森的预测。

Clearly, it is neither possible nor necessary to judge China's democracy by the concepts of Western liberal democracy, as critics do. Instead, one must look at the goals, ideals, and principles that revolutionary groups set for themselves, and how they deal with their complex history: from the early emphasis on equality to the incorporation of efficiency elements today, while striving to strengthen the operation of China's democratic system.

显然，像批评者那样用西方自由民主的理念来评判中国的民主既不可能也无必要，而是要看革命团体为自己设定的目标、理想和原则，以及他们如何对待其复杂的历史：从早期强调平等到今天纳入效率元素，同时努力加强中国民主制度的运行。

Of course, a more substantive comparison of which system can "provide conditions for the full and free development of the fundamental human capacities of all members of society" would likely find that the United States fares poorly, perhaps because its much greater income and wealth do not match the conditions for development it provides to the masses.

当然，对哪种制度能够“为社会所有成员充分自由发展人类基本能力提供条件”进行更多的实质性比较后，很可能会发现美国形象不佳，或许是因为美国的收入和财富要多很多，与其为大众提供的发展条件不相匹配。

IV. Using Decayed Liberal Democracy as a Weapon

四、把破败的自由民主当武器

This reality reached its peak in December 2021, when President Biden convened a virtual "Summit for Democracy," launching the first annual flagship event of his "big idea" (an alliance of democracies). By all accounts, the summit did not produce the expected results, which was predictable.

这种现实在2021年12月登峰造极，拜登总统召开虚拟“民主国家峰会”,开启了他的“大理念”(民主国家联盟)的首次年度标志性活动。从各方面来看，峰会并未产生预期效果，这是意料之中的事情。

The United States is in a state of blindness. In the past, it never needed to wield its liberal democratic political system as a weapon in foreign policy, but as its recent ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan shows, its economic and military capabilities are declining. However, this is by no means the worst time; the American democratic system, even more decayed than those of other Western countries, is plagued by waves of turmoil, public distrust, corruption, and discontent.

美国正处于盲目之中。它以前执行外交政策时从不需要将其自由民主的政治制度当作武器，正如最近它从阿富汗不光彩地撤军所表明的，它的经济和军事能力正在下降。但是，现在绝不是最糟糕的时候，美国的民主制度，甚至比西方其他国家的更破败，被一波又一波的动荡、民众的不信任、腐败和不满情绪所折磨。

At the summit, President Biden had to mention a small portion of the many shortcomings of American democracy, but did so very perfunctorily; he also mentioned the "global democratic recession" and promised that the United States would do better. Yet, can he deliver?

在峰会上，拜登总统不得不提到美国民主诸多缺点中的一小部分，但非常敷衍了事；他还提到了“全球民主衰退”的问题，并承诺美国会做得更好。然而，他能做到吗?

Western democracies have been in decline for decades because their governments have an overriding goal: to keep a small elite of financiers and large corporations in power at the expense of the people. They can only achieve this through increasing corruption, fraud, and manipulation of elections with money, news media, and social media. As these practices increase, "populism" has fueled growing distrust of the establishment. No wonder even Western mainstream media, which usually cheers for American actions, called the summit ill-conceived, hypocritical, misguided, divisive, and potentially counterproductive. After all, according to reports from "democracy rating agencies," the United States itself has slipped to the position of a "flawed democracy."

西方民主国家几十年来一直在衰落，因为它们的政府有一个压倒一切的目标：以牺牲人民的利益为代价，让少数金融家和大公司的精英继续掌权。它们只能通过越来越多的腐败、欺诈以及用金钱、新闻媒体和社交媒体对选举进行操纵来实现这一目标。随着这些行为的增多，“民粹主义”鼓动了对当权派的不信任日益加剧。难怪连通常为美国所作所为欢呼的西方主流媒体都称这次峰会考虑不周、虚伪、判断失误、造成分裂，并可能产生反效果。毕竟，根据“民主评级机构”的报告，美国本身已经滑落到“有缺陷的民主”的位置。

