罗思义：“民主峰会”是一场地缘政治攻击，但中国不用担心

【文/观察者网专栏作者 罗思义】

美国总统拜登将于12月9日至10日召开一场被荒谬地命名为“民主峰会”的会议，然而这场峰会的特征却是与民主背道而驰的，在下文中我将详细分析。这其中的部分真相在中国已经形成了广泛而正确的共识：这不仅是一场针对中国的地缘政治攻击，同时更是一场意识形态攻击。

对于这样一场国际讨论，中国无需担心。相反，中国可以从中获益良多，因为中国在提高本国人民生活水平方面取得巨大成就。世界人民越是了解中国在这方面取得的非凡成就，他们就越希望自己的国家也能让本国人民生活水平得到同等程度的改善，从而他们就会越支持中国。

但浏览中国媒体就会发现，美国借“民主”和“人权”之名攻击中国时，部分中国媒体总会犯错跟着对方的调子走，回击不到点子上。这些错误包括错误地接受美国的民主理念。因此，中国媒体和大众应该如何认清美式“人权”“民主”的虚伪性和欺骗性就显得尤为重要。

这反过来引申出社会主义和自由资本主义之间存在差异这一最重要的核心问题。马克思正是通过对自由资本主义错误之处的批判和对人类现实生活状况的分析，成为了一个社会主义者，并创立了马克思主义！马克思的这一分析为批判自由资本主义的所有错误和展示社会主义（包括中国社会主义）的优越性，提供了全面的框架。因此，领悟马克思所批判的这些问题，对于当下回应美国对中国的种种错误攻击具有非常重要的现实意义和理论价值。

因此，下文将不仅列举关乎真正的人权和民主的重要实践案例，而且也将呈现马克思划时代的分析——这为弄清何谓真正的人权和民主，提供了基础。这也是笔者在12月2日中国外交部组织的“中外学者谈民主”高端对话会上的演讲稿加长版。

下文将围绕如下方面进行论述：

·美国和中国在人权和民主方面的真正区别是什么？

·为什么中国在现实生活中的人权和民主表现远优于美国？

·马克思是如何分析这些问题的核心问题的？为什么他的理论框架可以从他自己的初始分析推及人类生活中大部分最重要的问题？

·美国伪“民主峰会”的实质是什么？

中国妇女VS印度妇女，谁在“享有民主”？

欧洲语言中的“民主”一词源自 “demos（people）”和“kratos（rule）” 两个希腊单词。因此，“民主”一词的字面意思是“人民治理”。

因此，民主问题天然地与人权问题，即“民权”息息相关。正是在这个基本的定义之下，事实证明中国无论是在人权和民主方面的理念框架还是实现方式上都远远优于西方。

与“民治”这一理念相反的是，西方（更确切地说资本主义国家）往往试图单纯地用自己已经具备的特定制度模式和行政结构来定义“民主”——比如议会制，即所谓的“分权制”。但这种做法是错误的。真正的民主应该是关乎如何在现实中让“民治”落到实处。

为印证这一点，我将以占世界人口五分之一的中国妇女和印度妇女的地位举例说明。

争取妇女权益的印度女性示威者（图片来源：视觉中国）

印度女性预期寿命为71岁，中国女性为79.2岁——中国女性寿命比印度女性长8年。

中国女性识字率为95%，印度女性则为65%。

印度妇女死于分娩的风险是中国的8倍。

对任何思维正常的人而言，在现实世界中，中国妇女享有的人权远远优于印度妇女。(虽然我说的是事实，但我一点也不为此高兴，我希望印度妇女的人权得到改善，享有与中国妇女同等的权利）。

然而，美国依据自身的“民主”理念荒谬地宣称，印度妇女的人权远优于中国妇女——原因是，印度妇女生活在一个“议会制共和国”国家。那么问题来了，美国是如何得出这样一个明显荒谬的结论的？

再以新冠疫情为例。在中国大陆，不到5000人死于新冠疫情；在美国，77.8万人死于新冠疫情。但中国人口是美国的四倍多。如果中国的人均死亡人数与美国相同，那么中国的死亡人数将是339万，而非不到5000。但美国宣称，美国的人权和民主好于中国。是什么样荒唐的推理才能证明出这样一个违背所有事实的结论？

看清了“议会民主”的假象，马克思成为了一名社会主义者

这其中所涉及的问题可以追溯到社会主义的理论起源，而社会主义正是对自由/议会民主制理论及其局限性进行批判而发展起来的。

马克思从自由民主主义者转变为社会主义者的思想进程，是从1843年撰写《黑格尔法哲学批判》时开始的。其中的原因在于马克思发现，国家的真正作用是捍卫现有的财产关系——当然，在当时的德国，财产关系与资本主义关系较为接近。从那时起，这一理论分析得到了无数实例的充分印证。每当有人试图让资本主义向社会主义和平过渡，甚至接近于这一点时，资本主义国家就会出手干预——非但不会允许这一过渡按照民主原则进行，而且为了维护资本主义毫不犹豫地颠覆民主。

