Lei Xiaohuan: Contemporary Capitalist Democratic Concepts and Their Critique
Influenced by the shifting tides of the era, capitalist democracy has developed theoretical concepts such as "digital democracy" and "supranational democracy." How these democratic concepts emerged, what developmental stages they underwent, what constitutes their essence, and how we should view these new democratic concepts are questions worthy of our in-depth analysis. This article aims to examine the concepts of digital democracy and supranational democracy within contemporary capitalist democracy, systematically organizing and refining their core viewpoints. Through a critical analysis using the Marxist standpoint, viewpoints, and methods, it seeks to reveal the essence of contemporary capitalist democracy, clear up ideological confusion regarding the issue of democracy, and—by analyzing the developmental trends of contemporary capitalist democratic systems—strengthen our confidence in whole-process people’s democracy.
I. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy, the Internet, and Economic Globalization
The contemporary changes and developments in capitalist democracy have a specific socio-historical background. We must use the perspective of historical materialism to analyze and study these new democratic concepts. Since the end of the 20th century, with the rapid daily advances in internet information technology and the deepening of economic globalization, the bourgeoisie has continuously updated its democratic concepts in an attempt to find a remedy for the failings of representative democracy and to demonstrate the rationality of capitalist democracy.
On one hand, Western scholars have expanded 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 the 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 not only transformations in the economic sphere but also directly targeted democracy within the political sphere. Against this backdrop, rhetoric such as "the internet will revitalize democracy" and "direct electronic governance will become possible" emerged in endless succession. Some scholars even proposed that the internet would become a new form of democracy. Since 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 significant portion of whom visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. "Data sharing is rapidly becoming a rule, and the scope and nature of intelligent data use will inevitably affect democracy." In the view of proponents of digital democracy, the widespread application of information technology can help citizens participate extensively in political elections. First, information technology facilitates the acquisition of political information and communication, improving communication between voters and candidates by using algorithms to push political content to users who have not directly searched for it. For example, citizens can use the internet to check voting records, campaign donations, and candidates’ policy positions. 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. Social media in particular is believed to have facilitated protest movements in capitalist countries, such as the "Yellow Vests" [1] movement, the "Arab Spring" [2], and the "Black Lives Matter" protests. Ordinary citizens have been able to organize successfully through social media platforms to achieve political change. Third, information technology has restructured the public space for democratic consultation. Deliberative democracy emphasizes dialogue, based on the principle that those affected by a collective decision (or their representatives) have the right, opportunity, and ability to participate in the discussion of that decision's content. As a pluralistic, open, and equal venue, "the internet has become an important tool for forming an open and powerful public sphere," providing a public virtual space for consultation where discussion, debate, and voting can take place.
On the other hand, Western scholars have updated their understanding of the boundaries of democracy based on the deepening development of economic globalization. After the Cold War, Western scholars and policymakers began to discuss the application of democracy beyond national borders amid the deepening of economic globalization. The traditional view held that the nation-state has the responsibility to guarantee the political participation of its citizens, and citizens within its territorial scope were considered the relevant subjects. However, since the 1990s, economic globalization has developed rapidly. The mutual exchange and connection of trade, capital, and technology have pushed the markets of various countries to integrate. Economic, political, and social activities have increasingly broken through the limitations of time and space, and the entire world has increasingly become a closely linked organic whole. With the vigorous development of transnational corporations and the increasing role of global financial markets, social movements have transcended the boundaries of the nation-state, and cross-border social movements have intensified. The Westphalian system [3] based on sovereign states, established by the Thirty Years' War in Europe, has fallen into disputes over territorial boundaries and sovereignty. The combined effect of these factors gave birth to a "transnational public sphere." On this issue, Nancy Fraser analyzed and pointed out that climate issues, migration issues, women's issues, and counter-terrorism are common problems faced by the globe, and public opinion has therefore transcended the boundaries of territorial states. She believes that the discussion of these issues is no longer limited to Westphalian states, nor is it disseminated through state-level media. Regarding the constituent elements of public opinion, the subjects of communication have changed from the entire citizenry of a nation to a collection of scattered interlocutors; the content of communication has extended from national interests to a global scope, existing in transnational communities; the venue of communication has changed from the nation to de-territorialized cyberspace; the method of communication has changed from national print media to the super-linguistic relations of visual culture; and the objects of communication have changed from sovereign territorial states to an unorganized mix of public and private transnational powers. As the public sphere expands into a transnational public sphere, the role and influence of the nation-state are continuously weakened. Consequently, some Western scholars have 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. Thus, what form democracy will take and whether there will be a democracy that transcends national borders have become the focus of discussion. In response, Western scholars began to reflect on whether democracy can cross national borders and attempted to demonstrate its desirability and rationality. For example, Anthony McGrew pointed 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 shared fascination with the idea of democracy beyond borders, that is, transnational (or global) democracy." Consequently, the scope of previous democratic discussions has extended beyond national boundaries.
