Understanding the US Human Rights View and Human Rights Practice

Posted on Updated on

Originally published in Red Flag Manuscripts on 7 August 2013.

Yang Runguang

The US are the epitome of modern human rights thought, and are fond of promoting so-called human rights values internationally. US scholars say, not without arrogance, that no one in the present world can openly challenge human rights value views. This world seems to march towards the chaos of anarchism, and this has multiple and countless links with the US human rights view. This article aims to start from the angles of theory and practice, to deeply analyse and understand the US human rights view.

I, Looking back at US human rights practice

The human rights value view is an ideological form that has attracted people’s attention recently, and is the theory concerning the rights of people that the US is peddling with all its might to the international society at present. To a certain degree, the US have led the development process of the human rights value view, and it is believed to be a country having a self-conscious human rights awareness and human rights practice. But grave phenomena that limit and suppress human rights exist in the US as well, the human rights practice in the US is negative and not consistent with what is said.

(1) Absolute human rights do not exist in US social practice. The US asserts that the value forms of human rights mean that people’s rights to life, freedom and property are absolute and sacred, but this sort of human rights has never really existed in US society. The establishment of the sacred position of US constitutionalism and constitutional supremacy has ensured that any rights established in the Constitution are limited within legal parameters, and submission to law indicates that human rights have become relative rights. US human rights practice is also commonly subject to many kinds of restrictions. The US Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and the power of judicial review, its judgments are law, the Supreme Court domestically further concretely ruled that human rights are limited rights, on the basis of political needs. UA human rights are also directly restrained by national politics. In social practice, the rights of “speech, assembly, association and demonstration” are commonly limited. With regard to free speech, US law expressly provides that 14 kinds of speech may not be published. The freedom to demonstrate is subject to many limitations, when organizing a demonstration, an application must be forward that must be approved. The “Occupy Wall Street Movement” is a movement of the US middle class who exercise their freedoms and rights to express their wishes, but the US authorities not only do not protect such human rights, but adopt all sorts of methods to surround, suppress and disintegrate is. From where we are standing, it can only be a satire of US human rights protection.

(2) US human rights serve capitalist politics. US human rights have a clear political nature and practical nature, they are not the universal “human” rights that do not differentiate between identity and religion that they proclaim to be, but serve the rule and politics of capital. Ideological beliefs that conform to the ruling ideology are not limited, those that do not conform must be stifled and suppressed. In the Twenties of the previous government, the US government suppressed and persecuted domestic Communist Party organizations and leftist persons, and in violation of judicial procedure, arrested more than 6000 Communist Party members and progressive persons in one night. After WWII, a new anti-Communist and anti-democratic tide surged domestically, which brazenly trampled the fundamental freedoms and rights clearly determined in the Constitution. During the era of McCarthyism, progressive persons were persecuted and purged, and liberals were implicated as well. Only in 1951, 624 organizations and 204 periodicals were declared illegal. The US pushed out the “Loyalty Oath Act”, the “Subversive Activities Control Act” and other such bills limiting freedom, all public service in the federal government we obliged to swear loyalty to the government. “Freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” became hypocrisies and dupes, and the US have, with regards to the problems of the domination of capital, never minded destroying freedoms and human rights.

(3) US human rights exclude fundamental economic and social rights from beginning to end. The “Declaration of Independence” announces “life and equality”, claiming that people are endowed with sacred equal rights, but the US have, in fact, persistently refused to recognize that human rights should include economic and social rights. The US only have legally defined political freedoms and civil rights that fall into the category of human rights safeguards, rights in the economic, social and other such areas are not safeguarded by law, there basically are no equal rights to speak of. Inequality in economic and social positions is believed to be perfectly justified in the US, and to conform to natural law. An analysis of the pragmatism of equal rights, leads to huge injustices with regards to economic and social rights in the US. under the presence of equal opportunity, wealth has been accumulated by an extremely small number of people, and the gap between rich and poor is astonishing, some people struggle on the fringes of existence, which in the US does not count as violating equal human rights. A hugely wealthy country, it still has more than 40 million poor inhabitants, and has millions of vagrants, their lives are extremely deprived, and they cannot get the “freedoms and rights” to express their wishes. In the US media, no writing on the living situation of the poor can be seen, on the issue of the poor masses, society has collectively lost its voice. Refusing to recognize and safeguard economic and social equality rights has caused that US human rights do not have universal value meanings.

(4) The problem against discrimination of “people” is very grave inside the US. The US revolutionary slogan was “fighting for human rights”, but in fact, they wantonly trample on human rights. Racial discrimination, the loss of rights of women, the massacring of Indians and other such problems are the most immoral and unjust repulsive records in US human rights practice. Although the US have given the black certain rights guarantees in the Sixties of the past century, racial discrimination remains current, the US police ignores human rights norms, and repulsive acts of insults, beating up and killing of blacks remain ubiquitous. Major abuses exist in discrimination against women within US human rights practice, for a long time, women were in a position where they did not have “human” rights, they did not have the right to vote, the right to property, the right to hold public office, the right to serve on a jury, etc. Only in 1919, Congress officially recognized women’s’ right to vote in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. A country that started to claim that it possesses a modern civilization starting with the promulgation of the “Declaration of Independence”, has expropriated the rights of women, who comprise half of the population, for half of its history. The history of US independence is the history of massacring Indians and pillaging their land, after independence, Indians did not have citizen status, they did not have fundamental civil rights and constitutional guarantees, and were even stripped  off their rights to human existence, for a long time, they were massacred and driven out on a large scale. The homes and large amounts of land of the Indians were seized, and until the beginning of the 19th Century, because the federal government sent the military on raids and punitive expeditions against Indians more than 200 times, the Indians struggled against bloody suppression. According to estimates, the Indian population of the US once numbered about 30 million, but now, only about 7 million are left, the record of expelling and massacring Indians has become a humiliating mark in US human rights practice.

(5) The US use human rights to conduct civilizational invasion. The US human rights practice is better reflected in its conduct of “human rights” invasion of other countries. The US have made human rights into a strategic tool, for the sake of obtaining their national interest in politics, economics or security, they have committed to forcibly pushing human rights value views globally. The US use human rights problems to attack and violate Socialist countries and the broad developing countries, inciting distrust by the societies and citizens of various countries against governments, producing contradictions and chaos, and they force these countries to accept Western political systems and value concepts. The US frequently sanction other countries on the basis of “human rights”, and even carries out military interventions. After the Cold War ended, US foreign military interventions have taken place more than 40 times, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, “human rights catastrophes” have occurred in many places. The essence of the US human rights strategy is to stand on the moral commanding heights, legitimating the invasions of developing countries and realizing the strategic objective of US power and control

II, A theoretical analysis of the US human rights view.