国际上最臭名昭著的例子是1973年智利针对民选总统萨尔瓦多·阿连德（Salvador Allende）的政变，此外我还可以举出许多其他类似的例子——比如危地马拉（1954年）、巴西（1964年）、洪都拉斯（2009年）、玻利维亚（2019年）。

在认清资本主义国家本质的第二年，马克思在其著作《论犹太人问题》中对“自由民主”的资本主义国家的虚假意识形态，作出了代表性的分析。他对德国的犹太人地位进行分析时发现，自由/议会民主制理论与实践之间存在差异。他认为，对德国的犹太人的正式限制和法律限制的取消，并没有带给他们真正的平等。尽管马克思的论述是基于他所在的那个时代紧迫的政治议题，即德国犹太人的地位问题，但这一分析和前文中所涉及中国妇女和印度妇女的实际人权之间的差异分析是异曲同工的。

《论犹太人问题》和《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》（图片来源：人民画报）

马克思围绕“政治解放”与“人类解放”——政治中纯粹形式上的平等和权利与现实世界中的极度不平等和权利缺失之间的区别，进行了分析。这部作品准确地描述了西方议会民主制的现实，是一部值得详细引用的作品，因为其他任何话可能仅仅只能总结马克思的分析，且不及他本人的论述来得准确。

马克思立足于分析自由主义/议会民主制中，理论上的“人类解放”和“民治”和实际的区别，他指出：“人从某种限制中解放出来……以抽象的、有限的、局部的方式超越了这一限制。”这是因为自由/议会民主制所宣扬的“平等”，然而这种平等在现实世界并不存在。

正如马克思就资本主义/议会民主制理论指出：“当国家宣布出身、等级、文化程度、职业为非政治的差别，当它不考虑这些差别而宣告人民的每一位成员都是人民主权的平等享有者，当它从国家的观点来观察人民现实生活的一切要素的时候，国家是以自己的方式废除了出身、等级、文化程度、职业的差别。”但实际上，这些真正的差别都没有废除：“尽管如此，国家还是让私有财产、文化程度、职业以它们固有的方式，即作为私有财产、作为文化程度、作为职业来发挥作用并表现出它们的特殊本质。国家根本没有废除这些实际差别，相反，只有以这些差别为前提，国家才会存在。”

“天国”和“尘世”，哪里才需要民主？

因此，马克思发现，自由民主制的神话和现实之间有着天壤之别。关于自由民主制神话的核心，马克思有一段经典论述：“在政治国家真正形成的地方，人不仅在思想中，在意识中，而且在现实中，在生活中，都过着双重的生活——天国的生活和尘世的生活。前一种是政治共同体中的生活；后一种是市民社会中的生活。”

他接着说：“政治国家对市民社会的关系，正像天国对尘世的关系一样，也是唯灵论的。政治国家与市民社会也处于同样的对立之中……人在其最直接的现实中，在市民社会中，是尘世存在物……相反，在国家中，即在人被看作是类存在物的地方，人是想象的主权中虚构的成员；在这里，他被剥夺了自己现实的个人生活，却充满了非现实的普遍性。”

马克思认为，在德国社会中，犹太人一度走向纯粹形式上的平等，但这掩盖了真正存在的不平等。自由/议会民主制仅以狭隘、人为和刻板的方式定义“平等”和“民主”，掩盖了真相，同时忽视了存在的真正的不平等和歧视。

后来，马克思所分析的这种形势一发不可收拾，最终导致人类历史上最深重的罪行之一——德国的反犹主义演变为纳粹大屠杀。

二战期间，德国的反犹主义演变为纳粹大屠杀（图片来源：视觉中国）

这种对德国的犹太人地位的分析，为分析资本主义的真实情况，提供了一种模式。中印妇女地位的差异，以及中美新冠死亡人数的差异，均印证了这一点。

西方资本主义理论认为，印度妇女的人权优于中国妇女，因为其生活在拥有议会民主制的国家。但这恰恰体现了马克思所称的“天国”权利（不存在的权利）与“尘世生活”（真正的权利）之间的区别。

显然，在现实世界中，中国妇女的人权远远优于印度妇女。但自由民主制理论荒谬地宣称，印度妇女的人权优于中国妇女，因为议会民主制赋予她们纯粹形式上的平等的“天国的生活”——这在现实中并不存在。