II. Digital Democracy and Supranational Democracy Under the Limits of Bourgeois Thought
Although digital democracy and supranational democracy represent the latest developments in contemporary capitalist democratic theory, seen from the perspective of their class attributes, they still cannot escape the limits 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 pointed out with piercing clarity: "In a state where the private ownership of the land and the means of production exists, where capital dominates, however democratic it may be, it is a capitalist state, a machine used by the capitalists to keep the working class and the poor peasants in subjection. Universal suffrage, a Constituent Assembly, a parliament are only forms, a sort of promissory note, which does not change the essence of the matter at all." [4]
1. Digital democracy under the capitalist system cannot achieve genuine and broad consultation
At the end of the 20th century, capitalist countries faced the problem of low voter turnout. To solve this problem, many Western scholars proposed that the emerging internet could expand the rights of ordinary citizens to participate in politics and improve the efficiency of participating in elections. Since then, capitalist countries have strengthened research on the relationship between information technology and democracy. In 2000, Kenneth L. Hacker published the book Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, proposing 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 citizen participation in democratic communication. Jeanette Hofmann's research 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 view democracy as an open, changing, and always-in-the-making form of political organization. Through the above summary, we find that although scholars have different understandings of digital democracy, they generally believe that digital democracy is a form of democracy practiced without being restricted by time, location, or other physical conditions. The most direct effect of digitalization is to increase turnout and provide new possibilities for realizing direct democracy.
Influenced by political culture and political systems, the practice of digital democracy in capitalist countries differs. As a new democratic concept, digital democracy is highly regarded in Europe, where digital parties have emerged, such as the Spanish party "Podemos." The common point of these parties is that they are intertwined with technology companies and digital platforms. They use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to allow the public to participate in politics in a very individualized way. Digital parties use digital communication both as a promotional tool and to 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 establishing new relationships between cities and local residents, MPs, and citizens. In August 2016, the British Labour Party published the Digital Democracy Manifesto, calling for "high-speed broadband and mobile connectivity for every household, company, and organization in Britain," "collaborative ownership of digital platforms for distributing labor and selling services," and "publicly funded software and hardware," attempting to equalize the unevenly distributed services and technology in the UK. The British Labour Party strives to build a public image in the form of networks and platforms, promoting the virtual collectivity of all citizens by enhancing everyone's online rights.
Digital democracy aims to study how digital technology helps people achieve genuine democracy. Some Western scholars believe that new ways of communication are revitalizing democracy. On one hand, digital democracy combines virtual reality and organic reality, thereby overcoming to some extent the defects of representative democracy and achieving a more direct democracy. For example, information and communication technology have expanded the scale and increased the speed of providing information, which helps expand citizens' right to know and makes political participation easier. The internet has created a new way of organizing that can respond directly to citizens' concerns. On the other hand, digital democracy has enhanced political interaction. In cyberspace, mutual interactions have increased. Cyberspace communication has broken through political participation traditionally confined to physical territory or the nation-state.
