The Concept of Contemporary Capitalist Democracy and Its Critique

Influenced by changes in the times, capitalist democracy has theoretically developed concepts such as digital democracy and supranational democracy. How these concepts of democracy arise, through what stages of development they pass, what their essence is, and how to view these new concepts of democracy merit our in-depth analysis. This article aims to examine the concepts of digital democracy and supranational democracy within contemporary capitalist democracy, systematically sort out and distill the core viewpoints of contemporary capitalist democratic concepts, and conduct a critical analysis from the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marxism, thereby revealing the essence of contemporary capitalist democracy, clearing up ideological confusion on the issue of democracy, and, in the course of analyzing the development trends of the contemporary capitalist democratic system, strengthening our confidence in whole-process people’s democracy.

受时代变化的影响，资本主义民主在理论上发展出数字民主和超国家民主等理念。这些民主理念如何产生，经过哪些发展阶段，它们的实质是什么，如何看待这些新的民主理念，值得我们深入分析。本文旨在考察当代资本主义民主中的数字民主和超国家民主理念，系统梳理和提炼当代资本主义民主理念的核心观点，并以马克思主义的立场、观点和方法进行批判性分析，进而揭示当代资本主义民主的本质，清除民主问题上的思想混乱，在分析当代资本主义民主制度发展趋势中，增强我们对全过程人民民主的信心。

I. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy and the Internet and Economic Globalization

一、当代资本主义民主与互联网和经济全球化

The contemporary changes and developments in capitalist democracy have their specific socio-historical background; we must analyze and study new concepts of democracy from the standpoint of historical materialism. Since the end of the 20th century, with the rapid development of internet information technology and the deepening advancement of economic globalization, the bourgeoisie has continuously updated its concepts of democracy in order to find a remedy to replace representative democracy and to argue for the rationality of capitalist democracy.

资本主义民主在当代的变化发展有其特定的社会历史背景，我们必须以历史唯物主义的观点来分析研究新的民主理念。20世纪末以来，随着互联网信息技术日新月异的发展以及经济全球化的深入推进，资产阶级为了寻找替代代议制民主的良方并论证资本主义民主的合理性而不断更新民主理念。

On the one hand, Western scholars have broadened their understanding of forms of democratic participation through the development of information technology centered on the internet. The formation of the concept of digital democracy is closely related to information technology represented by the internet. At the end of the 20th century, the vigorous development of the internet led authoritative experts and political figures in capitalist countries to speculate unanimously that the internet would change the world. This included changes in the economic sphere and also directly impacted democracy in the political sphere. Against this backdrop, statements such as “the internet will revitalize democracy” and “direct electronic governance will become possible” emerged one after another. Some scholars even proposed that the internet would become a new form of democracy. Entering the 21st century, information technology centered on the internet has continued to advance globally. Driven by digital technology, human society has entered a digital age of “the Internet of Everything.” Every day, more than 4 billion people worldwide use the internet, a large portion of whom visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. “Data sharing is rapidly becoming a norm, and the scope and nature of intelligent data use will inevitably affect democracy.” In the view of supporters of digital democracy, the widespread application of information technology can help citizens broadly participate in political elections. First, information technology provides convenience for obtaining political information and communication, pushing political content to users who have not directly searched for it through algorithms, thereby improving communication between voters and candidates. For example, citizens can access voting records, campaign donations, and candidates’ policy positions through the internet. Second, information technology has changed the methods of political participation, political mobilization, and political organization. Political participation has broken through the constraints of time and space, becoming easier than ever before. In particular, social media is believed to have facilitated protest movements in capitalist countries, such as the “Yellow Vests” movement, the “Arab Spring” movements, and the “Black Lives Matter” protests. Ordinary citizens have been able to successfully organize through social media platforms to achieve political change. Third, information technology has reconstructed the public space for democratic deliberation. Deliberative democracy emphasizes dialogue, and its basic principle is that those affected (or their representatives) by collective decisions have the right, opportunity, and ability to participate in discussions about the content of those decisions. As a pluralistic, open, and equal venue, “the internet has become an important tool for forming an open and powerful public sphere,” providing a virtual public space for discussion, debate, and voting for deliberation.

一方面，西方学者通过以互联网为核心的信息技术的发展，拓宽了对民主参与形式的认识。数字民主理念的形成与以互联网为代表的信息技术密切相关。20世纪末，互联网的蓬勃发展使资本主义国家的权威专家、政界人士一致推测，互联网将改变世界。这既包括经济领域的变革，也直击政治领域中的民主。在这样的背景下，“互联网将振兴民主”“直接的电子治理将成为可能”等言论层出不穷。甚至有学者提出，互联网将成为一种新的民主形式。进入21世纪以来，以互联网为核心的信息技术继续在全球范围推进，在数字技术的带动下，人类社会进入“万物互联”的数字时代。全世界每天有超过40亿人使用互联网，其中很大一部分人访问社交媒体网站，如脸书、推特和照片墙等。“数据共享正迅速成为一种规则，智能数据使用的范围和性质必然会影响民主。”在数字民主的支持者看来，信息技术的广泛应用，可以帮助公民广泛参与政治选举。一是信息技术为获取政治信息和交流提供了便利，通过算法将政治内容推送给没有直接搜索这些内容的用户，改进了选民与候选人之间的沟通。例如，公民可以通过互联网查阅投票记录、竞选捐款和候选人的政策立场。二是信息技术改变了政治参与、政治动员和政治组织的方式。政治参与突破了时间和空间的限制，变得比以往更加容易。特别是社交媒体被认为促成了资本主义国家的抗议运动，如“黄马甲”运动、“阿拉伯之春”运动和“黑人生命至上”抗议活动。普通公民得以通过社交媒体平台成功地组织起来，实现政治变革。三是信息技术重构了民主协商的公共空间。协商民主强调对话，其基本原则是那些受集体决策影响的人(或他们的代表)有权利、有机会、有能力参与对该决策内容的讨论。作为一个多元、开放、平等的场所，“互联网已经成为形成开放的和强大的公共领域的重要工具”,为协商提供了一个可以讨论、辩论以及投票的公共虚拟空间。

On the other hand, Western scholars have updated their understanding of the boundaries of democracy in light of the deepening development of economic globalization. After the end of the Cold War, Western scholars and policymakers began to discuss the application of democracy beyond national borders in the context of the deepening development of economic globalization. The traditional view holds that nation-states have the responsibility to ensure citizens’ political participation, and citizens within their territorial boundaries are considered relevant subjects. However, since the 1990s, economic globalization has developed rapidly. The mutual exchange and connection of trade, capital, and technology have prompted the integration of markets across countries, and economic, political, and social activities have increasingly broken through the constraints of time and space, with the entire world increasingly becoming a closely interconnected organism. With the vigorous development of multinational corporations and the growing role of global financial markets, social movements have transcended the boundaries of nation-states, and cross-border social movements have intensified. The Westphalian system, established by the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and based on sovereign states, has become embroiled in debates over territorial boundaries and sovereignty. The combined effect of these factors has given rise to a “transnational public sphere.” On this issue, Nancy Fraser analyzes and points out that issues such as climate change, immigration, women’s rights, and counterterrorism are common problems faced globally, and public opinion has thus transcended the boundaries of territorial states. She argues that discussions of these issues are no longer confined to Westphalian states, nor are they disseminated through state-level media. In terms of the constituent elements of public opinion, the subjects of communication have shifted from the entire citizenry of a state to a dispersed collection of interlocutors; the content of communication has extended from national interests to a global scope, existing within transnational communities. The venue of communication has shifted from the state to deterritorialized cyberspace. The mode of communication has shifted from state print media to the supralinguistic relations of visual culture. The object of communication has shifted from sovereign territorial states to an unorganized mixture of public and private transnational power. As the public sphere expands into a transnational public sphere, the role and influence of nation-states are continuously weakened. Some Western scholars have accordingly proposed the need for a set of supranational institutions to regulate the global economy and provide rights of participation, welfare, and recognition on a global scale. Consequently, questions such as what form democracy will take and whether there will be a democracy that transcends national borders have become focal points of discussion. In response, Western scholars have begun to consider whether democracy can cross national borders and attempt to argue for its desirability and rationality. For example, Anthony McGrew points out: “In most cases, it is only in the post-Cold War era that the historically estranged literatures of international relations theory and democratic theory have begun to exhibit a common fascination with the idea of democracy beyond borders, that is, transnational (or global) democracy.” Thus, the scope of previous democratic discussions has expanded beyond national borders.