The human rights theory of the US does not have social or economic roots or a historical basis that touches on human rights, and it also does not pay attention to the socio-historical and socio-material conditions to realize human rights, it infinitely expands the rationale of the limited ethical model of human rights, it believes that US human rights transcend time and space, transcend national boundaries, and transcend all norms for action, and that it should become a common principle for all of humankind. This is clearly mistaken.

(1) The US’ promotion of human rights stems from political need. Human rights and natural rights are only the creations of modern capital, in fact, they are suited to the needs of capitalist economic development. During the period of the US war of independence, the promotion of human rights was necessary to overthrow English colonial rule, but the ruling class after independence paid even more attention to a long period of peace and order in the country and protecting the rights of private property, believing that human rights lead to chaos and impede the establishment of capitalist order, they stressed that “we should ensure that the minority class enjoys a permanent special position in politics”, the core content of human rights and “the first objective” changed into protecting the private property system. Under allocation according to the principles of private property rights, individuals and their pursuit of property becomes an internal driver that maintains US social operation. The US “Founding Father” Madison discussed  the problem of guaranteeing private property rights in his articles in the “Federalist Papers”, he believed that private property conforms to nature because of freedoms and rights, the inequality of private property is unavoidable, and protecting the inequality of private property is the objective of government. The Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” provide that private property rights and their guarantees are sacred principles, at that time, human rights theory emphasised proving the rationale of economic inequality, stressing that the huge economic chasm between the wealthy and the poor does not constitute a violation of human rights. The independence leader Adams stressed that “The common instinct of humanity has  become a universally prevalent principle. I hope that this principle may lead to correct concepts of equal rights and equal duties. This principle can never engender an equal position and equal property and other such things, equal laws are all that can be drawn from the principle of human equality”. “Born equal” changed into equality before the law only, resulting in the wealthy, by considering the influence they exert on the protection of human rights in terms of political interests, completely controlled the basic movement and development orientation of human rights. US social practice contradicted the principles of the “Declaration of Independence” for a long time. In the century after independence, the US only had large amounts of legal rulings on economic infringements, and there were no rulings on violations of freedoms and rights, incidents of violations of civil liberties and rights flooded society, it often occurred that demonstrations, marches and strikes  were suppressed by military force, nowadays, even US citizens recognized that US society before the Twenties of last century was a society that made people feel ashamed. This proved that human rights are a tool for capital to pursue its own interest, protect private property and consolidate the political and economic system, the ups and downs of human rights depend on the political needs of the ruling class.

(2) Human rights theory lacks serious value proofs. The US human rights ideology system dos not have serious systematic theory, human rights value concepts are only an extension of a sort of conceptual tradition and political tradition, which is mainly expressed in the following aspects:

First, US human rights theory lacks a serious theoretical structure. US human rights ideology is full of contradictions, and does not have one generally recognized doctrine, it does not have common content, it does not have serious value proofs, and does also not have scientific definitions conform to academic thinking. There never has been anyone in US history, or any document, who has put down accurate conceptualized definitions for the human rights that the US advocates. Up to now, the natural law and natural rights definitions that are used as the support and framework for human rights theory remain numerous and complicated, individual schools of thought are opposed on main theories and foundations, there are mutually denying places in major viewpoints and structures. Even though there are some theories that are believed to be plausibly defensible, in these, the grave problem that theory is contradictory to history and practice exists as well. US human rights doe not have truthful objective standards, only the political arbitrary act those human rights are universally true. This also illustrates that human rights theory emerges because of demand, and that seeking bases for a necessary conclusion can only lead to theories for higher, which will inevitably contain major mistakes. This has caused a lack of clarity in the fundamental debate on human rights value views, and it is only so that whoever grasps discourse power, is in the position of power, and can prove that that his is the truth and a concrete value. The US is a country of immigrants, it does not have its own history and cultural traditions, and any sacred ideology is a utilitarian plaything.

Second, cognitive US human rights structures are inverted. The understanding of the world in US human rights theory persistently inverts concepts from head to feet, human rights exist as a conceptual ideology, there is no consideration for objective conditions in the real world, no consideration for time and space, and a rejection of the existence of the real world, which led to the serious consequence of divorce from reality. Biased cognition may not be too big of a risk when dealing with some singular matters, but it may also bring psychological effects generated by ignorance and dauntlessness. But when facing complex issues restrained by many factors, in the absolute majority of circumstances, grave mistakes may be made, and final results that are contrary to expectations may emerge. The US human rights view has generated major mistakes, which should be said to be closely connected with an inverted epistemology.

Third, US human rights theory often develops arguments from the angle of morals. Many people understand the legitimacy of human rights from the angle of morality, in reality, the US is able to generate “feelings of similarity” in people’s minds when it uses human rights, and infers that this is a basis for human rights. But if moral aspirations are changed into forced human rights that must be implemented, this ensures that people’s rights theories contain Utopia fantasy qualities. The US relies on the influence of morality in people’s lives to support the legitimacy of human rights, this sort of tactical technique of changing the subject in the process of the argument, although it has clear effects in seducing people into identifying with the legitimacy of human rights value views, but it also illustrates that they walk into a predicament when they prove the truth of human rights themselves, and are bogged down into the difficulty of finding powerful ideological and theoretical proof.

(3)  Human rights practice has not gained forward value proof. In any normal political design, it is necessary to achieve that social fissures are closed, and realize the uniformity and effectiveness of social management. The necessity that state management simultaneously deals with the rights and interests of different groups that contradict and clash, simultaneously deals with the needs of the people at present and in the future, and simultaneously deals with the country’s economic, cultural and political security, this can never be completely synchronized or uniform with individual demands. Different rights and responsibilities exist for people and governments. Guaranteeing the regular operation of a society cannot lead to an absolutization and limitless exaggeration of human rights, to maintain a society’s fundamental order, the necessary force is legitimized, the US Congress has also passed specific legislation requiring the US government to persist in implementing coercive rights for social management. The US incessantly overstates human rights, which has made it become a religion-like ideology, arouses and expands the desire for interests of individuals, and immoderately demand excessive interests from society, arousing social antagonism, this undoubtedly established a structure in politics in which management and society are artificially divided and opposed. In the US and other Western democratic structure countries, the popular will is sharply opposed, major policy decisions cannot be made, this has made US thinkers extremely anxious. Human rights resistance leads to capital losing its vitality, and the country marching towards a reality of fragmentation, which is also something that was not part of the original expectation of US human rights advocates.