On the surface, digital democracy has innovated and enriched the forms and means of elections, and Western scholars have placed extremely high expectations on it. However, under the capitalist system, digital democracy cannot achieve genuine and broad consultation. In capitalist countries, digital democracy adheres to the mindset that "one person, one vote" and party competition are the only standards for democracy, simply understanding democracy as the enjoyment of voting rights being equivalent to the enjoyment of democracy, and that direct democracy can thus be achieved. However, democracy is a practice that covers multiple links. Exercising the right to vote is merely one link in democracy. Moreover, democracy based on digital information technology, by using only the single path and method of voting, cannot achieve real, extensive, and sufficient discussion. "Digitalization is unlikely to free people from the challenges facing democracy in the global economy. The openness and decentralization of the internet may also exacerbate blind spots in democratic culture and political ideas." The internet was developed by capitalists to maximize profits; they focus only on the consumer market and do not care what happens if these tools are used for democratic elections and decision-making. Political parties and candidates in capitalist countries can manipulate campaign activities by using sophisticated but opaque digital advertising tools to reach susceptible groups. Therefore, some Western scholars have warned against becoming obsessed with the technical possibilities of digital democracy. If technology is not brought under control, then digital democracy is merely symbolic participation and will completely undermine the authenticity of democracy.
On one hand, information inequality is a threat to democracy. John S. Dryzek...
Scholars such as [these] believe that genuine political participation requires direct discussion among citizens. Proponents of digital democracy hope to use the Internet to expand the range of opinions discussed and the number of citizens who can participate. They envision a mass of citizens visiting campaign websites, engaging in online discussions, and participating in politics in a direct manner. However, due to factors such as educational attainment and economic income, the "digital divide" hidden behind the Internet has led to a new form of political inequality, leaving the broad masses of people unable to participate in politics on an equal footing. Income inequality in capitalist countries has gradually widened since the 1970s; for the poor, they have almost no right to access the Internet and are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of information acquisition. The digital divide is reflected not only in information access but also exists extensively in terms of skills, culture, influence, and power.
Taking the United States as an example, the Internet expanded dramatically worldwide in the 1990s, yet disadvantaged groups such as Black people, Hispanics, the poor, and the elderly still lagged behind in network access and usage. Although the digital divide has narrowed in recent decades, disparities in key areas persist. Matthew Hindman argues that the continued existence of the digital divide makes the failure of online deliberation even more apparent. For the common people in capitalist countries, relying on the Internet for political expression has its limitations. On the surface, the masses have obtained opportunities for direct expression, but in most cases, the Internet cannot deliver on its promises; the interests and demands of the people go unnoticed and unanswered by others, particularly by decision-making bodies.
On the other hand, false information can mislead the political judgment of the masses and manipulate the political participation behavior of voters. The fundamental attribute of the Internet is that of a tool. As political participants, people increasingly rely on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to conduct deliberation. However, "Internet technology as a tool can be used by the common people for broad political participation to promote democracy, but it can also be used by elites to manipulate democracy to gain power." In capitalist countries, the monopoly over technology means a monopoly over democracy. Tech companies in capitalist countries possess powerful forces to shape information. "In the contemporary digital economy, network communications are dominated by only a few large companies. In particular, every independent function is subject to increasingly high monopolistic control." Digital social media platforms allow the peddling of fake news and permit extremists to promote conspiracy theories. In this environment, due to the way computer algorithms operate, users are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. Internet companies can amplify or obscure specific information, thereby exerting a disturbing influence on democratic political debate. For example, Facebook once developed a tool called "Voter Megaphone," which categorized citizens by utilizing massive amounts of data and intelligent algorithms and manipulated their voting behavior in a covert manner. In this regard, some scholars have revealed: "We have been living in a fake democracy... this manifests as a facade of democracy, with many promises but little effect"; "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 growth of anti-establishment politics to argue that only they can maintain a consensual, rational information ecosystem that can expose 'fake news' and protect 'established facts'."
2. Supranational democracy bears a heavy bourgeois tint, infringing upon the interests and authority of sovereign states
It is generally believed that the study of supranational democracy is divided into two perspectives: one focuses on transnational democracy, and the other on global democracy. James Bohman is a representative figure in transnational democracy research. In 2007, he published his most influential monograph, Democracy Across Borders, which systematically expounded upon transnational democracy. Building upon detailed research into the theories of democracy beyond the nation-state proposed by Rawls, Habermas, David Held, and Dryzek, Bohman examined the global political order, transformed the research paradigm of democracy, and proposed an "alternative, pluralistic, and non-centered" concept of transnational democracy. In his view, transnational democracy is a democracy that transcends the territorial boundaries of sovereign states and is an important way to achieve self-rule and human rights.