另一方面，西方学者根据经济全球化的深入发展，更新了对民主边界的理解。冷战结束后，西方学者和政策制定者开始在经济全球化深入发展的情况下讨论民主在国家边界之外的应用。传统观点认为，民族国家有责任保证公民的政治参与，其领土范围内的公民被认为是相关主体，但自20世纪90年代起，经济全球化迅猛发展，贸易、资本、技术的相互交流和联系促使各国市场相互融合，经济、政治和社会活动日益突破时间和空间的限制，整个世界日益成为一个紧密相连的有机体。随着跨国公司的蓬勃发展和全球金融市场的作用不断增强，社会运动超越了民族国家的界限，跨越国界的社会运动愈演愈烈，欧洲30年战争确立的以主权国家为基础的威斯特伐利亚体系陷入了关于领土边界和主权的争论。这些因素的共同作用催生了“跨国公共领域”。在这个问题上，南茜·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)分析指出，气候问题、移民问题、女性问题、反恐等问题是全球共同面临的问题，公众舆论也因此超越了领土国家的边界。她认为，这些问题的讨论已不再局限于威斯特伐利亚国家，也没有通过国家层面的媒体加以传播。从公众舆论的构成要素来说，交往的主体从国家全体公民变为分散的对话者集合体，交往的内容从国家利益延伸至全球范围，存在于跨国共同体中。交往的场所从国家变为去区域化的电脑空间。交往的方式从国家的纸媒变为视觉文化的超语言关系。交往的客体从主权领土国家变为公众与私人跨国权力的无组织混合体。由于公共领域扩展到跨国公共领域，民族国家的作用和影响不断被削弱。有西方学者就此提出，需要一套超国家的机构来规范全球经济，并在全球范围内提供参与、福利和承认的权利。于是民主将采取什么形式，是否会有一个超越国界的民主等问题成为讨论的焦点。对此，西方学者开始思考民主是否可以跨越国界，并试图论证其可取性和合理性。例如，安东尼·麦克格鲁(Anthony McGrew)指出：“在大多数情况下，只有在后冷战时代，历史上疏远的国际关系理论和民主理论文献才开始表现出对超越边界的民主理念，即跨国(或全球)民主的共同迷恋。”于是，先前民主讨论的范围扩展到国家边界之外。

II. Digital Democracy and Supranational Democracy within the Bounds of Bourgeois Thought

二、资产阶级思想界限下的数字民主和超国家民主

Although digital democracy and supranational democracy represent the latest developments in contemporary capitalist democratic theory, from the perspective of class attributes, they still cannot escape the bounds of bourgeois thought. Democracy built on the foundation of capitalist private ownership essentially still serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. On this point, Lenin long ago hit the nail on the head: “In any country where there is private ownership of land and the means of production, where capital rules, no matter how democratic it is, it is a capitalist state, a machine used by the capitalists to control the working class and the poor peasants. As for universal suffrage, the constituent assembly, and parliament, these are merely forms, mere empty promises, which in no way change the essence of the matter.”

虽然数字民主和超国家民主代表了当代资本主义民主理论的最新发展，但从阶级属性来看，它们仍然无法跳出资产阶级思想的界限，建立在资本主义私有制基础上的民主，本质上仍然为资产阶级利益服务。对此，列宁早就一针见血地指出：“凡是存在着土地和生产资料的私有制、资本占统治地位的国家，不管怎样民主，都是资本主义国家，都是资本家用来控制工人阶级和贫苦农民的机器。至于普选权、立宪会议和议会，那不过是形式，不过是一种空头支票，丝毫也不能改变事情的实质。”

1. Digital Democracy under the Capitalist System Cannot Achieve Genuine and Extensive Deliberation

1.资本主义制度下的数字民主无法实现真正的广泛的协商

At the end of the 20th century, capitalist countries experienced the problem of low voter turnout. To solve this problem, many Western scholars proposed that the gradually rising internet could expand ordinary citizens’ right to participate in politics and increase the efficiency of electoral participation. From then on, capitalist countries strengthened research on the relationship between information technology and democracy. In 2000, Kenneth L. Hacker published the book *Digital Democracy: Theory and Practice Issues*, putting forward the concept of digital democracy. He argued that digital democracy refers to the use of information, communication technology, and computer-mediated communication in various media (such as the internet, interactive broadcasting, and digital telephony) to strengthen political democracy or citizens’ participation in democratic communication. Jeanette Hofmann’s research, by contrast, tends to explain digital democracy from two different dimensions: as an analytical concept, digital democracy aims to study how digital technology affects the conditions, institutions, and practices of political participation and democratic governance; as a normative concept, digital democracy helps people regard democracy as an open, changing political form that is always in the process of formation. From the above summary we find that, although scholars understand digital democracy differently, they generally believe that digital democracy is a form of democracy not constrained by time, place, or other physical conditions, and that the most direct effect of digitalization is to increase voter turnout and provide new possibilities for realizing direct democracy.

20世纪末，资本主义国家出现了选民投票率较低的问题。为了解决这个问题，许多西方学者提出，逐渐兴起的互联网可以扩大普通公民参与政治的权利，提高参与选举的效率。自此，资本主义国家加强了信息技术与民主关系的研究。2000年肯尼斯·L.哈克出版了《数字民主的理论与实践问题》一书，提出数字民主理念。他认为，数字民主是指在各种媒体(如互联网、交互式广播和数字电话)中使用信息、通信技术和计算机媒介通信，以加强政治民主或公民参与民主交流。珍妮特·霍夫曼(Jeanette Hofmann)的研究则倾向于从两个不同的维度解释数字民主：作为一个分析性的概念，数字民主旨在研究数字技术如何影响政治参与和民主治理的条件、制度和实践。作为一个规范性的概念，数字民主有助于人们将民主视为一种开放的、变化的、总是在不断形成的政治组织形式。通过上述概括我们发现，尽管学者们对数字民主理解不同，但他们普遍认为数字民主是一种不受时间、地点和其他物理条件限制而实行的民主，数字化最直接的作用就是提高投票率，为实现直接民主提供新的可能性。

Influenced by political culture and political institutions, the practice of digital democracy varies among capitalist countries. As a new concept of democracy, digital democracy is highly esteemed in Europe, where digital parties have emerged, such as Spain’s “Podemos” party. These parties share the common feature of being intertwined with technology companies and digital platforms. They use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to enable people to participate in politics in a highly personalized way. Digital parties not only use digital communication as a promotional tool but also bring digital transformation into their internal decision-making structures. Within the British Labour Party, the youth organization Momentum was established, actively exploring how digital technology can play a key role in attracting new groups, empowering citizens, and building new relationships between cities and local residents, and between legislators and citizens. In August 2016, the British Labour Party published the *Digital Democracy Manifesto*, calling for “high-speed broadband and mobile connections for every household, company, and organization in Britain,” “cooperatively owned digital platforms for distributing labor and selling services,” and “publicly funded software and hardware,” attempting to equalize services and technology that are unevenly distributed in Britain. The British Labour Party sought to create a public image in the form of networks and platforms, promoting the virtual collectivity of all citizens by enhancing everyone’s online rights.