Absolute human rights concepts have moulded distorted individual human dignities and created a new type of group that considers individual freedoms and rights to be supreme. Liberty and human right studies do not have a noble guiding content for human spirits, in fact, they affirm that all people’s instincts and desires are legitimate, affirm the legitimacy of the self-interest being higher than the social or public interests, it objectively induces individuals to exaggerate the false consciousness of individual rights, and induces individuals to expand their greediness and dark animal instincts. The rights value view where the individual is supreme has caused people to live unbalanced lives life in a compensatory situation. In the past, the bourgeoisie opposed the feudalist dictatorship, because they hated that this did not stress justice, did as it pleased and infinitely satisfied its own greed. Now, because of the seduction of absolute human rights, human actions and behaviour are the same as those of autocratic emperors, absolute human rights views encourage individuals to become ugly “individual dictators”. Not facing the multiple nature of humanity squarely, they insist on taking a part of human nature to represent the whole in a biased manner, insist on only reflecting instinctive desires, and raised them up to the level of sacred rights, apart from the side effects of encouraging individual strife that may emerge, in terms of social existence and development, in fact, this has a negative and regressive effect.

III, An analysis of the causes and drivers for the US’ raising the banner of human rights

Since the Forties of the previous century, the US has again vigorously propagated freedom and human rights value views, and implemented a number of human rights guarantees through legal norms. The US masses are, under the precondition that the property system is not touched upon, endowed with an environment of relatively broad freedoms and relatively high welfare benefits, and have the right to some legal protections. US human rights thinkers have played up these human rights activities as firm ideals and maintain them as sacred beliefs. When analysing it on the basis of seeking truth from facts, the reasons for this are:

First, the facilitation of abundant social material wealth. When social and economic development reaches a certain stage, and after social material wealth becomes plentiful, capital and the social ruling class will all display a certain tolerance, and are compelled to comply with the tendencies of progress in society and civilization. Wealth becomes a lubricant to mitigate social contradictions, and promoting human rights has profound economic guarantees.

Second, society has gained a redundant level of inclusiveness. When social, economic, culture and civilizational development reaches a relatively high level, a reduction of once-necessary social management and coercion will not strongly influence the regular operation of society, and will not clearly destroy the social basis for the common existence of people. After people have become universally well-to-do, they hope that life will be relatively comfortable and they desire freedom, society will also have the conditions to include such demands, and an increase of reasonable freedom levels in people’s lives becomes a natural process, the US’ strengthening of human rights is to adapt to the demands of social progress.

Third, there is the need to gain the moral authority of human rights. The US has preached and promoted human rights abroad on a large scale, professing that human rights are higher than sovereignty, but domestically, the practice of human rights has been retrained by the will of capital. The US assert that other countries must implement human rights provision, but they do not fulfil their responsibility themselves, their words and deeds are inconsistent, and this has been challenged by various countries in the world. In order to vindicate their firm attitude towards human rights, and gain the moral commanding heights, the US could not but implement some human rights principles domestically, list some human rights provisions in law, and human rights have been somewhat expanded.

Fourth, there is the brute force promotion of the new bourgeoisie. What capitalist countries pay even more attention to is the increase in value of assets and a social order providing guarantees for this, they see freedom, democracy and human rights merely as a form or cover. But in recent years, there has been a new bourgeoisie that has grown ever larger, which has begun to share a part of the ruling power of large capital, and influences the progress of US human rights by brute force. This is bourgeoisie that was newly born only a few decades ago, which includes the managerial class of large enterprises, large financial security managers, social intermediary groups, culture, art and sports starts, etc. The new bourgeoisie does not obtain its interests through safeguarding social order and regular capitalist operations, and consequently, they do not devote themselves to maintaining the social order, what they have an interest in is enjoying individual liberties without any limit after becoming wealthy, they tend towards believing that freedom and human rights are people’s sacred rights, and pursue a sort of anarchist human rights value objective. The new bourgeoisie is parasitic upon capital, and because of that, they do not oppose or stir up the basic system of capital. There are contradictions between capital and this new bourgeoisie, in reality, clashes often occur between the breadth of human rights and limited policy choices, capital pays more regard to order and political effect, the new bourgeoisie stresses broad human rights more. But, both have even more in common, they are in agreement on using liberty, democracy and human rights for foreign subjugation, and are in agreement on using human rights to strive for national strategic interests. This new bourgeoisie is linked up more with the middle class, and therefore, they are powerful drivers for domestic human rights movements.

IV, Deciphering the drivers for the US’ foreign forced promotion of human rights movements

US capital believes that outside social systems challenge the regularity of capital, therefore, they have established a political strategy of opposing and disintegrating Socialism. US has used human rights ideology strategy for political collapse, they are clear about the fact that Socialism reflects the common and unselfish spirit of humanity, but have not shaped mechanisms for the reasonable arrangement of a part of individual pursuits within humanity, because of this, the idea that individual human rights and freedoms are sacred is strengthened, and collectivism and altruistic spirits may be brought to trouble spiritually. To this end, the US has adopted formidable human rights offensives, it started from the literary and cultural level, disseminating the ideology that only individual lives have value and meaning, and individual rights are the most sacred through literary works having infectiousness and the power to rouse, in the end, the human rights strategy changed into the value understanding of the masses a number of Socialist countries, fulfilling those wishes. The masses were indifferent about their country, became estranged from society and the collective, the worship of individual rights triggered social opposition, which was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Socialist countries.