Bohman believes that today's world is in a period of renewal and transformation; economic globalization and power have exceeded the scope of the nation-state, and different nations or sovereign states are no longer 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 plural form; it should no longer be understood as the rule of a singular "people" (dêmos) with a specific territorial identity and connotation, but rather rule by the "peoples" (dêmoi) across borders. According to Bohman’s analysis, economic globalization has given birth to dispersed multi-level polities, each of which has its own citizens, and these citizens have diverse identities, often possessing multiple overlapping identities. Only when their "collective will" is fully expressed can democracy escape metaphysical assumptions and be truly realized.
As the world's largest and most highly integrated regional economic bloc today, the European Union is regarded by scholars like Bohman as the largest transnational organization and a representative model of transnational democracy. Although Bohman proposed multi-layered forms of democracy across borders, he also clearly pointed out that transnational democracy does not mean that boundaries and states will disappear. Within transnational democracy, states will reconstruct themselves around various possibilities, such as forming new forms of citizenship.
John Dryzek is a representative figure in global democracy research. He believes there are distinctions between democracy within states, transnational democracy, and democracy at the global level. He places more emphasis on research into supranational democracy in the sense of global governance, arguing that "the globalization of democracy can be most effectively conceptualized from the perspective of deliberation. The focus is on the global, not just the transnational level." In 2010, Dryzek published Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. In the book, he points out that in today's world, political authority has become separated from sovereign states and even placed within transnational and sometimes global political and economic processes. Examining global governance from the perspective of deliberative democracy, one should first emphasize the construction of a transnational public and the participation of discourses in the transnational public sphere as components of transnational democracy. Dryzek believes 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 to concepts of democracy that require competitive elections as a necessary condition, a global democracy of communication and deliberation has certain advantages. First, global democracy helps achieve global justice. Second, a democratic polity is the preferred institutional type for solving complex collective problems. Finally, to be legitimate, authority must be held accountable on a democratic basis. Dryzek believes that practices most conducive to promoting global democratization include: transnational social movements, international media monitoring of government behavior, and individuals around the world discussing international affairs on blogs and internet forums.
Christopher Chase-Dunn is also keen on global democracy research. 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 power distribution relations between states and governance issues at the global level; thus, global democracy is not a simple sum of all democratic countries. He also points out that the current international system is mainly composed of nation-states; power inequalities between nation-states give global democracy certain defects, and there are irreconcilable contradictions between global democracy and democracy at the single-state level. The realization of global democracy will be an arduous process.
Both transnational democracy theory and global democracy theory arise from bourgeois interests and aim to develop a kind of supranational democracy. However, such democratic concepts bear a heavy utopian [5] tint.
First, supranational democracy theory to some extent infringes upon the authority of sovereign states and obscures the class nature [6] of democracy. Some scholars have always maintained that democracy is ultimately a form of rule, and democracy is best represented and managed by the state. The nation-states established in modern times, especially those existing in contemporary international society, are important carriers of democracy. The theory and practice of democracy have developed primarily within the boundaries of the nation-state, constituting the logic of legitimacy for state sovereignty and strengthening the concepts of the absolute and indivisible nature of sovereignty. Yet transnational democracy emphasizes that individuals and states should give up their own interests to seek democracy on a larger scale, which contradicts the maintenance of national interests. Despite the increasing number and complexity of global governance institutions, the subjects participating in these treaties and organizations remain formal sovereign nation-states; few sovereign states will trade national autonomy for a more democratic world order. As for the establishment of supranational institutions, it has to some extent infringed upon the sovereignty of various nation-states. Regulatory bodies of the global economy, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, essentially serve the interests of transnational corporations, backed by the transnational bourgeoisie. Fundamentally speaking, this supranational democracy that blurs national territorial boundaries serves capital and the bourgeoisie; it weakens the concept of the state and infringes upon the interests of sovereign states. Furthermore, democracy is a class-based and historical category. All democracy belongs to a certain class; there is no such thing as "supra-class" democracy. The essence of supranational democracy theory is to obscure the class nature of democracy.