受政治文化和政治制度的影响，资本主义国家的数字民主实践有所不同。作为一种新的民主理念，数字民主在欧洲备受推崇，出现了数字政党，如西班牙的“我们可以”党等。这些政党的共同点是与技术公司和数字平台交织在一起。它们利用脸书和推特等社交媒体，使民众以非常个人化的方式参与政治。数字政党既把数字通信作为一种推广工具，又将数字转型带到其内部决策结构之中。英国工党内部成立了青年组织动量派(Momentum),积极探索数字技术如何在吸引新群体、赋予公民权利以及在城市和当地居民、议员和公民之间建立新的关系方面发挥关键作用。2016年8月，英国工党发表《数字民主宣言》,呼吁“为英国每个家庭、公司和组织提供高速宽带和移动连接”“合作拥有分配劳动和销售服务的数字平台”“公共资助的软件和硬件”,试图使英国分配不均的服务和技术实现平等化。英国工党力图打造一个以网络和平台为形式的公共形象，通过增强每个人的在线权利，促进所有公民的虚拟集体性。

Digital democracy aims to study how digital technology can help people realize genuine democracy. Some Western scholars believe that new forms of communication are revitalizing democracy. On the one hand, digital democracy combines virtual reality and organic reality, thereby overcoming to some extent the shortcomings of representative democracy and achieving a more direct democracy. For example, information and communication technology expands the scale and increases the speed of information provision, which helps expand citizens’ right to know and makes political participation easier. The internet creates a new form of organization that can directly respond to citizens’ concerns. On the other hand, digital democracy enhances political interaction. In cyberspace, mutual interactions increase. Cyberspace communication breaks through political participation traditionally confined to physical territory or the nation-state.

数字民主旨在研究数字技术如何帮助人们实现真正的民主。一些西方学者认为，新的交流方式正在重振民主。一方面，数字民主将虚拟现实和有机现实结合起来，从而在一定程度上克服代议制民主的弊端，实现更加直接的民主。例如，信息和通信技术扩大了提供信息的规模、提高了提供信息的速度，这有助于扩大公民的知情权，使政治参与更加容易。互联网创造了一种新的组织方式，能够直接回应公民的关切。另一方面，数字民主增强了政治互动。在网络空间中，彼此间的相互交往增多。网络空间通信打破了传统上局限于物理领土或民族国家的政治参与。

On the surface, digital democracy innovates and enriches electoral forms and means, and Western scholars have placed high expectations on it. However, under the capitalist system, digital democracy cannot realize genuine and extensive consultation. In capitalist countries, digital democracy clings to the thinking that “one person, one vote” and party competition are the sole criteria for democracy, simply understanding democracy as enjoying the right to vote means enjoying democracy and can realize direct democracy. Yet democracy is a practice encompassing multiple links. Exercising the right to vote is merely one link of democracy. Moreover, democracy based on digital information technology, through the single channel and method of voting alone, cannot realize genuine, extensive, and full discussion; “digitalization is unlikely to free people from the challenges democracy faces in the global economy. The openness and decentralization of the internet may also exacerbate blind spots in democratic culture and political concepts.” The internet was developed by capitalists to maximize profits; they focus only on the consumer market and do not care what happens when these tools are used for democratic elections and decision-making. Political parties and candidates in capitalist countries can use complex but opaque digital advertising tools to reach vulnerable groups, thereby manipulating election campaigns. Therefore, some Western scholars warn against becoming infatuated with the technological possibilities of digital democracy. If technology is not controlled, then digital democracy is merely symbolic participation and completely undermines the authenticity of democracy.

从表面上看，数字民主创新和丰富了选举形式和手段，西方学者也对其报以极高的期待，但在资本主义制度下，数字民主无法实现真正的广泛的协商。在资本主义国家，数字民主固守“一人一票”、政党竞争是民主的唯一标准思维，将民主简单地理解为享有投票权即是享有民主，就可以实现直接民主。然而，民主是一项涵盖多个环节的实践。行使投票权仅仅是民主的一个环节。况且，基于数字信息技术的民主仅仅通过投票这一单一的途径和方式，无法实现真实的、广泛的、充分的讨论，“数字化不太可能让人们摆脱全球经济中民主所面临的挑战。互联网的开放性和分散性也可能加剧民主文化和政治观念中的盲点”。互联网是资本家为实现利润最大化而开发的，他们只着眼于消费者市场，而不会关心如果将这些工具用于民主选举和决策会发生什么。资本主义国家的政党和候选人能够通过使用复杂但不透明的数字广告工具来接触易受影响的群体，从而操控竞选活动。因此，有西方学者警告，要避免迷恋数字民主的技术可能性。如果技术得不到控制，那么数字民主就只是象征性的参与，并彻底破坏民主的真实性。

On the one hand, information inequality is a threat to democracy. Scholars such as John S. Dryzek argue that genuine political participation requires direct discussion among citizens. Supporters of digital democracy hope to use the internet to expand the range of opinions discussed and the number of citizens who can participate in discussion. They envision large numbers of citizens visiting campaign websites, participating in online discussions, and engaging in politics in a direct way. However, due to factors such as educational level and economic income, the digital divide hidden behind the internet creates a new form of political inequality, preventing the broad masses of people from participating equally in politics. Income inequality in capitalist countries has gradually increased since the 1970s; for poor people, they have almost no right to access the internet and are at a clear disadvantage in information acquisition. The digital divide is not only reflected in information acquisition but also exists extensively in skills, culture, influence, and rights. Taking the United States as an example, in the 1990s, the internet expanded dramatically worldwide, but disadvantaged groups such as Black people, Latinos, the poor, and the elderly still lagged behind in internet access and use. Although the digital divide has narrowed in recent decades, differences in key aspects persist. Matthew Hindman argues that the persistence of the digital divide makes the failure of online deliberation even more obvious. For ordinary people in capitalist countries, relying on the internet to gain political expression has limitations. On the surface, people obtain opportunities for direct expression, but in most cases the internet cannot fulfill its promises; people’s interest demands cannot be noticed and responded to by others, especially decision-making bodies.

一方面，信息不平等是对民主的威胁。约翰·S.德雷泽克(John S. Dryzek)等学者认为，真正的政治参与要求公民之间可以直接讨论。数字民主的支持者希望借由互联网扩大所讨论的意见范围以及能参与讨论的公民人数。他们设想会有大批公民访问竞选网站、参与在线讨论，以直接的方式参与政治。但由于受教育程度和经济收入等因素的影响，互联网背后隐藏的数字鸿沟导致了一种政治不平等的新形式，广大民众无法平等地参与政治。资本主义国家的收入不平等从20世纪70年代起逐渐加大，对于贫穷的人来说，他们几乎没有上网的权利，在信息获取方面处于明显的劣势。数字鸿沟不仅体现在信息获取方面，还大量存在于技能、文化以及影响力和权利方面。以美国为例，20世纪90年代，互联网在世界范围内急剧扩张，但诸如黑人、拉美裔、穷人、老人等劣势群体仍然在网络访问与使用方面落后于人。虽然近几十年数字鸿沟已经缩小，但在关键方面的差异依然存在。马修·辛德曼(Matthew Hindman)认为，数字鸿沟的持续存在，使得网络协商的失效更加显而易见。对于资本主义国家的普通民众而言，依靠互联网获得政治表达具有局限性。从表面上看，民众获得了直接表达的机会，但是大部分情况下互联网无法兑现承诺，民众的利益诉求不能被他人，特别是决策机构注意到并得到回应。

On the other hand, false information may mislead the public’s political judgment and manipulate voters’ political participation. The fundamental attribute of the internet is that of a tool. As political participants, people increasingly rely on internet social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to conduct deliberation. However, “internet technology as a tool can be used both by ordinary people for broad political participation to promote democracy, and by elites to manipulate democracy to seize power.” In capitalist countries, monopoly over technology means monopoly over democracy. Technology companies in capitalist countries possess a powerful capacity to shape information. “In the contemporary digital economy, network communication is dominated by only a few large corporations. In particular, each independent function is subject to increasingly high monopolistic control.” Digital social media platforms allow the peddling of fake news and allow extremists to promote conspiracy theories. In this environment, due to the operation of computer algorithms, users are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. Internet companies can amplify or suppress specific information, thereby exerting a disturbing influence on democratic political debate. For example, Facebook once developed a tool called “Voter Voice,” which used vast amounts of data and intelligent algorithms to classify citizens and covertly manipulate their voting behavior. In this regard, some scholars have exposed: “We have been living in a fake democracy… This manifests as a semblance of democracy, with many promises but little effect,” and “We are now facing a new democratic scam, where elite media institutions—from the BBC and the New York Times to Google and Facebook—are exploiting the crisis brought about by the rise of anti-establishment politics, arguing that only they can maintain a credible information ecology that is consensus-based, rational, and capable of exposing ‘fake news’ and protecting ‘established facts’.”