After the Cold War, the US shifted its strategic objective, the main objective of the human rights offensive became China. The US pays extreme regard to triggering internal contradictions in developing countries through the human rights strategy, and guides society to oppose and clash, realizing the objective of controlling these countries. On using human rights to realize the actual national interests of the US, US political commentators have never minced their words, they have repeatedly argued that the diplomatic promotion of human rights may bring some losses, but that it may gain the broadest security and strategic interests. After the Cold War, the US took aim at China with human rights as their weapon, there was the political consideration of bringing dissident ideologies to collapse, but it was more due to the scheme to use human rights to control China, in order to gain national interests. The US ruling class has had disputes on adopting policies with regard to China, including between the doctrine of containment and sanctions and the doctrine of engagement, the policy of engagement, in the end, has gained the leading position, concrete engagement policies, then, are to bring freedom, democracy and human rights value views in to China. The US does not fail to mention that the objective of engagement policy is to change the value orientation of the Chinese masses, exert pressure on the Chinese political system and even spur the collapse and dissolution of China, in order to realize US strategic interests. The US use engagement and exchange as bait, they use attraction of Chinese overseas students, academic visits, cultural exchange and dissemination to progressively infiltrate into Chinese universities, cultural organs and media, and even government organs. They propagate that individualism is sacred and that supreme rights of liberty are sacred under the name of human rights, they use the reasonable pursuit of people yearning for individualized lives in China’s society of today, they peddle extreme individualist value views to stir up dissension of the people against the values and ideological understandings of the country, the collective and the people. US scholars deeply research Chinese history, seeking for break-through points to stir up dissent, they incessantly scheme to blacken and uglify traditional Chinese culture with the feudal nature and suppression of the individual of Chinese culture as reason, they bring about that the masses, who are seduced into wrongdoing, are ashamed about China’s history, disintegrating the self-respecting spiritual principles and national cohesion of the Chinese nation. Some young students and cultural scholars have been imbued with a value view of the supremacy of individual rights, and have thereby made so-called human rights into standards, they preposterously judge that the ideological structure of the social masses and the people violate universal value views, causing estrangement from the country, the society and the people, and leading to abandonment, dissatisfaction and hatred, the malicious attacks by these people on society have seriously wounded China, the US human rights weapons’ violations by far exceeds the gunboat invasions after 1840. The US has broadly adopted human rights subjugation strategies towards developed countries and underdeveloped countries, regardless of the development stage and environmental conditions, stubbornly exerting pressure and demanding that developing countries implement human rights provisions that even the US itself cannot achieve.

Some people having ideological ideals exist among the US ruling class, their starting point for governance is not only the pursuit of the US national material interest and the government’s sort-term strategic objectives, in terms of motives, they may have fixed eyes upon implementing the ideal of the human rights value view in the entire world. These people, perhaps, do not lack true political character, perhaps they truly believe that disseminating the US human rights value view, where the entire world is concerned, means marching towards the gospel of freedom, wealth and power. But these bodyguards for human rights ideals reflect that they are ignorant or selectively forgetful about the history of human rights in the US, they pay no attention to the ugly side of US human rights practice, they do not analyse the factors why human rights are different to implement in a rational manner, and as they, completely without compunction, insist on forcibly pushing human rights value views on developing countries, their sincerity merits doubt. In fact, these human rights idealists have never cast off US ideology and national interests in the way they imagine. The US human rights foreign policy and strategy has not borne the fruits of the universal saving of the world, human rights movements have not stimulated the civilizations, wealth and power of developing countries, they have only left behind chaos, this has made those human rights idealists extremely anxious. Honest US politicians should not lack knowledge about history and reality, but then, could they not think that as they solemnly propagated human rights value views in the early days of US independence, these were restrained because of the development stage, that after independence, human rights thoughts were shelved, as a thing that the US could not do for a long time, and why must they still forcibly implement this in other countries, regardless of economic conditions and the development phase of those other countries? In the Sixties of the past century, when human rights theory had not reached its zenith, the US ruling class still has a relatively clever understanding, believing that the choice for the value views of freedom, democracy and human rights was closely linked to economic development levels, and that it would be difficult for backward economies to implement US-style value views. But starting with the Carter administration, and the stimulation of ideology, they believed ever more that development levels are not constraints and obstacles for promoting human rights politics, they are committed to bringing US human rights value concepts down on the entire world, seemingly for the sake of establishing one world with one single morality, but in fact, they have brought protracted chaos and crises to the world.

V, Persisting in self-confidently responding to US-style human rights violations

Human rights are not decrees, they are not sacred or absolute value concepts, China is completely permitted to firmly and calmly respond to US-style human rights violations.

First and foremost, we must establish human rights views with our own characteristics. At present, the US has raised high the banner of human rights, which is a vain attempt to weaken and subvert China through human rights. To reject US human rights violations, we should have human rights views with our own characteristics. Since the Opium War, China has seen long-standing poverty and weakness and repeated suffering, national wealth and strength is the Chinese dream and is the consensus formed by the people. As a developing country, guaranteeing the people’s right to life and right to development, and realizing national wealth, strength, security and health are the chief guarantees for human rights. We must establish positive human rights concepts and promote the implementations of the rights ideas of the right to life and the right to development. The essence of China’s human rights system is “popular sovereignty”, it has established individual freedoms and rights, as well as economic, social, cultural and education rights through law. It should be recognized that in traditional Chinese culture and organization, insufficient regard was paid to reasonable individual rights, and it is necessary to change and improve this in a focused manner. But where the US-style human rights view where the individual is supreme is concerned, China can never adopt this, both because of collectivist traditions, and because of a real consideration of limited living space. After clearly distinguishing the danger created by the Western promotion of so-called human rights strategies to developing countries, we should believe even more firmly in our own human rights value view, and pursuing the long-term and fundamental rights and interests of the absolute majority is the essence of Chinese human rights.

Furthermore, we must soberly respond to US-style human rights attacks. China cannot turn a blind eye to US human rights motives, the objective of stirring up trouble in China will never be covered up by the US. US human rights-style violations are coordinated with the form of civilization, we must be on guard and remain vigilant, but must also not completely come to a standstill. When responding to US human rights violations, we must absolutely firmly maintain a spirit of altruism and collectivism. We must persist in the human rights view of taking the people at the centre, propagate Socialist and collectivist spiritual values with vivid methods that stick close to people’s hearts, maintain and strengthen the masses’ spiritual customs of loving the country and loving the people. Second, we must enhance individual liberties on the basis of collective values. Following China’s economic and social development, China is currently obtaining the material conditions to guarantee people’s more confortable lives, at present, the Chinese masses already enjoy broad freedoms, but within the social ideological structure, there still is an insufficient reasonable value content in relation to individual liberties. We should consciously give people a reasonable space for freedom, and confirm and guarantee individual legal rights through legal methods, and satisfy the aspiration of the people who are becoming more well-to-do every day to expand their space for freedom. Third, there is facing China’s corruption problem. Corruption is a cancer of human societies, and is a human expansion of animal instincts and pursuits. But the corruption problem cannot be solved by using freedom and human rights, in fact, on major factor triggering corruption is corrosion by US-style value systems with the individual at the centre. US value concepts have successfully invaded the ideological and spiritual structures of a number of Communist Party members, they have disintegrated the beliefs and convictions of a number of people, and induced corrupt acts. This proves that when a person weakens or abandons lofty ideals, and start believing in value views with individual supremacy, it will inevitably result in the occurrence of tragedies. The Chinese masses bitterly resent the corruption occurring in their own country, but it must also be considered that large numbers of developing “democratic countries” have even graver corruption problems, the important matter is to form a common determination for the sake of the country and the people, rely on the strength of the people, adopt vigorous anti-corruption and pro-honesty campaigns, resolve present problems, and rely on the messes to establish long-term supervision and prevention mechanisms.