总之，自由民主制理论对民主的定义本末倒置。形式民主——刻板的、实际上并不存在的平等是最重要的，实质民主——尘世的生活则不那么重要，正如西方国家对印度妇女与中国妇女实际的生活环境优劣对比视而不见。正如马克思的分析中，德国的犹太人拥有的形式上的平等和现实生活中的真正的平等存在的差异一样。

中国的民主道路

与之相反，奉行社会主义的中国遵循正确的立场。所以，中国认为，最重要的是中国妇女应该多活8年，应该识字，在分娩时死亡的风险应该大大降低。也即是说，中国最在意的是中国民众是否得到了真正的实惠，生活品质是否真正得到了提升。而这正是“民治”和“人权”理念得到实践的体现。

中国将适用于中国妇女的同样原则推广到社会的各个方面。

中国已经使8.5亿人脱离了国际贫困线——中国减贫人口占同期全球减贫人口70%以上。

1949年的中国几乎是世界上最贫穷的国家，现在的中国按照本国标准已进入小康社会。此外，按照世界银行标准，中国将在两到三年内跻身高收入经济体。

中国对人类的“尘世生活”做出了巨大的贡献，实现了人类历史上最多数量人口生活条件的最大改善。

中国在消除贫困改善人民生活上取得了举世瞩目的成就（图片来源：视觉中国）

也即是说，中国的政治制度是由实际结果——人民实际生活的改善程度决定，而非由刻板的程序决定。

因为中国是一个社会主义国家，所以可以将其经济置于“民治”之下，而真正的“民治”则被资本主义私有财产经济统治体系所排斥。

当然，在上述框架中处于次要地位的具体政治形式是由中国的历史决定的。正如习近平所说，鞋子合不合脚，自己穿了才知道。中国当前的政治制度立足于中国共产党的领导作用和中国共产党全面领导的多党合作，而这种制度是中国所特有的。中国不会建议任何其他国家照搬这套制度。

但中国所在意的是实现人民对美好生活的向往。也即是说，中国对民主的定义是人民当家作主，而人民当家作主才是人权得到进步的体现。中国的历史和现实社会政治发展印证了这一点。

“民主峰会”的闹剧

综上所述，我们可以得出结论：资本主义国家的自由民主理念具有欺骗性和虚伪性。当然，同样的分析适用于当下的国际问题——清晰地展现出拜登将于12月9日至10日召开的“民主峰会”是多么的荒唐虚伪和名不符实。这恰恰是由地球上最反民主的国家主导的一场会议。

无数事实表明，美国政府在国际社会有着系统性地侵犯民主的记录。没有其他国家在入侵其他国家、支持反民主的政变和其他形式的侵略他国等方面可与美国相提并论。仅入侵伊拉克、空袭利比亚，发动针对阿连德政权的政变，无视联合国几乎一致的投票、对古巴实施长达数十年的经济封锁这些例子就足以证明，美国声称其政策以民主为准则是一场彻底的欺骗。

这些例子表明，美国政府支持哪些国家？唯一依据是谁听命于美国，美国就支持谁！包括那些没有任何哪怕是形式民主的国家，比如沙特。美国侵犯哪些国家？那些维护其国家利益而反对美国的国家！无论该政府实行什么样的政治制度。因此，即便是完全认同（错误的）西方自由民主理念的国家也被排除在峰会之外，比如玻利维亚和尼加拉瓜。

事实上，参加这次会议的核心成员国家几乎都有着长期的殖民历史，并且参与了国际法和联合国框架之外的反民主行动，例如入侵伊拉克。正如对中国和印度妇女真实状况的分析或者马克思对德国的犹太人地位的分析一样，美国打着“人权”和“民主”旗号的意识形态主张实际上是为了掩盖一个事实——美国及其主要盟友才是国际人权事业的最大侵犯者。

一言以蔽之，说这次会议的目的是关于“民主”毫无可信度。相反，这次会议的真正目的是美国政府试图利用“划清界限”挑起分裂，以掩盖其真正的政治企图。

结论

自1949年以来，中国在提高人民生活水平方面取得了巨大成就，超过同期任何主要国家——中国是切实改善人类的“尘世生活”（现实生活），而非“天堂生活”——这是自由资本主义民主的错误的意识形态主张。因此，中国将在国际人权和民主讨论中获得广泛的道义支持。但要做到这一点，中国内外宣媒体就绝不能被具有欺骗性和虚伪性的西方自由民主理念所迷惑，也绝不能对这样的理念投降。人类历史上最伟大的天才之一——马克思的经历可以给我们以指导，他的理论破除了自由主义民主的神话，也由此转变为一名社会主义者。这不仅仅是历史给与我们的礼物，也是回击美国当前针对中国人民和人类真正利益的意识形态攻势的最佳方式。

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

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

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

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

This article therefore deals with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marx became a socialist through analysis of the errors of liberalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The farce of the so called “democracy summit”

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。