Second, supranational democracy cannot be substantially put into practice; democracy dominated 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 lead to a hollow, nominal global democracy, because genuine democracy "requires elections to hold elected leaders accountable to the public, as well as other arrangements to hold non-elected leaders accountable to elected ones," and global democracy cannot be truly realized. There are four reasons: first, no nation-state is willing to sacrifice short-term individual interests for long-term collective interests; second, there is no common global identity or shared sentiment to support democracy; third, the rule of law has long been weak in the international system; fourth, global governance lacks a civil society capable of building social capital. Regarding the EU, "there remains a massive 'democratic deficit' in the EU. Key decisions at the EU level are primarily made through agreements between political and bureaucratic elites. The constraints on decision-making are not determined by democratic processes, but are basically brought about by the gaming [7] between various parties, while also depending on the possible consequences for domestic and international markets. Decisions depend on bargaining, hierarchical structures, and markets. If procedures requiring ratification are excluded, the role of democratic processes is negligible." Democracy is a state form. The nation-state is the initial framework of the world economic order; "the starting point of any democratic project must be the sovereignty of the nation-state." Without state control, democracy in a society is impossible.
III. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy is a Limited and False Democracy
1. Contemporary capitalist democracy is a limited democracy
To evaluate capitalist democracy scientifically, one must use the perspective of historical materialism to understand its origins and development. Looking at the history of capitalist democracy, it has been a limited democracy from the very beginning. It is generally believed that Athenian democracy is the source of modern democratic thought. While Athenian democracy established mechanisms for citizen participation, the definition of "citizen" was highly localized and restricted. Democracy in ancient Athens was directly built upon the labor and political denial of slaves and the toil of women. "In pre-capitalist societies, the concepts of freedom and equality were completely non-existent." "In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, democracy was a threat to its class interests." Throughout most of the 19th and 20th...
For part of the early century, the right to vote remained limited. The bourgeoisie excluded groups whose interests conflicted with its own from the political stage. Even after citizens later gained certain voting rights, civic behavior remained heavily restricted; most people could not exert effective influence over juries or various levels of government simply by virtue of their citizenship.
Viewed from the contemporary development of capitalist democracy, its limited nature is prominently manifested in the exclusion of the people from participation in national and social governance, as well as the lack of complete institutional procedures and participatory practices. The people are the subjects of democracy. For a democratic system to be effective, it must not only possess complete institutional procedures, but—more crucially—the people must be able to participate in practice truly and fully. Regarding the history of the development of capitalist democracy, a democracy that grants the right to vote but denies the right to participate is not a true democracy. The people appear to possess the right to vote, yet they are excluded from democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight. The people are "awakened" only at the moment of voting, after which they enter a period of dormancy. There is no recourse to ask whether post-election promises can be fulfilled, or to what extent they have been honored. Yet, even in the most basic link of voting, inequality exists. Nancy Fraser [8] pointed out incisively that status inequalities based on gender, property, and race determine the limited nature of capitalist democracy. Women, due to their gender status, were excluded from formal political participation; some men were formally excluded due to property restrictions; and racialized men and women were 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.
2. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is a False Democracy
In the discourse of capitalist democracy, elections, competitive political parties, a free mass media, and the representative system are highlighted as essential characteristics. In reality, however, these are merely formal democracies—the political models and governance concepts of the bourgeoisie. Viewed from its essence, capitalist democracy is fraudulent. Marx and Engels once critiqued capitalist democracy, arguing that "within the framework of present-day bourgeois relations of production, by freedom is meant free trade, free selling and buying." Lenin also pointed out: "Under the bourgeois system (i.e., as long as private ownership of land and the means of production persists), under bourgeois democracy, 'freedom and equality' are only a form; in reality, they mean wage-slavery for the workers (who are formally free and equal), the omnipotence of capital, and the oppression of labor by capital." Capitalist states superficially proclaim their democracy and freedom and represent the rights of citizens, but in truth, this is a false cloak. The primary goal of capitalist democracy is to maintain the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the interests of the people. Politically and ideologically, the capitalist state exercises strict rule and control over the broad masses; in essence, it is a means for the capitalist state to implement political socialization.