Even in the heyday of liberal democracy, things were not much better. The original political system of the capitalist heartland was liberal, with representatives of a minority of property-owning classes managing their common affairs. Only through fierce struggles by the people did they become democratic in a limited sense, that is, (gradually) extending the franchise to the adult population. However, even when they did so, their democracy remained liberal democracy. That is, they framed democracy with various constitutional restrictions—first and foremost private property rights and various "checks and balances"—to prevent the power of the people from infringing on the rights, privileges, and power of the minority elite to increasingly appropriate national income and wealth. No wonder that even in the heyday of postwar Western liberal democracies, the United States had to mobilize the CIA and its branches to maintain the capitalist system in these societies.

即使在自由民主制的全盛时期，情况也没有好到哪里去。资本主义的大本营最初的政治制度是自由主义的，少数有产阶级的代表管理他们的共同事务。由于人民的激烈斗争，他们才在有限的意义上变得民主，即(逐渐)将选举权扩大到成年人口。然而，即使他们这样做，他们的民主仍然是自由主义的民主。也就是说，他们用各种宪法的限制——首先是私有财产权和各种“制衡”——将民主框起来，以防止人民的权力侵犯少数精英越来越多地占有国家收入和财富的权利、特权和权力。难怪，即使在战后西方自由民主国家的全盛时期，美国也不得不动员中央情报局及其分支机构来维持这些社会的资本主义制度。

Whether at the G20 summit, within the North American free trade area established by the USMCA, or at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Biden has consistently failed to rally declining democracies abroad, a failure confirmed at the "Summit for Democracy." For all the talk about the "idea" of democracy, the summit's guest list included 29 countries considered "partly free" by Freedom House, a staggering figure. Although the list mercifully excluded Saudi Arabia, it included Brazilian President Bolsonaro and Indian Prime Minister Modi, whose governments horribly violated their citizens' right to life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Why were they included, while Turkish President Erdogan or Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán were excluded? Why was Juan Guaidó, who claims to be Venezuela's leader, also included? And why was Taiwan included, despite the United States accepting the One-China policy and the statement that the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China? The cloak of democracy can no longer

无论是在二十国集团峰会(G20)、《美国—墨西哥—加拿大协定》(USMCA)所建立的北美自由贸易区内，还是在格拉斯哥举行的联合国气候变化大会(COP26)上，拜登一直没能在国外集聚起衰落的民主国家，这种失败在“民主国家峰会”上也得到了证实。对于所有关于民主“理念”的发言，峰会发言嘉宾名单包括了29个被“自由之家”认为是“部分自由”的国家，令人瞠目结舌。虽然名单仁慈地将沙特阿拉伯排除在外，但包括了巴西总统博尔索纳罗和印度总理莫迪，这两个国家的政府在新冠肺炎疫情期间都令人恐怖地侵犯了其公民的生命权。为什么他们被包括在内，而土耳其总统埃尔多安或匈牙利总理欧尔班却被排除在外?为什么自称是委内瑞拉领导人的胡安·瓜伊多也被包括在内?尽管美国接受一个中国政策和中华人民共和国是中国唯一合法政府的说法，但为什么台湾也在其中?民主的外衣已经遮不住相当大部分的现实政治。

Moreover, new divergences are emerging within the traditional Western alliance. The European continent hopes to adopt a less sharp policy toward China and Russia. However, the latest Anglo-American alliance, which has emerged alongside the AUKUS [8]8 AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) is a trilateral security pact announced in September 2021, focused on nuclear-powered submarine technology and broader Indo-Pacific strategic cooperation. agreement, together with subordinate states such as Australia, tends to favor a hawkish stance.