另一方面，虚假信息可能会误导民众的政治判断，操控选民的政治参与行为。互联网的根本属性是工具。作为政治参与者，人们越来越依赖脸书和推特等互联网社交媒体平台开展协商。然而，“作为工具的互联网技术既可以被普通民众用于广泛的政治参与来推动民主，也可以被精英用来操纵民主获取权力”。在资本主义国家，对技术的垄断意味着对民主的垄断。资本主义国家的科技公司具有强大的塑造信息的力量。“在当代数字经济中，网络通信只由少数几家大公司主导。特别是，每个独立的功能都受到越来越高的垄断性控制。”数字社交媒体平台允许兜售假新闻，允许极端主义分子推崇阴谋论。在这种环境中，由于计算机算法的运作方式，用户只能接触到证实其原有信念的信息。互联网公司可以放大或掩盖特定的信息，从而对民主政治辩论产生令人不安的影响。例如，脸书曾开发一个名为“选民传声筒”的工具，通过利用大量的数据和智能算法对公民进行分类，并以隐蔽的方式操纵他们的投票行为。对此，有学者揭露道：“我们一直生活在假民主中……这表现为一种民主的表象，承诺多但收效小”,“我们现在正面临一场新的民主骗局，精英媒体机构——从英国广播公司和《纽约时报》到谷歌和脸书——正在利用反建制政治的增长所带来的危机，辩称只有它们才能维持一个协商一致的、理性的，以及可以揭露‘假新闻’和保护‘既定事实’的可信的信息生态”。

2. Supranational democracy carries a strong bourgeois character, infringing on the interests and authority of sovereign states

2.超国家民主带有浓厚的资产阶级色彩，侵害了主权国家的利益和权威

Generally speaking, the study of supranational democracy is divided into two research perspectives: one focuses on transnational democracy, and the other on global democracy.

一般认为，超国家民主研究分为两个研究视角，一种关注跨国民主，另一种关注全球民主。

James Bohman is a representative figure in the study of transnational democracy. In 2007, he published his most influential monograph, *Democracy Across Borders*, which systematically elaborated on transnational democracy. Based on a detailed study of the democratic theories beyond the nation-state proposed by Rawls, Habermas, David Held, and Dryzek, Bohman examined the global political order, shifted the research paradigm of democracy, and proposed an “alternative, pluralistic, and decentered” concept of transnational democracy. In his view, transnational democracy is a democracy that transcends the territorial boundaries of sovereign states and is an important means of achieving self-rule and human rights.

詹姆斯·博曼(James Bohman)是跨国民主研究的代表人物。2007年，他出版了个人最有影响力的专著《跨越国界的民主》,系统阐释了跨国民主。在详细研究罗尔斯(Rawls)、哈贝马斯(Habermas)、大卫·赫尔德(David Held)和德雷泽克提出的超越民族国家的民主理论基础上，博曼考察了全球政治秩序，转变了民主的研究范式，提出一种“替代的、多元的和非中心”的跨国民主理念。在他看来，跨国民主是超越主权国家领土边界的民主，是实现自我统治和人权的重要方式。

Bohman believes that the contemporary world is in a period of renewal and transformation, where economic globalization and power have exceeded the scope of nation-states, and different nations or sovereign states are not the basic units of transnational political institutions. Many collective decisions at different levels are no longer made solely by a single democratic state. Therefore, democracy must change its institutional form. Furthermore, the prospects for democratic development depend on the democratic subject. Regarding the democratic subject, democracy should be rethought in the plural form; it should no longer be understood as the rule of a singular *dêmos* with specific territorial identity and connotation, but rather as the rule of *dêmoi* across borders. According to Bohman’s analysis, economic globalization has given rise to dispersed, multi-layered polities, each with its own citizens, and these citizens have diverse, often overlapping identities. Only when their “collective will” is fully expressed can democracy break free from metaphysical assumptions and be truly realized.

博曼认为，当今世界处于更新和变革的时期，经济全球化和权力超出了民族国家的范围，不同的民族或主权国家并非跨国政治机构的基本单位。许多不同层面的集体决策不再仅由单一的民主国家作出。因此，民主要改变其制度形式。此外，民主的发展前景取决于民主主体。就民主主体而言，民主应该以复数的形式被重新思考，不应再被理解为单数的、具有特定的领土认同和内涵的人民(dêmos)统治，而是由跨越国界的人民(dêmoi)统治。按照博曼的分析，经济全球化催生了分散的多层次政体，每一个层次的政体都拥有自己的公民，而这些公民的身份是多样的，往往具有多个重叠的身份。只有他们的“集体意志”得到充分表达，民主才能摆脱形而上学的假设，并得以真正实现。

As the world’s largest and most integrated regional economic bloc, the European Union is regarded by Bohman and other scholars as the largest transnational organization and is also considered a representative model of transnational democracy. Although Bohman proposes a multi-layered form of transnational democracy, he also clearly points out that transnational democracy does not mean that borders and states will disappear. In transnational democracy, states will restructure themselves around various possibilities, such as forming new forms of citizenship.

作为当今世界规模最大、一体化程度最高的地区经济集团，欧盟被博曼等学者视为最大的跨国组织，也被认为是跨国民主的代表性模式。博曼虽然提出了多层次的跨国界民主形式，但他也明确指出，跨国民主并不意味着边界和国家会消失。在跨国民主中，国家将围绕各种可能性进行自我重构，比如形成新的公民身份形式。

John S. Dryzek is a representative figure in the study of global democracy. He believes that there is a distinction between democracy within states, transnational democracy, and democracy at the global level. He places greater emphasis on studying supranational democracy in the sense of global governance, arguing that “the globalization of democracy can be most effectively conceptualized from a deliberative perspective. The focus is on the global, not merely the transnational, level.” In 2010, Dryzek published the book *Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance*. In this book, he points out that in today’s world, political authority is separated from sovereign states and is even placed within transnational, sometimes global, political and economic processes. Examining global governance from the perspective of deliberative democracy, one should first emphasize the construction of transnational publics and the participation of discourse in transnational public spheres as components of transnational democracy. Dryzek argues that traditional liberal democracy emphasizes competitive elections and individual rights under a constitution, but this is unworkable on a global scale. In his view, compared with concepts of democracy that take competitive elections as a necessary condition, global democracy based on communication and deliberation has certain advantages. First, global democracy helps achieve global justice. Second, democratic regimes are the preferred type of institution for solving complex collective problems. Finally, to be legitimate, authority must be held accountable on a democratic basis. Dryzek believes that the practices most conducive to global democratization include: transnational social movements, international media monitoring of government actions, and individuals around the world discussing international affairs on blogs and internet forums, among others.

德雷泽克是全球民主研究的代表人物。他认为，国家内部的民主、跨国民主、全球层面的民主三者之间是有区别的。他更加注重研究全球治理意义上的超国家民主，认为“民主的全球化可以最有效地从协商的角度进行概念化。重点是全球，而不仅仅是跨国层面”。2010年，德雷泽克出版《协商治理的基础和前沿》一书。在书中，他指出，当今世界，政治权威与主权国家出现分离，甚至被置于跨国的、有时是全球性的政治和经济进程中。从协商民主的角度审视全球治理，人们应该首先强调跨国公众的构建，以及跨国公共领域的话语作为跨国民主的组成部分的参与。德雷泽克认为，传统的自由主义民主强调竞争性选举和宪法下的个人权利，但这在全球范围内是行不通的。在他看来，与以竞争性选举为必要条件的民主概念相比，沟通和协商的全球民主具有一定的优势。首先，全球民主有助于实现全球正义。其次，民主政体是解决复杂的集体问题的优选制度类型。最后，为了合法，权威必须在民主的基础上担负责任。德雷泽克认为，最能促进全球民主化的实践包括：跨国社会运动，国际媒体监督政府行为，世界各地的个人在博客和互联网论坛上讨论国际事务，等等。

Also enthusiastic about the study of global democracy is Christopher Chase-Dunn. In his view, the nature of global interconnectedness and the series of global affairs faced by contemporary states fundamentally challenge the view that democracy is limited to the scope of a single sovereign state; therefore, global democracy must be developed. However, global democracy involves the distribution of power among states and issues of governance at the global level, so global democracy is not simply the sum of all democratic states. He also points out that the current international system is mainly composed of nation-states, and the inequality of power among nation-states endows global democracy with certain defects. There are also irreconcilable contradictions between global democracy and democracy at the level of individual states, and the realization of global democracy will be a difficult process.