First, looking at the historical trajectory of capitalism, for the vast majority of the time, it had no connection whatsoever to democracy. Capitalist democracy is closely linked to the requirements of the bourgeoisie. Those who enjoyed democracy in a true sense were primarily property owners, while others were excluded. Democracy is manipulated externally by the "market" and imprisoned internally by large corporations. Matters belonging to the democratic sphere have been transferred to the "market" and to oligarchic corporate capital. Second, the expansion of democracy and freedom in capitalist states was primarily the result of various forms of persistent pressure. As the proletariat stepped onto the stage of history, the ruling bourgeoisie—out of consideration for protecting its own property and privileges, and fearing that worker and left-wing movements would cause expansive consequences that threatened its political dominance—conceded certain rights, such as the right to vote. In reality, however, the expansion of the franchise was a success achieved by the people through struggle against various restrictions—class, gender, and race. The German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck has pointed out that democracy is a right of the people, an arrangement by which interests are exercised and controlled by the majority. But in capitalist countries, such democratic rights are false. The democratic rights enjoyed by the populace in some capitalist countries today are historically the result of a compromise between capitalism and the working class—namely, 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 its electoral system. Although capitalist states frequently see the removal of elected officials, the ousting of sitting governments, and the forcing of governments to seek relatively radical reforms, these cannot fundamentally change the nature of the capitalist state. The so-called freedom of the press also has certain boundaries; it is relative rather than absolute. In capitalist states, "no field is more efficient at reflecting the democratic diversity and free political competition that the 'open societies' of advanced capitalism boast of than the domain of communications—publications, the general written word, radio, television, cinema, and theater." As the true subjects of democracy, the people lack smooth channels to express their interests and demands and are unable to effectively participate in the country's political life and social management.
3. The Fundamental Purpose of Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Is to Maintain and Consolidate Bourgeois Rule
The basic meaning of democracy is "the people's rights" or "governance and rule by the people." However, democracy is a product of class struggle. In a class society, democracy serves the ruling class. As part of the superstructure, democracy is determined by a specific economic base and will inevitably serve the economic base that determines it. "Every democracy, like every political superstructure... serves production in the last resort and is determined in the last resort by the relations of production in that society." Regarding the substance of capitalist democracy, Lenin explicitly pointed out that the essence of capitalist democracy is to use the "best possible political shell" of the "democratic system" to guarantee the property rights of the bourgeoisie, to deploy and exert the power of the bourgeoisie, and to guarantee the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat and the masses. Once democracy is controlled by capital, it turns back to consolidate the status and power of capital: "no change of persons, institutions or parties can shake this power." Therefore, only by proceeding from socio-economic relations and finding the realistic 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, laborers are always in a position of being exploited, enslaved, and oppressed. In capitalist states, the political rule of the bourgeoisie is only formal democracy; its fundamental purpose is to maintain and consolidate economic slavery and oppression under this system of ownership relations. Fraser clearly stated: "Capitalism is essentially extremely undemocratic," and capitalism "excludes a series of vital issues from the public agenda, handing them over to capital, while capitalist societies provide only a severely shrunken copy of democracy. They place citizens, who ought to be self-governing, under the despotic rule of capital, making it a crucible of political injustice." Capitalists "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 subordinates to a transnational bourgeoisie rooted in multinational corporations. To satisfy the needs of transnational capital and the bourgeoisie, capitalist democracy, under the banner of human rights, wantonly interferes in the political agendas of other nations.
Although contemporary capitalist democratic theory has engaged in active exploration, it remains limited to procedure and carries no substantive commitment. These explorations are essentially the self-adjustment and reform of capitalism. The British left-wing political scientist Ralph Miliband [9] once pointed out incisively that the Western parliamentary system ensures that the masses participate in politics within an appropriate and meaningful scope, while simultaneously avoiding granting the masses decision-making power. Bourgeois rule never allows 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 will of the people is completely excluded.