此外，传统的西方联盟中正在出现新的分歧。欧洲大陆希望对中国和俄罗斯采取不那么尖锐的政策。然而，随澳英美联盟(AUKUS)协议一起出现的最新英美联盟，加上澳大利亚这样的附属国，更倾向于采取鹰派立场。

Although Western commentary has pointed out many dangers and shortcomings of the recently concluded summit, it has overlooked the most important danger. China and other countries can and have already fought back with severe critiques of capitalist liberal democracy, and have put forward their own reliable concepts, institutions, and practices of democracy, such as China's white paper on "whole-process people's democracy," as well as the open letters from Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to Washington, D.C., and Qin Gang, the Chinese ambassador. They say: if you want to talk about democracy, then let us talk about democracy.

尽管西方的评论已经指出，最近结束的峰会存在许多危险和缺点，但它忽略了最重要的危险。中国和其他国家可以而且已经用严厉批判资本主义自由民主的方式进行反击，并提出了他们自己关于民主的可靠概念、制度和实践，例如中国关于“全过程人民民主”的白皮书,以及俄罗斯和中国驻华盛顿特区大使阿纳托利·安东诺夫(Anatoly Antonov)和秦刚的公开信。他们说，如果你想谈民主，那就让我们来谈民主。

V. The Most Serious Violations of Democracy and Human Rights

五、对民主和人权最严重的侵犯

The liberal democracy of the West described above sounds bad enough, but it has not yet touched on the worst aspect: colonial settlers seized land, sovereignty, resources, and rights from thousands of Indigenous peoples. Just look at Canada. At the very moment when the Canadian parliament voted unanimously that China was carrying out so-called genocide in Xinjiang, and when Canada's representative to the United Nations Human Rights Committee repeated these false accusations, the centuries-long struggle of Canada's displaced Indigenous peoples for their land, rights, and sovereignty entered a new phase.

上述西方的自由民主听起来很糟糕，但还没有涉及最糟糕的方面：殖民主义定居者从成千上万的土著民族手中抢走了他们的土地、主权、资源和权利，只要看看加拿大就行了。就在加拿大议会一致投票认为中国在新疆实施所谓种族灭绝，加拿大在联合国人权事务委员会的代表重复这些不实指控时，被加拿大驱逐的原住民为争取他们的土地、权利和主权而进行的长达数百年的斗争进入了一个新阶段。

In late May 2021, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc people announced the discovery of unmarked graves of 251 children on the grounds of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which was run by the Catholic Church and funded by the federal government. For decades, Indigenous children were separated from their families at a young age, subjected to physical and sexual abuse, malnutrition (often deliberate, as part of an experiment), and a systematic program of deculturation, namely “taking the Indian out of the child.” Centuries of struggle against the Canadian settler government led to the release of the 2015 report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which concluded that what happened in these residential schools amounted to “cultural genocide.” With the discovery of the unmarked graves, people realized that the first word, “cultural,” was redundant; this was genocide.

2021年5月下旬，印第安汇流族(Tk'emlupste Secwépemc)人宣布，他们在坎卢普斯印第安寄宿学校的场地上发现了251名儿童的无名墓，该所学校由天主教教会管理，联邦政府资助。几十年来，土著儿童在年幼时就与家人分离，遭受身体和性虐待、营养不良(通常是故意的，作为实验的一部分),以及一个系统的去文化计划，即“从孩子身上夺走印第安人”。几个世纪以来反对加拿大定居者政府的斗争促成了“真相与和解委员会”(TRC)2015年报告的发布，报告的结论是在这些寄宿学校里发生的事情相当于“文化种族灭绝”。随着无名墓的发现，人们意识到第一个词“文化”是多余的，这就是种族灭绝。

Most other Indigenous nations are now using ground-penetrating radar to survey residential school sites in their regions. On June 27, 2021, another 751 unmarked graves were found on the Cowessess First Nation in southeastern Saskatchewan. There will undoubtedly be more unmarked graves.

大多数其他土著民族现在都在用地面穿透雷达对他们地区的寄宿学校场地进行探测。2021年6月27日，在萨斯喀彻温省东南部的考维赛斯第一民族(Cowessess First Nation)又发现了751座无名墓。毫无疑问，还会有更多无名墓。

Religious and secular authorities are now shifting blame back and forth: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says “sorry” and demands that Pope Francis do the same, while the Catholic Church responds that the Church operated these institutions at the behest of the Canadian state.