同样热衷于全球民主研究的还有克里斯托弗·蔡斯-邓恩(Christopher Chase-Dunn)。在他看来，全球相互联系的本质以及当代国家所面临的一系列全球性事务，从根本上挑战了民主只限于单个主权国家范围之内的观点，因此要发展全球民主。但是，全球民主涉及国家之间的权力分配关系以及全球层面的治理问题,因此全球民主并不是所有民主国家的简单相加。他还指出，当前的国际体系主要由民族国家组成，民族国家之间的权力不平等使全球民主具有某种缺陷，全球民主与单一国家层面的民主之间也存在着难以调和的矛盾，全球民主的实现将是一个艰难的过程。

Whether it is the theory of transnational democracy or the theory of global democracy, both stem from the interests of the bourgeoisie and aim to develop a supranational democracy. However, such a concept of democracy carries a strong utopian character.

无论是跨国民主理论还是全球民主理论，都是出于资产阶级的利益，旨在发展一种超国家的民主。然而，这样的民主理念具有浓厚的空想色彩。

First, the theory of supranational democracy to a certain extent infringes on the sovereignty of nation-states and obscures the class nature of democracy. Some scholars have always maintained that democracy is ultimately a form of rule, and that democracy is best represented and managed by the state. The nation-states established in modern times, especially the states existing in the contemporary international system, are important carriers of democracy. Democratic theory and practice have mainly developed within the boundaries of nation-states, constituting the legitimate foundation of state sovereignty and reinforcing the concept of the absoluteness and indivisibility of sovereignty. Transnational democracy, however, emphasizes that individuals and states should abandon their own interests to pursue democracy on a broader scale, which contradicts the defense of national interests. Although the institutions of global governance are becoming more numerous and complex, the subjects participating in these treaties and organizations remain formal sovereign nation-states; few sovereign states would exchange national autonomy for a more democratic world order. As for the establishment of supranational institutions, it infringes to a certain extent on the sovereignty of various nation-states. For example, regulatory bodies of the global economy such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank essentially serve the interests of transnational corporations, behind which stands the transnational bourgeoisie. Fundamentally, this kind of supranational democracy, which blurs national territorial boundaries, serves capital and the bourgeoisie, weakens the concept of the state, and infringes on the interests of sovereign states. Furthermore, democracy is a class-based and historical category. Democracy always belongs to a specific class; there is no supra-class democracy. The essence of the theory of supranational democracy is to obscure the class nature of democracy.

其一，超国家民主理论在一定程度上侵害了主权国家的权威，掩盖了民主的阶级性。有学者始终认为，民主最终是一种统治形式，民主最好由国家来代表和管理。近代以来建立的民族国家，特别是当代国际社会中存在的国家是民主的重要载体。民主理论与实践主要是在民族国家边界内部发展的，构成了国家主权的合法性基础，也强化了主权绝对性和不可分性的观念。而跨国民主强调，个人和国家放弃自己的利益来谋求更大范围的民主，这与维护国家利益相矛盾。尽管全球治理的机构越来越多，越来越复杂，但参与这些条约和组织的主体仍然是正式的主权民族国家，很少有主权国家会用国家自治来换取一个更民主的世界秩序。至于超国家机构的建立，在一定程度上侵害了各个民族国家的主权。如国际货币基金组织和世界银行等全球经济的监管机构，本质上是为跨国公司的利益服务的，其背后是跨国资产阶级，从根本上讲，这种模糊国家领土边界的超国家民主是为资本和资产阶级服务的，会弱化国家观念，侵害主权国家的利益。此外，民主是阶级的、历史的范畴。民主都是属于一定的阶级的，没有超阶级的民主。超国家民主理论的实质是掩盖民主的阶级性。

Second, supranational democracy cannot be substantively practiced, and democracy led by non-governmental organizations and transnational corporations may even lead to the decline of democracy. Robert Keohane argues that democracy in the sense of global governance is merely a norm, without substantive practice. Striving to develop global democracy without creating the necessary preconditions will only result in an empty, nominal global democracy, because genuine democracy “requires elections to make elected leaders accountable to the public, as well as other arrangements to make non-elected leaders accountable to elected leaders,” and global democracy cannot be truly realized. There are four reasons for this: First, no nation-state is willing to sacrifice short-term individual interests for long-term collective interests. Second, there is no common global identity and shared emotions to support democracy. Third, the rule of law has long been relatively weak in the international system. Fourth, global governance lacks a civil society capable of building social capital. As for the European Union, “the EU still has a huge ‘democratic deficit.’ Key decisions at the EU level are mainly made through agreements among political and bureaucratic elites. The constraints on decision-making are not determined by democratic processes, but are basically brought about by bargaining among the parties, and also depend on the possible consequences for domestic and international markets. Decisions depend on transactions, hierarchical structures, and markets. If the procedures requiring approval are excluded, the role of democratic processes is minimal.” Democracy is a form of the state. The nation-state is the starting framework of the world economic order; “the starting point of any democratic project must be the sovereignty of the nation-state.” Without state control, a society cannot have democracy.

其二，超国家民主无法得到实质性的实践，由非政府组织和跨国公司主导的民主，甚至会导致民主的衰落。罗伯特·基欧汉(Robert Keohane)认为，全球治理意义上的民主只是一种规范，没有实质性的实践。在没有创造必要前提条件的情况下努力发展全球民主，只会导致空洞的、名义上的全球民主，因为真正的民主“需要选举让民选领导人对公众负责，以及其他让非民选领导人对民选领导人负责的安排”,而全球民主不可能真正实现。其原因有四点：一是没有一个民族国家愿意牺牲短期的个人利益来换取长期的集体利益。二是没有共同的全球认同和共同情感来支撑民主。三是法治在国际体系中长期比较薄弱。四是全球治理缺乏能够构建社会资本的公民社会。就欧盟而言，“欧盟仍然存在巨大的 ‘民主赤字’。欧盟层面的关键决策，主要是通过政治和官僚精英之间的协议作出的。 决策所受到的限制并非由民主进程确定的，而基本上是由各方之间的博弈带来的， 同时还取决于对国内和国际市场可能产生的后果。决策取决于交易、等级结构和市场。如果排除需要批准的程序，那么民主进程的作用是微乎其微的 ”。民主是一种国家形态。民族国家是世界经济秩序的起始框架，“任何民主项目的起点必须是民族国家的主权”。没有国家控制，一个社会就不可能有民主。

III. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is a Limited and False Democracy

三、当代资本主义民主是有限度的、虚假的民主

1. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is a Limited Democracy

1.当代资本主义民主是有限度的民主

To scientifically evaluate capitalist democracy, it is necessary, from the perspective of historical materialism, to understand the origin and development of capitalist democracy. From the history of capitalist democracy, it has been limited from the very beginning. It is generally believed that Athenian democracy is the source of modern democratic thought. Although Athenian democracy established a mechanism for citizen participation, the definition of citizen had great limitations. Democracy in ancient Athens was directly built on the labor of slaves and the political exclusion and negation of women’s labor. “In pre-capitalist societies, the concepts of freedom and equality did not exist at all.” “In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, democracy is a threat to its class interests.” For most of the 19th century and part of the early 20th century, suffrage was always limited. The bourgeoisie excluded groups whose interests conflicted with its own from the political arena. Even when citizens later obtained a certain degree of suffrage, their behavior was still subject to considerable restrictions, and the majority could not exert effective influence on juries and governments at all levels simply by virtue of citizenship.