IV. Contemporary Capitalist Democracy Increasingly Exhibits a Trend of Vertical Decline
A significant law of evolution existed in 20th-century Western bourgeois democratic theory: the law of the downward spiral. So, what is the current trend in the development of capitalist democracy? Although democratic theories represented by digital democracy and supranational democracy—serving as reforms and innovations of representative democracy—represent the latest developments in capitalist democracy, these democratic concepts cannot be translated into concrete and realistic democratic practices. Moreover, these democratic concepts carry a heavy bourgeois tint and essentially serve capital. In recent years, crises of capitalist democratic governance have been visible everywhere, and criticisms of capitalist democracy have been incessant. Philippe C. Schmitter, in analyzing capitalist democracy, noted that analysts are competing to find the most negative adjectives to place in front of the word "democracy." Declining trends are evident in voter turnout, the depth of party identification, the stability of electoral priorities, and the level of trust in public organizations. These widespread phenomena reveal flaws in Western democratic systems and practices. The crisis of trust caused by the failure of capitalist democratic systems, frequent social unrest, and inefficient national governance indicate that contemporary capitalist democracy is increasingly exhibiting a trend of vertical decline.
First, the failure of capitalist democratic systems has triggered a crisis of trust. Since the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, "faith in democracy" in the capitalist world has been severely damaged. The crisis of trust in political elites, parties, parliaments, and governments has collectively formed an overall "crisis of democracy," accompanied by problems such as right-wing extremism, de-democratization, electoral abstention, and unabated social unrest and populism. An increasing number of people in capitalist countries have begun to question their own nations' political systems, with growing sentiments of dissatisfaction. The "Occupy Wall Street" protests in the United States once shouted the slogan: "America's freedom and democracy are only for the 1% of the elite." Capitalist democratic nations, represented by the United States, have performed increasingly poorly and are more and more obviously lacking the will and self-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 continues to decline. US citizens' trust in their government fell from 77% in 1958 to 19% in 2015. In 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy" in its annual Democracy Index. This was primarily due to a "serious decline in public confidence in political institutions." According to a relevant survey in 2018, although Americans still support democracy, many are disappointed with how the American political system operates. A survey by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) also showed that while Americans generally support democracy, it also revealed a distinct minority with at least some affinity for autocratic methods. The decline in confidence in the government has increasingly become an inherent phenomenon in capitalist democratic countries.
Second, under capitalist democratic systems, social unrest is prevalent and national governance is inefficient. Many Western left-wing scholars judge that contemporary capitalist democracy is undergoing a major crisis, encompassing both administrative and legitimacy dimensions. In administrative terms, capitalist democracy lacks the management capacity to deal with and resolve public problems. In the past decade, numerous mass protest movements have erupted in the capitalist world, political tensions have become more pronounced, society has fractured internally, and many areas have repeatedly fallen into states of disorder. In 2011, many protests occurred across Europe and the United States, from Madrid to Athens, through New York to Paris: the "Indignados" movement emerged in capitalist countries, and the "Occupy Wall Street" protests appeared in New York. The broad masses expressed indignation toward capitalist political elites and opposed government corruption. These protests were clearly political in nature. They criticized not only the sitting governments but also the entire political elite and the functioning of the democratic system in Europe. In 2018, the "Yellow Vests" movement broke out in Paris, France. Subsequently, the protests spread to many large French cities, evolving into a nationwide protest movement. Protesters presented demands to the government for better social justice, more rational wealth distribution, and more effective responses to environmental issues. Nils Andersson [10]...
The "Yellow Vests" movement [11] is considered "the deepening of an institutional crisis brought about by social liberation in France since 1968; the neoliberal policies implemented in France since the 1980s have now drastically deepened social inequality, making the poor even poorer and the middle class extremely unstable, with the constant phenomenon of middle-class individuals falling into the impoverished strata of society, leading to a social crisis—this is 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 the world's top medical resources and technology, the United States was unable to effectively respond to the spreading pandemic. The right to life is the greatest human right; yet the United States ignored the right to life and health of the broad masses of people. Instead, to deflect public pressure, it used the pandemic to groundlessly smear, vilify, and attack other countries, disregarding international conventions, regulations, and initiatives, willfully withdrawing from groups and breaking treaties, and continuously sanctioning other countries and corporate entities. By early May 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in the deaths of one million Americans, and the American public expressed great dissatisfaction with the government's ineffective fight against the pandemic. The facts have clearly proven the inefficiency of capitalist state governance under the capitalist democratic system.
In short, 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 fields. 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 the political elites in capitalist countries is to resist democratization by allowing a certain degree of liberalization.
(Notes and references omitted) (Author's affiliation: Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 5, 2022.