Third, we must forcefully fight back against US human rights evolution schemes. We must vigorously respond to US schemes to disintegrate the lines of spiritual defence of our country’s Party members and cadres, and especially the youth, use Communist and Socialist ideals and values to educate the people, educate the cadres and masses and educate the youth, consciously resist the sneak attacks from Western corrupt ideologies, and cannot let them disseminate ideologies propagating the centrality of the individual in the media. We must vigorously respond and effectively restrain the actions of a number of people with ulterior motives to use human rights to disintegrate comprehensive social value ideologies and the basis of social being. We must grasp national cultural dissemination and propaganda channels, and cannot let cultural and artistic forms be used to deconstruct the popular masses’ beliefs in common social values.

(The author’s work unit is the National Bureau of Statistics Beijing Survey Unit)

解读美国人权观和人权实践

杨润广
美国是现代人权思想集大成者,热衷于在国际上推行所谓人权价值观。美国学者不无骄傲地讲,当今世界没有谁还会公开质疑人权价值观。这个世界似乎正在走向无政府主义式的混乱,这和美国的人权观有千丝万缕的联系。本文拟从理论和实践的视角出发,对美国人权观进行深入分析和解读。

一、回顾美国的人权实践

人权价值观是近代引人关注的思想形态,也是当今美国倾力向国际社会推销的有关人的权利的学说。在一定意义上说,美国引导了人权价值观的发展进程,被认为是有着自觉的人权意识和良好的人权实践的国家。但是,美国也严重着存在限制、压制人权现象,美国的人权实践是负面和言行不一的。

(一)绝对人权在美国社会实践中并不存在。美国宣称人权的价值形态就意味着人的生存、自由和财产权利是绝对和神圣的,但这种人权在美国社会中从未真正存在过。美国宪政和宪法至高无上神圣地位的设定,使得宪法设定的任何权利都被限定在法律范围内,服从法律表明人权已经成为相对的权利。美国人权实践还普遍受多种限制。美国最高法院拥有宪法的解释权和司法裁定权,它的判决就是法律,最高法院根据政治需要,在国内把人权进一步具体裁定为受限制的权利。美国人权还直接受到了国家政治的制约。在社会实践中“言论、集会、结社、游行”权普遍受到限制。对于言论自由,美国法律明文规定14种言论不准发表。示威游行的自由有着许多限制,举行示威游行必须提出申请和经过批准。“占领华尔街运动”是美国中产阶级行使自由权利正当表达意愿的活动,但是美国当局不仅不保护这样的人权,而是采用各种各样的手段围捕、压制和瓦解。我们从这里看到的只能是美国对人权保护的反讽。

(二)美国人权是为资本政治服务的。美国人权有着鲜明的政治性和实用性,不是其所宣扬的不分身份、不分信仰的普遍的“人”的权利,而是为资本统治和政治服务的。符合统治意识形态的思想信仰不受限制,不符合的则要受到压制和镇压。上个世纪20年代,美国政府对国内的共产党组织和左派人士予以镇压和迫害,违背司法程序,一夜之间抓捕了约6000多名共产党人和进步人士。二战以后,在国内掀起新的反共反民主浪潮,公然践踏宪法明确规定的基本自由权利。麦卡锡主义时期,开展了一场对全国进步人士的迫害活动,人权和政治自由受到限制。大批人受到监视,共产党组织及其活动被强行干涉,工会活动受到严格控制,进步人士受到迫害和清洗,自由主义者也受到牵连。仅 1951 年就有 624 个团体和 204 种刊物被宣布为非法。美国推出了“忠诚宣誓法”、“颠覆活动管制法”等限制自由的法案,所有联邦政府中的公务人员必须宣誓忠诚于政府。“信仰自由”和“言论自由”成了伪善和欺骗,美国在关系到资本统治问题上,从不在意破坏自由和人权。

(三)美国人权始终排斥基本经济和社会权利。《独立宣言》声明“人生而平等”,人被赋予了神圣的平等权利,但美国却始终拒绝承认人权应该包括经济和社会权利。美国只有法律界定的政治自由和公民权利属于人权保障范畴,经济社会等方面的权利不受法律保障,根本没有平等权利可言。经济和社会地位的不平等在美国被认为是天经地义的,合乎自然法则的。对平等权利的实用主义解释,导致美国经济和社会权利巨大的不公平。财富在机会平等的幌子下,向极少数人积聚,贫富差距惊人,有的人挣扎在生存的边缘线上,在美国不算违反平等的人权。一个拥有巨额财富的国家,却有着4000多万贫困人口,有着几百万流浪者,他们生活极为困苦,却得不到表达意愿的“自由权利”。在美国媒体上,看不到贫困阶层生活状况的文字,在穷困民众的问题上社会集体失声。拒绝承认和保障人的经济和社会平等权利,使美国人权不具有普世的价值意义。

(四)美国国内“人”的歧视问题严重。美国革命的口号是“为人权而战”,但却肆意践踏人权。种族歧视、妇女丧失权利和对印第安人的屠杀等问题是美国人权实践最失道义的恶劣记录。美国虽然在上个世纪60年代给予了黑人一定的权利保障,但是种族歧视依然盛行,美国警察不顾人权准则,欺辱、殴打和杀害黑人的恶劣行径比比皆是。美国人权实践存在着妇女歧视的重大弊端,妇女长期处于无“人”权的地位,没有选举权、财产权、担任公职权、陪审权等。直到 1919 年,国会才在宪法第 19 条修正案中正式确认妇女选举权。一个从发表《独立宣言》开始就宣称拥有了现代文明的国度,居然在大半历史中,剥夺占人口一半的妇女的权利。美国的建国史是屠杀印第安人和掠夺其土地的历史,独立后印第安人没有公民资格,也没有基本的公民权利和宪法保障,甚至被剥夺了人的生存权利,长期遭到大规模屠杀和驱逐。印第安人的家园和大片土地被侵占,仅19世纪初,由联邦政府出动军队向印第安人发动的袭击和讨伐即达200多次,印第安人挣扎在血腥的镇压中。据估计,北美的印第安人曾经约有3000多万,而现在仅剩70多万,驱赶和屠杀印第安人的记录,成为美国人权实践中的耻辱记载。