科学地评价资本主义民主，必须以历史唯物主义的观点，了解资本主义民主的起源和发展。从资本主义民主的历史来看，它从一开始就是有限度的民主。一般认为，雅典民主是现代民主思想的源泉。雅典民主虽然确立了公民参与机制，但公民的界定有很大的局限性。古代雅典的民主是直接建立在奴隶的劳动和政治、否定妇女的劳作之上的。“在前资本主义社会，自由和平等的概念是完全不存在的。”“在资产阶级看来，民主是对其阶级利益的一种威胁。”在19世纪的大部分时间和20世纪初的部分时间里，选举权一直都是有限的。资产阶级将与其利益相冲突的群体排除在政治舞台之外。即便后来公民获得了一定的选举权，公民行为也受到较大的限制，多数人不会因为有公民身份就可以对陪审团和各级政府施加有效的影响。

From the contemporary development of capitalist democracy, its limitation is prominently manifested in the exclusion of the people from participation in national governance and social governance, and the lack of complete institutional procedures and participatory practices. The people are the subjects of democracy. An effective democratic system requires not only complete institutional procedures but, crucially, the ability of the people to genuinely and fully participate in practice. In the history of the development of capitalist democracy, democracy with the right to vote but without the right to participate is not genuine democracy. The people appear to have the right to vote, yet they are excluded from democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight. The people are awakened only when they vote, and enter a dormant period after voting. Whether election promises are fulfilled, or to what extent, cannot be questioned. But even the most basic voting process is unequal. Fraser pointedly notes that status inequalities based on gender, property, and race determine the limitations of capitalist democracy. Women, due to their gender status, are excluded from formal political participation; some men are formally excluded due to property restrictions; and racialized men and women are excluded due to racial relations. It can be said that under the capitalist democratic system, restricted by race, gender, skin color, class, and region, the breadth and depth of the people’s participation in political practice are limited.

从资本主义民主的当代发展来看，其有限性突出表现为人民被排除在参与国家治理、社会治理之外，缺少完整的制度程序和参与实践。人民是民主的主体。一个行之有效的民主制度，不仅要有完整的制度程序，关键是人民能够真正地、完整地参与实践。就资本主义民主发展的历史而言，有投票权而无参与权的民主不是真正的民主。人民看似拥有选举权，却被排除在民主决策、民主管理和民主监督之外。人民只有在投票时才被唤醒，投票之后进入休眠期。选举后承诺是否能兑现，或者兑现了多少无从问起。但即便是最基本的投票环节，也存在不平等。弗雷泽一针见血地指出，以性别、财产和种族为基础的地位不平等决定了资本主义民主的有限性。女性由于其性别地位，被排除在正式的政治参与之外，部分男性则由于财产限制而在形式上被排除在外，种族化的男性和女性因种族关系被排除在外。可以说，在资本主义民主制度下，受种族、性别、肤色、阶层和地域的限制，人民参与政治实践的广度和深度都是有限的。

2. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is a False Democracy

2.当代资本主义民主是虚假的民主

In the discourse system of capitalist democracy, elections, competitive political parties, a free mass media, and representative government are its important characteristics. But in reality, these are merely formal democracy, the political model and governance philosophy of the bourgeoisie. In essence, capitalist democracy is false. Marx and Engels once criticized capitalist democracy, arguing that “within the existing bourgeois relations of production, so-called freedom means free trade, free buying and selling.” Lenin also pointed out: “Under the bourgeois system (that is, as long as private ownership of land and the means of production continues to exist), under bourgeois democracy, ‘freedom and equality’ are merely a form; in reality, they are wage slavery for the workers (who are formally free and equal), the unlimited power of capital, and the oppression of labor by capital.” Capitalist states outwardly promote their democracy and freedom as representing the rights of citizens, but in reality, they are cloaked in a false guise. The primary goal of capitalist democracy is to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the interests of the people. Politically and ideologically, capitalist states exercise tight rule and control over the broad masses, which is essentially a means for capitalist states to implement political socialization.

在资本主义民主的话语体系中，选举、竞争性政党、自由的大众媒体和代议制是其重要的特征。但实际上，这些都是形式上的民主，是资产阶级的政治模式和治理理念。从其本质来看，资本主义民主具有虚假性。马克思恩格斯曾经批判资本主义民主，认为“在现今的资产阶级生产关系的范围内，所谓自由就是自由贸易、自由买卖”。列宁也指出：“在资产阶级制度下(就是说只要土地和生产资料的私有制继续存在),在资产阶级民主下，‘自由和平等’只是一种形式，实际上是对工人(他们在形式上是自由的和平等的)实行雇佣奴隶制，是资本具有无限权力，是资本压迫劳动。”资本主义国家表面宣传自己的民主、自由，代表公民的权利，实则是披着虚假的外衣，资本主义民主的首要目标是维护资产阶级的利益，而非人民的利益，在政治上意识形态上，资本主义国家对广大民众进行严密的统治和控制，本质上是资本主义国家实行政治社会化的一种手段。

First, viewed from the developmental trajectory of capitalism, for most of its history it has had no connection whatsoever with democracy. Capitalist democracy is closely linked to the demands of the bourgeoisie. Those who genuinely enjoy democracy are primarily property owners, while others are excluded. Democracy is externally controlled by the “market” and internally confined by large corporations. Matters that fall within the scope of democracy are transferred to the “market” and to oligarchic corporate capital. Second, the expansion of democracy and freedom in capitalist states is mainly the result of various stubborn pressures. With the proletariat’s entry onto the historical stage, the ruling bourgeoisie, out of concern for protecting its own property and privileges, feared that the workers’ movement and left-wing movements would produce expansive consequences threatening their political dominance, and therefore conceded certain rights, such as the right to vote. In reality, however, the expansion of the franchise was achieved by the people through struggle against various restrictions—class, gender, and race. The German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck points out that democracy is the right of the people, an arrangement in which the majority exercises and controls interests. But in capitalist states, such democratic rights are illusory. The democratic rights that people in capitalist states are now seen to enjoy were, historically, the result of a compromise between capitalism and the working class—that is, accepting capitalist rule in exchange for political democracy. Finally, elections in capitalist states are essentially a competition for power among political elites, with the people excluded. It is generally believed that the democracy of capitalist states is prominently reflected in their electoral systems. Although capitalist states frequently see the removal of elected officials, the ousting of incumbent governments, and governments forced to pursue relatively radical reforms, these changes cannot fundamentally alter the nature of the capitalist state. So-called press freedom also has certain boundaries; it is relative, not absolute. In capitalist states, “no field reflects the democratic diversity and political free competition vaunted by the ‘open society’ of developed capitalism more efficiently than the field of communication—publications, written language in general, radio broadcasting, television, film, and theater.” As the true subjects of democracy, the people have no畅通 channels for expressing their interests and demands and cannot effectively participate in the political life and social management of the state.

首先，从资本主义的发展历程来看，大部分时间里它都同民主没有丝毫联系。资本主义民主与资产阶级的要求紧密相连。真正意义上享有民主的主要是财产所有者，其他人则被排除在外。民主在外被“市场”左右，在内被大公司禁锢。隶属于民主范围内的事物被转移给“市场”和寡头公司资本。其次，资本主义国家民主和自由的扩大主要是各种顽固压力的结果。随着无产阶级登上历史舞台，占统治地位的资产阶级出于保护自身财产和特权的考虑，害怕工人运动和左翼运动会造成扩大性的后果，威胁他们的政治统治地位，进而让渡了一些权利，比如选举权。但实际上，选举权的扩大是人民通过斗争反对各种限制——阶级、性别和种族——而取得成功的。德国社会学家沃尔夫冈·施特雷克(Wolfgang Streeck)指出，民主是人民的权利，是一种由多数人行使和控制利益的安排。但在资本主义国家，这样的民主权利是虚假的。现在看到的一些资本主义国家民众享有的民主权利，在历史上是资本主义同工人阶级妥协的结果，即接受资本主义统治来换取政治上的民主。最后，资本主义国家的选举实质上是政治精英之间的权力竞争，人民被排除在外。一般认为，资本主义国家的民主突出反映在它的选举制度。资本主义国家虽然经常出现废除当选的官员、将执政的政府赶下台、迫使政府寻求较为激进的改革，但这些并不能从根本上改变资本主义国家的性质。所谓的新闻自由也有一定的边界，是相对的，而非绝对的。资本主义国家“没有哪个领域在反映发达资本主义‘开放的社会’自诩的民主多样性和政治自由竞争时，比传播领域——出版物、一般的书面语言、无线电广播、电视、电影和戏剧——更有效率”。作为民主真正的主体，人民没有畅通表达利益和要求的渠道，无法有效地参与国家的政治生活和社会管理。