宗教当局与世俗当局现在正来回推卸责任：总理贾斯汀·特鲁多说“对不起”,并要求教皇方济各也这样做，而天主教会则回应说，教会是在加拿大国家的授意下运营这些机构。

As new evidence of Canada’s own chillingly real genocide comes to light, many have pointed out the extreme hypocrisy of the baseless accusations of genocide

当加拿大国内令人毛骨悚然的真实种族灭绝的新证据被发现时，很多人指出，对中国毫无根据的种族灭绝的指控非常虚伪，特鲁多却说，至少加拿大承认种族灭绝。

Is this really the case? The "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" focused only on the residential schools, ignoring numerous other misdeeds of colonialist settlers over several centuries. We can list land dispossession, violations of treaties, the removal of children by the state bureaucracy, routine racism by the public, government officials, police, and medical institutions, inadequate food, housing, and schooling, boil-water advisories, social disruption and suffering, the disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous people, and hundreds of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Yet this is far from a complete list. Moreover, the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" was not authorized to reach a conclusion of genocide, nor to legally implicate the Canadian government in this regard, and therefore it arrived at the secondary conclusion of "cultural genocide."

是这样吗?“真相与和解委员会”只关注到寄宿学校，忽略了几个世纪以来殖民主义定居者的其他众多劣迹。我们可以列举出土地被剥夺，违反条约，国家官僚机构夺走儿童，公众、政府官员、警察和医疗机构的例行种族主义，食物、住房和学校教育不足，饮用开水的警告,社会混乱和痛苦，土著人被不成比例地监禁，数百名失踪和被谋杀的土著妇女和女孩。然而，这远远不是一个完整的清单。此外，“真相与和解委员会”没有被授权得出种族灭绝的结论，也没有指证加拿大政府在法律上与此有牵连，因此它得出了“文化种族灭绝”的次要结论。

Furthermore, in keeping with the political style of Western capitalist countries, these human rights violated by imperialism can at most receive symbolic recognition, followed by partial recognition, but absolutely no substantive rectification. After all, the primary function of a capitalist country like Canada is to embody the power of its capitalist class and protect its property rights. Most ordinary citizens must engage in long and arduous struggles just to have their voices heard, and even then only weakly and distortedly. The property rights most solicitously protected by the Canadian state are those of the extractive-industry capitalist class, based on land mining and agriculture, and this lies at the very core of the violation of Indigenous rights. Canada must cease to be a capitalist state of extractive industries and colonialist settlers in order to end the genocide against Indigenous peoples and nations and restore their land, sovereignty, and rights. Whether this can occur at all without a socialist transformation equivalent to socialism is a question.

而且，按照西方资本主义国家的政治风格，这些被帝国主义侵犯的人权最多只能得到象征性的承认，然后是部分承认，绝对不会得到实质性的纠正。毕竟，像加拿大这样的资本主义国家的主要功能是体现其资本家阶级的力量和保护其产权。大多数普通公民必须进行长期艰苦的斗争，才能让他们的声音被听到，然而也只是微弱地和扭曲地被听到。加拿大国家最体贴保护的产权是那些以土地采矿和农业为基础的采掘业资本家阶级的产权，而这正是侵犯原住民权利的核心所在。加拿大必须停止成为采掘业、殖民主义定居者的资本主义国家，才能结束对土著人民和民族的种族灭绝，恢复他们的土地、主权和权利。如果没有相当于社会主义的社会转型，这一切能否发生都是一个问题。

Democracy and human rights are less a reality of capitalist society than an ideological weapon for capitalist class oppression and imperialist strategy. (Note omitted.)

民主和人权与其说是资本主义社会的现实，不如说是资本主义施行阶级压迫和帝国主义战略的意识形态武器。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