(五)美国利用人权进行文明侵犯。美国的人权实践更多地体现在对其他国家进行“人权”侵犯上。美国把人权当作战略工具,为了获得政治经济和安全上的国家利益,热衷于在世界上强行推行人权价值观。美国利用人权问题来攻击和侵犯社会主义国家和广大发展中国家,挑动各国社会公众对政府不信任,制造矛盾和混乱,迫使这些国家接受西方的政治制度和价值观念。美国动辄以“人权”制裁他国,甚至进行军事干涉。仅冷战结束后,美国对外军事干涉就达40余次,造成了数十万平民的死亡,许多地方出现了“人权灾难”。美国人权战略的实质是站在道义的制高点,使对发展中国家的侵犯正当化,实现美国强权和控制的战略目的。

二、对美国人权观的理论解析

美国的人权理论,没有触及人权的社会经济根源和历史基础,也不关注实现人权的社会历史条件和社会物质条件,把人权有限的伦理式的合理性无限夸大,以为美国人权是超时空、超国界、超越一切的行为标准,应该成为全人类的共同准则,显然这是错误的。

(一) 美国推动人权是出于政治需要。人权和自然权利只是现代资本的创造物,实质是适应了资本主义经济发展的需要。美国独立战争期间推动人权是推翻英国殖民统治的需要,但建国后的统治阶层更关心国家的长治久安和保护私有财产的权利,认为人权导致混乱,妨碍建立资本的秩序,强调“应该使少数阶级在政治上享受特殊的永久地位”,美国人权核心内涵和“第一目的”变成了保护私有财产权。在私有财产权原则支配下,个人及其对财产的追求成为维系美国社会运转的内在动力。美国“宪法之父”麦迪逊在《联邦党人文集》的文章中对私有财产权的保障问题做了论述,认为私有财产权因自由权利而合乎自然,财产占有的不平等是不可避免的,保护产生财产权的不平等是政府的目的。宪法和《权利法案》都规定私有财产权及其保障的神圣原则,这时的人权理论着重证明经济上不平等的合理性,强调富人和穷人之间出现巨大的经济鸿沟并不算违反人权。建国领袖亚当斯强调“人类具有共同本性已成为普遍流行的原则。我希望从这一原则中引出正确的平等权利及平等义务观念。这一原则永不能产生平等的地位和平等财产等等更多的东西,平等的法律是从人类平等原则中能引出的一切”,“生而平等”变成了仅仅是法律平等,使得富人从政治利益考虑对人权保护施加影响,完全控制了人权的基本活动和发展方向。美国社会实践长期与《独立宣言》的原则相背而行。建国后的100多年时间里,美国只有大量的经济侵权的法律裁定,却没有自由权利被侵犯的裁定,而侵犯民众自由权利的事件充斥社会,武力镇压示威、游行、罢工的事件经常发生,现今连美国的民众都承认上世纪20年代前的美国社会是令人感到耻辱的社会。这证明了人权是资本追求自身的利益,保护私有财产,巩固政治和经济制度的工具,人权的兴衰取决于统治阶级的政治需要。

(二)人权学说缺乏严肃的价值证明。美国的人权思想体系没有严肃系统的理论,人权价值观念只是作为一种观念传统和政治传统传延,主要表现在以下几个方面:

一是美国人权学说缺乏严谨的理论体系。美国人权思想充满矛盾,没有一个公认的学说,没有共同的内涵,没有严肃的价值证明,也没有合乎学术思想的科学定义。美国历史上从未有任何人,或者任何一份文献对美国主张的人权下过准确的概念化的定义。到目前为止,被当作支撑和构架了人权理论的自然法和自然权利的定义复杂纷繁,各个思想流派在主要理论和根据上往往是对立的,重大观点和体系都存在着相互否定之处。即使是某些被认为能自圆其说的学说,也存在着立论与历史和实际存在相悖的严重问题。美国人权没有真理性的客观标准,只有人权是普世真理的政治专断。这也说明人权理论是因为需要而产生的,而为需要的结论寻找依据只能是御用式的学说,必然存在重大错误。这使得人权价值观根本辩论不清,只是谁掌握了话语权,谁处于强权地位,谁就可以证明它是真理和具有价值。美国是一个移民国家,没有自己的历史和文化传承,什么神圣思想都是实用主义的玩物。

二是美国人权的认知体系是颠倒的。美国人权理论认识世界都坚持头脚倒置的观念,人权以观念形态存在,不考虑现实世界的客观条件,不考虑时间空间,排斥真实世界的存在,导致了脱离现实的严重后果。偏颇的认知论,在处理某些单一的事物时也许不会有太大的风险,还可能带来一些无知无畏产生的心理效应。但是在面对多因素制约的复杂问题时,绝大多数情况都会严重错误,出现与预想相反的结局。美国人权观出现重大失误应该说和颠倒的认识论密切相关。

三是美国人权理论往往是从道德的角度展开论证。很多人是从道德的角度来理解人权的正当性,美国实际上是在利用人权能够引起人们内心的“同类感”,而推论出人权的根据的。但如果把道德愿望演变为必须实行的强制人权,这就使人的权利学说带有了乌托邦式的空想性质。美国借助于道德对人的生活的影响力来支撑人权的正当性,这种偷换概念的策略手法,虽然在蛊惑人们认同人权价值观的正当性上效果显著,但也说明它们在自证人权的真理性上是步入困局的,陷入了难找到有力思想理论证明的困境中。