3. The Fundamental Purpose of Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is to Maintain and Consolidate Bourgeois Rule

3.当代资本主义民主的根本目的在于维护和巩固资产阶级的统治

The basic meaning of democracy is “the people’s right” and “the people governing and ruling.” But democracy is the product of class struggle. In a class society, democracy serves the ruling class. As part of the superstructure, democracy is determined by a given economic base and inevitably serves the economic base that determines it. “Any democracy, like any political superstructure… ultimately serves production, and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in that society.” On the essence of capitalist democracy, Lenin clearly stated that the essence of capitalist democracy is to guarantee the bourgeoisie’s property rights through the “best political shell” of “democracy,” to deploy and unleash the power of the bourgeoisie, and to ensure the bourgeoisie’s rule over the proletariat and the masses. Once democracy is controlled by capital, it in turn consolidates the position and power of capital: “No change of personnel, no change of institutions, no change of parties can shake this power.” Therefore, only by starting from socio-economic relations and finding the real basis for the existence of democracy can the essence of democracy be truly revealed. Contemporary capitalist democracy is rooted in the soil of capitalist society, and its economic base is private ownership. Under conditions of private ownership, the working people are always in a position of being exploited, enslaved, and oppressed. In capitalist states, the political rule of the bourgeoisie is merely formal democracy; its fundamental purpose is to maintain and consolidate economic enslavement and oppression under this form of ownership. Fraser clearly states: “Capitalism is inherently profoundly undemocratic”; capitalism “excludes a series of life-and-death issues from the public agenda, handing them over to capital, and capitalist society offers only a severely shrunken copy of democracy. It places citizens who should be self-governing under the despotic rule of capital, making it a crucible of political injustice.” Capitalists “will preemptively exclude the most important matters entirely from the scope of democratic decision-making.” With the development of economic globalization, the political elites of capitalist states have become appendages of a transnational bourgeoisie rooted in transnational corporations. To meet the needs of transnational capital and the bourgeoisie, capitalist democracy, under the banner of human rights, flagrantly interferes in the political agendas of other countries.

民主的基本含义是“人民的权利”“人民进行治理、统治”。但民主是阶级斗争的产物。在阶级社会中，民主是服务于统治阶级的。作为上层建筑的一部分，民主由一定的经济基础决定，它势必会服务于决定自身的经济基础。“任何民主，和任何政治上层建筑一样……归根到底是为生产服务的，并且归根到底是由该社会中的生产关系决定的。”关于资本主义民主的实质，列宁曾明确指出，资本主义民主的实质是通过“民主制”这一“最好的政治外壳”来保障资产阶级的财产所有权，调配和发挥资产阶级的力量，保障资产阶级对无产阶级和人民大众的统治。民主一旦受资本的控制，就会反过来巩固资本的地位与权力，“无论人员、无论机构、无论政党的任何更换，都不会使这个权力动摇”。因此，只有从社会经济关系出发，找到民主存在的现实依据，才能真正揭示民主的实质。当代资本主义民主根植于资本主义社会的土壤中，其经济基础是私有制。在私有制条件下，劳动者始终处于被剥削、被奴役、被压迫的地位。在资本主义国家，资产阶级的政治统治，只是形式上的民主，其根本目的都是维持和巩固这种所有制关系下的经济奴役和压迫。弗雷泽就明确指出：“资本主义在本质上是极其不民主的”,资本主义“把一系列生死攸关的问题从公共议程中排除出去，移交给资本，而资本主义社会提供的只是一个严重缩水的民主摹本。它们把本应自治的公民置于资本的专制统治之下，是政治不公正的熔炉”。资本家“会先发制人地把最重要的事项完全排除在民主决策范围之外”。随着经济全球化的发展，资本主义国家的政治精英成为植根于跨国公司的跨国资产阶级的附庸。为了满足跨国资本和资产阶级的需要，资本主义民主打着人权的旗号，肆意干涉他国的政治议程。

Although contemporary capitalist democratic theory has engaged in active exploration, it is limited to procedures and carries no substantive commitments. These explorations are essentially capitalism’s self-adjustment and reform. The British left-wing political scientist Ralph Miliband pointed out incisively that the Western parliamentary system ensures that the people participate in politics within appropriate and meaningful limits, while simultaneously preventing them from enjoying decision-making power. Bourgeois rule absolutely will not allow mass democracy to develop fully, because this would undermine the power of the capitalist class. Capitalist democracy is merely a tool for maintaining the will of the bourgeoisie; the people’s will is completely excluded.

尽管当代资本主义民主理论进行了积极的探索，但它仅限于程序，并未承载实质性的承诺。这些探索本质上是资本主义的自我调节与改良。英国左翼政治学家密里本德(Ralph Miliband)就曾一针见血地指出，西方的议会制度确保了民众在适当的和有意义的范围内参与政治，但同时要避免让民众享有决策的权力。资产阶级统治绝不允许大众民主充分发展，因为这会破坏资本家阶级的力量。资本主义民主只是维护资产阶级意志的工具，人民的意愿完全被排除在外。

IV. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Increasingly Manifests a Trend of Vertical Decline

四、当代资本主义民主愈发表现出垂直衰落的趋势

The Western bourgeois democratic theory of the 20th century contains an important law of evolution: the law of spiral decline. So what is the developmental trend of contemporary capitalist democracy? Although democratic theories such as digital democracy and supranational democracy, as reforms and innovations of representative democracy, represent the latest development of capitalist democracy, democratic concepts cannot be transformed into concrete democratic practice. Moreover, these democratic concepts carry a strong bourgeois coloration and essentially serve capital. In recent years, crises of capitalist democratic governance are visible everywhere, and criticism of capitalist democracy is incessant. Philippe C. Schmitter, in analyzing capitalist democracy, notes that analysts compete to find the most negative adjectives to prefix to the word “democracy.” Declining trends are evident in voter numbers, the depth of identification with political parties, the stability of electoral preferences, and the level of trust in public organizations. These widespread phenomena reveal defects in Western democratic institutions and practices. The crisis of trust triggered by the malfunction of capitalist democratic institutions, frequent social unrest, and inefficient state governance all indicate that contemporary capitalist democracy increasingly manifests a trend of vertical decline.

20世纪的西方资产阶级民主理论存在着一个重要的演变规律：螺旋式下降规律。那么，当前资本主义民主的发展趋势是什么?虽然以数字民主、超国家民主等为代表的民主理论作为一种对代议制民主的改革和创新代表了资本主义民主的最新发展，但民主理念无法转化为具体现实的民主实践，况且这些民主理念带有浓厚的资产阶级色彩，本质上服务于资本。近些年，资本主义民主治理危机随处可见，对资本主义民主的批评不绝于耳。菲利普·C.施密特(Philippe C.Schmitter)在分析资本主义民主时指出，分析家竞相寻找一些最具否定色彩的形容词加在“民主”一词前面。在选民数量、对政党认同的深度、选举优先权的稳定性、对公共组织的信任水平等方面都表现为下降的趋势。这些普遍存在的现象揭示了西方民主制度和实践存在缺陷。资本主义民主制度失灵引发的信任危机、频繁出现的社会动荡和国家治理低效表明，当代资本主义民主日益表现出垂直衰落的趋势。

First, the malfunctioning of the capitalist democratic system has triggered a crisis of trust. Since the outbreak of the international financial crisis in 2008, the “democratic faith” of the capitalist world has been severely shaken. The crisis of trust in political elites, political parties, parliaments and governments has together formed a “democratic crisis” in a holistic sense, accompanied by problems such as right-wing extremism, de-democratization and electoral abstention, as well as unabated social unrest and populism. A growing number of people in capitalist countries have begun to question their own political systems, with rising discontent. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests in the United States once chanted the slogan, “America’s freedom and democracy are only for the 1% of the powerful elite.” The performance of capitalist democracies, represented by the United States, has grown increasingly poor, showing a more and more obvious lack of willingness and confidence to promote democracy in the international community. The attitude of people in capitalist countries toward democracy has further deteriorated, and public trust in government has continued to decline. Trust in the U.S. government among American citizens fell from 77% in 1958 to 19% in 2015. In 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy” in its annual Democracy Index. This was mainly due to “a long-term and continuous decline in public confidence in political institutions.” According to a related survey in 2018, although Americans still support democracy, many are disappointed with the way the U.S. political system operates. A survey by the National Endowment for Democracy also shows that Americans generally support democracy, but also reveals that a significant minority at least have some favorable feelings toward authoritarian methods. The decline in confidence in government has increasingly become an inherent phenomenon in capitalist democratic countries.

一是资本主义民主制度失灵引发信任危机。2008年国际金融危机爆发以来，资本主义世界的“民主信仰”受到严重打击，对政治精英、政党、议会及政府的信任危机共同形成了一种整体意义上的“民主危机”,并出现了右翼极端主义、去民主化和选举弃权，社会动荡和民粹主义有增无减等问题。越来越多的资本主义国家民众开始对自己国家的政治体制提出质疑，不满情绪日渐增长。美国“占领华尔街”抗议活动曾喊出“美国的自由、民主只针对那1%的权贵们”的口号。以美国为代表的资本主义民主国家表现日益糟糕，越来越明显地缺乏促进国际社会民主的意愿和自信。资本主义国家民众对民主的态度进一步恶化，民众对政府的信任持续下降。美国公民对政府的信任从1958年的77%下降到2015年的19%。2017年，经济学人智库在年度民主指数中把美国从“完全民主”降级为“有缺陷的民主”。这主要是由于“民众对政治机构的信心长期持续下降”。根据2018年一项相关调查表明，尽管美国人仍然支持民主，但许多人对美国政治体系的运作方式感到失望。美国国家民主基金会的一项调查也显示，美国人普遍支持民主，但也显示出明显的少数人至少对专政方式有一些好感。对政府信心的下降已经日益成为资本主义民主国家的固有现象。

Second, under the capitalist democratic system, there is social unrest and inefficient state governance. Many Western left-wing scholars judge that contemporary capitalist democracy is undergoing a major crisis, encompassing both administrative and legitimacy aspects. On the administrative side, capitalist democracy lacks the managerial capacity to handle and resolve public problems. Over the past decade, the capitalist world has witnessed multiple popular protest movements, political tensions have become more pronounced, societies have been torn apart internally, and they have repeatedly fallen into a state of disorder. In 2011, numerous protests occurred across Europe and the United States, from Madrid to Athens, through New York, to Paris: the “indignados” movement [13]13 The “indignados” movement (Spanish for “the outraged”) was a series of anti-austerity protests that began in Spain in May 2011, spreading to other European countries. emerged in capitalist countries, and the “Occupy Wall Street” protests also appeared in New York. The broad masses expressed their indignation at capitalist political elites and opposed government corruption. These protests had a clear political character. They criticized not only the incumbent government but also the entire political elite or the functioning of European democratic institutions. In 2018, the “Yellow Vests” movement [14]14 The “Yellow Vests” movement (French: “gilets jaunes”) was a populist, grassroots protest movement that began in France in November 2018, initially against fuel tax rises and later broadening to demand social and economic justice. broke out in Paris, France. Subsequently, the protests spread to several major French cities, evolving into a nationwide protest movement. Protesters demanded that the government better achieve social justice, distribute wealth more rationally, and respond more effectively to environmental issues. Nils Andersson believes that the “Yellow Vests” movement is “the deepening of the institutional crisis in France since the social liberation of 1968. The neoliberal policies implemented in France since the 1980s have now sharply deepened social inequality, making the poor poorer, and the middle class extremely unstable, with a continuous phenomenon of middle-class people falling into the socially impoverished stratum, leading to a social crisis. This is also the source of the ‘Yellow Vests’ movement.” In recent years, the global COVID-19 pandemic has become a touchstone for the capitalist democratic system. As a country with top-tier global medical resources and medical technology, the United States has been unable to effectively respond to the spreading COVID-19 pandemic. The right to life is the greatest human right, yet the United States has disregarded the people’s right to life and health. Instead, to divert public opinion pressure, it has used the pandemic to groundlessly smear, vilify, and attack other countries; has ignored international conventions, laws, and initiatives; has willfully withdrawn from groups and broken agreements; and has continuously sanctioned other countries and entities. As of early May 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused the deaths of one million Americans, and the American public expressed great dissatisfaction with the government’s ineffective response to the pandemic. Facts have clearly proven that under the capitalist democratic system, the governance of capitalist countries is inefficient.

二是资本主义民主制度下，社会动荡，国家治理低效。不少西方左翼学者判断，当前资本主义民主正在经历一场重大危机，既包括行政方面，也包括合法性方面。就行政方面而言，资本主义民主缺乏处理和解决公共问题的管理能力。近十年，资本主义世界爆发多次民众抗议运动，政治上的紧张关系变得更加明显，社会内部撕裂，多次陷入失序状态。2011年，欧洲和美国各地发生了许多抗议活动，从马德里到雅典，经过纽约，再到巴黎：“愤慨”运动在资本主义国家涌现，在纽约也出现了“占领华尔街”的抗议活动。广大民众表达了对资本主义政治精英的愤慨，反对政府的腐败。这些抗议活动具有明显的政治性质。他们不仅批评现任政府，也批评整个政治精英或欧洲的民主制度的运作。2018年，法国巴黎爆发了“黄马甲”运动。随后，抗议活动扩散至法国多个大城市，演变成一场全国性的抗议活动。抗议者向政府提出更好地实现社会公正、更合理地分配财富以及更有效地应对环境问题等诉求。尼尔·安德森(Nils Andersson)认为，“黄马甲”运动是“法国自1968年社会解放至今带来的制度危机深化，法国自20世纪80年代实施的新自由主义政策如今已剧烈加深了社会不平等，使贫困者更加贫困，中产阶级也极度不稳定，不断有中产阶级沦为社会贫困阶层的现象发生，导致社会危机，这也是‘黄马甲’运动的源头”。近年来，全球新冠肺炎疫情的大流行成为资本主义民主制度的试金石。作为有着全球顶尖医疗资源和医疗技术的国家，美国却无法有效地应对蔓延的新冠肺炎疫情。生命权是最大的人权，美国却置广大人民的生命健康权于不顾，反而为转移舆论压力，借疫情毫无根据地抹黑、丑化、攻击其他国家，置国际公约、法规、倡议于不顾，肆意退群毁约，不断制裁其他国家和实体组织。截至2022年5月上旬，新冠肺炎疫情导致100万美国人死亡，美国民众对政府抗击疫情不力表示了极大的不满。事实已经清楚地证明，在资本主义民主制度下，资本主义国家治理的低效。

In summary, no matter how capitalist democracy develops, it only serves to provide legitimacy for the rule of the bourgeoisie. Democracy cannot be equated with the existing political systems of developed capitalist countries; in fact, the latter are anti-democratic in many areas. The so-called free and fair elections in capitalist countries are merely the competition between different political parties and the uncertainty of the outcome before the competition ends. The strategy of political elites in capitalist countries is to resist democratization by allowing a certain degree of liberalization. (Notes and references omitted)

总之，不论资本主义民主如何发展，它都只是为了给资产阶级的统治提供合法性。民主同发达资本主义国家的现有政治制度之间并不能画等号，事实上，后者在很多领域是反民主的。资本主义国家所谓自由、公平的选举，仅仅是不同政党的竞争及竞争结束前结果的不确定性。资本主义国家政治精英的策略是通过允许一定程度的自由化来抵挡民主化。（注释、参考文献略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