(三)人权实践没有得到正向的价值证明。任何正常的政治设计中,都要做到弥合社会裂痕,实现社会管理的统一有效。国家的管理兼顾有着矛盾冲突的不同人群的权益,兼顾人们当前和未来的需要,兼顾国家的经济、文化和政治安全,这与个体的要求不可能完全同步统一。个人和政府存在不同的权利和责任。保证一个社会的正常运行,不能够对人权绝对化和无限夸张,维持一个社会的基本秩序,必要的强制是具有正当性的,美国国会也曾专门立法,要求美国政府坚持履行社会管理的强制权利。美国不断加码的人权推升,使之成为了宗教式的意识形态,激发和膨胀了个人的利益欲求,无节制地向社会索取超额利益,激发了社会对抗,这无疑于在政治设置中,人为地设定了使管理和社会处于分裂和对抗的体制。在美国和其他西方民主体制的国家,民意尖锐对立,重大决策无法作出,这令美国的思想家十分焦虑。人权抗争导致资本失掉活力、国家走向撕裂的现实,也是美国人权鼓吹者所始料不及的。

绝对人权理念塑造了扭曲的个体人格,催生了个人自由权利至上的新型人群。自由人权学没有人类精神高贵的导向性内涵,却事实上肯定了人的一切本能欲求的正当性,肯定了自我利益高于社会公共利益的正当性,客观上诱导了个体夸大个人权利的虚妄意识,诱导个体膨胀私欲和幽暗的动物欲求。个人至上的权利价值观,使人进入了畸形的和代偿状态的人生。过去资产阶级反对封建专制,就是憎恨他们不讲公理、为所欲为、无限满足私欲。而现在由于绝对人权的蛊惑,个体的所作所为无异于专制帝王,绝对人权观助长个体成为丑陋的“个体专制”。不正视人性多重性质,执意偏颇地以人性的部分代表全部,执意仅仅反映人本能的欲望,并把其拔高成为神圣的权利,除了可以产生一些激励个人奋斗的附加效果外,就社会的存在和发展而言,实际上产生着消极没落的作用。

三、 美国高扬人权旗帜的原因和动机分析

美国从上世纪40年代开始,重新积极宣扬自由人权价值观,并且在法律规范内实施一些人权的保障。美国民众在不触及资本制度的前提下,被赋予了较为宽松自由的环境和较高的福利,拥有一些法律保护的权利。美国的人权思想家都把这些人权行为渲染为坚持理想和维护神圣信念。实事求是地分析,其原因为:

一是雄厚的社会物质财富的促成。当社会经济发展到一定阶段,社会物质财富丰富以后,资本和社会统治阶层都会表现出一定的宽容,被迫顺应社会文明进步的趋势。财富成为缓解社会矛盾的润滑剂,推进人权在经济上有着雄厚的保障。

二是社会具有了包容的冗余度。社会经济、文化和文明发展到较高的程度,减少曾经必需的社会管理和强制不会强烈影响到社会正常运行,不会明显地破坏人们共生共存的社会基础。人们在普遍富裕之后,有着希望生活较为宽松和自由的欲望,社会也具有包容这样的需求的条件,提升人们生活合理自由度就成为自然过程,美国加强人权是适应社会进步的需要。

三是取得人权的道义权威的需要。美国对外大肆鼓吹和推动人权,声称人权高于主权,但是对内推行人权却受到资本意志的制约。美国坚称别国必须实行的人权条款,自己却并不履行责任,言行不一,受到了世界各国的质疑。为了表白自己对人权的坚定态度,获得道义上的制高点,美国不得不在国内落实一些人权规则,法律中列入了一些人权条款,人权有了一定的拓展。

四是新的资产阶层的强力推动。资本主义国家更重视的是资本增值和为其提供保障的社会秩序,视自由民主人权不过是形象和掩饰。但是近些年来,有了一个力量越来越大的新的资产阶层,开始与大资本分享部分统治的权利,并且强力影响美国人权的进程。近几十年才新生的资产阶层,包括大公司经理阶层、大的金融证券经营者、社会中介组织、文艺体育明星等。新的资产阶层并不是从维护社会的秩序和资本正常运行中获取利益的,因此他们不致力于维护资本秩序,更有兴趣的是富裕后享有不受任何限制的个人自由,更倾向于相信自由、人权是人的神圣权利,追求一种无政府主义的人权价值目标。新的资产阶层寄生于资本,因此他们不反对、不触动资本的根本制度。资本与这个新的资产阶层有矛盾,现实中常常在人权的扩大和限制的政策选择中发生冲突,资本更重视秩序和政府的效率,新资产阶层更强调扩大人权。但是,两者也有着更大的一致,在用自由、民主、人权对外征服上是一致的,用人权谋求国家战略利益上是一致的。这个新的资产阶层与中产阶级有更多的联系,因此是国内人权活动的有力推动者。

四、 美国对外强行推动人权运动的动机解读

美国资本认为异己的社会制度挑战资本的正当性,因此确立了对抗和瓦解社会主义的政治战略。美国采取人权意识形态的政治瓦解战略,它们清楚社会主义反映了人性中共同的利他的精神,但却没有形成人性中个人需求部分合理安放的机制,因此加强个体人权自由神圣的意识,可以从精神上解构集体主义和利他精神。为此美国采取了强大的人权攻势,从文学、文化层面开始,以具有感染力和震撼力的文学作品等,传播只有个体生命有价值和意义,个人权利最神圣的意识形态,终于以人权战略如愿以偿地改变了一些社会主义国家民众的价值认知。民众对国家的冷漠,对社会、集体的疏离,对个人权利崇拜引发的社会对抗,是苏联和原东欧社会主义国家瓦解的重要原因。

冷战之后,美国转移了战略目标,人权攻击的主要对象转向中国。美国极为重视以人权战略引发发展中国家内部矛盾,引导社会对立冲突,实现操控这些国家的目的。对于用人权来实现美国现实的国家利益,美国的政论界一直是直言不讳的,他们反复论证推行人权外交虽会有一些损失,但可以获得最大的安全和战略利益。冷战后美国以人权为武器对准中国,既有对异己的意识形态瓦解的政治考虑,但更多地是企图以人权操控中国以获取国家利益。美国统治层曾有过对中国采取政策的争论,包括遏制制裁说与接触交流说,交流接触的政策最终占据了主导地位,具体的接触政策则是向中国输入自由民主人权价值观。美国毫不隐讳接触交流政策的目的就是改变中国民众的价值取向,施压中国政治制度,甚至促使中国崩溃解体,以实现美国的战略利益。美国以接触和交流为诱饵,利用吸引中国人留学、学者访问、文化交流传播,逐步渗透到中国的大学、文化机构和媒体,直至政府机构。以人权的名义宣传个人主义神圣、自由至上的权利神圣,利用中国现今社会人们向往个性化生活的合理诉求,兜售极端的个人主义价值观,解构人们对国家、集体和人民的价值思想的认知。美国学者深入研究中国历史,寻找解构的突破口,处心积虑地以中国文化具有封建性和压制个性为理由,抹黑丑化中国传统文化,使被蛊惑的民众以中国的历史为羞耻,瓦解中国人的民族自尊的精神气节和民族凝聚力。一些青年学生、文化学者被置换了个人权利至上的价值观,进而以所谓的人权作标准,荒谬地判定现行社群的和人民的思想体系是背离普世价值观的,引发了对国家、社会和人民的疏离,直至走到了背弃、不满和仇恨,这些人对社会的恶意攻击重创了中国,美国人权武器的侵犯远远超过1840年以后的舰炮式侵略。美国对发展中国家和欠发达国家普遍地采用人权征服战略,不顾发展阶段和环境条件,一味施压要求发展中国家实行连美国也做不到的人权条款。

美国统治阶层存在着一些有着意识形态理想的人,他们施政的出发点不仅是追求美国国家的物质利益和政府短期的战略目标,就动机而言可能是着眼于在全世界实现人权价值观理想。这些人也许不缺少正直的政治品格,也许真的认为普及美国的人权价值观对全世界来说是走向自由和富强的福音。但是这些人权理想的卫士,表现出来的对美国人权历史的无知、选择性忘却、不顾美国人权实践的丑陋、不从道理上解析人权难以实行的原因,却毫无内疚地执意在发展中国家强推人权价值观,其真诚性值得怀疑。实际上,这些人权理想主义者,从未像他们想象的那样摆脱美国的意识形态和国家利益。美国的人权外交和战略没有结出普救世界的果实,人权运动没有促进发展中国家的文明和富强,留下的只是一片混乱,这使这些人权意识形态理想主义者十分焦虑。正直的美国政治家应该不缺少历史和现实的常识,那么,他们能不能想一想,美国建国之初就庄严宣称了人权价值观,也曾经由于发展阶段的制约,在建国后人权思想被搁置,但美国长期不能做的事情,为什么不管别国的经济条件和发展阶段,却要强行在别国实行呢?上世纪六七十年代,人权理论还没有被推到顶峰的时候,美国统治阶层还有较明慧的认识,认为自由、民主、人权的价值观的选择与经济发展程度有密切的关系,经济落后难以实施美国式的价值观。但是从卡特政府开始,意识形态的亢奋,使他们更相信发展程度不是推行人权政治的制约和障碍,热衷于把美国的人权价值观念倾泻到全世界,似乎是为了建立一个单一的道义世界,但实际上是给世界带来了持续的混乱和危机。

五、 坚定自信地应对美国式人权的侵犯

人权不是律令,不是神圣绝对的价值观念,中国完全可以坚定从容应对美国式人权的侵犯。

首先要确立有自身特色的人权观。当前美国高扬人权旗帜,是妄图以人权削弱和颠覆中国。拒止美国的人权侵犯,应该有自身特色的人权观。中国自鸦片战争以来,国家积贫积弱屡经磨难,国家富强是中国的梦想,是人民形成的共识。作为发展中国家,确保人民的生存权发展权,实现国家的富强安康是首要的人权保障。要确立积极人权理念,推进生存权、发展权的权利理念的落实。中国人权制度的本质是“人民主权”,它通过法律确立了个人自由权以及经济、社会和文化教育权利等。应该承认中国传统文化和体制中,对个人合理的权利重视不够,需要有针对性地加以改进和提升。但对于美国式的个人至上的人权价值观,中国不论从集体主义的传统,还是从生存空间限制的现实考虑,都永远不可能采纳。在看清了西方推行所谓的人权战略给发展中国家造成的危害后,应该更加坚信自己的人权价值观,追求绝大多数人民的长远和根本利益才是中国人权的实质。

其次要冷静应对美国式人权的冲击。对美国人权动机中国不能视而不见,解构中国的目标美国从来毫不掩饰。美国人权式的侵犯配合着文明的形式,我们既要警惕和防范,又不要全面拒止。应对美国的人权侵犯,一是要坚定地维护利他主义、集体主义精神。要坚持以人民为中心的人权观,以生动的、贴近人心的形式宣传社会主义和集体主义的精神价值,保持和加强民众爱国家、爱人民的精神风尚。二是要在整体价值基础上增进个人的自由。随着中国经济社会的发展,中国正在获得保障人们更宽松生活的物质条件,当今中国民众已经享有着广泛的自由,但是在社会意识形态体系内,关于个人自由相对合理性的价值内涵还不足。应该有意识地给个人合理的自由空间,通过法律的形式对个人的法权给予确认和保障,满足日渐富裕起来的人们拓展自由空间合理愿望。三是正视中国的腐败问题。腐败是人类社会的毒瘤,是人类动物本能欲求的膨胀。但是用自由人权并不能解决腐败问题,实际上引发腐败的一大部分原因,是由于美国式的个人为中心价值观的侵蚀。美国的价值观念成功地侵入了部分共产党员的思想精神体系,瓦解了部分人的信仰信念,诱发了腐败行为。这证明一个人淡化或丢弃了崇高理想,信奉个人至上的价值观,必然导致悲剧发生。中国公众痛恨自己国家发生的腐败,但是也要看到大量发展中的“民主国家”腐败问题更加严重,重要的是为了国家和人民,形成从上到下的共同决心,依靠人民的力量,采取积极的反腐倡廉行动,解决当前的问题,并依靠人民建立起长远的监督和防范机制。

第三要有力回击美国的人权演变图谋。对于美国瓦解我国党员干部尤其是青少年精神防线的图谋要积极应对,用共产主义和社会主义的理想和价值教育人民,教育干部群众,教育青少年,自觉抵制西方腐朽思想的侵袭,不能放任宣扬个人中心的思想在媒体网络上传播。对于一些别有用心的人以人权瓦解社会整体价值思想、冲击社会存在根基的行动,要积极应对和有效遏制。要把握好国家的文化传播宣传渠道,不能放任用文化艺术形式,解构人民群众对社会共同价值思想的信仰。

(作者单位:国家统计局北京调查总队)

One thought on “Understanding the US Human Rights View and Human Rights Practice

    5566hh said:
    September 10, 2013 at 1:48 am

    Very interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s