US Constitution Fails to Live Up to Its Name

Published in The People's Daily
(China) on 6 August 2013
by Ma Zhong Chen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Winnie Yeung. Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
Mainstream academics in the United Kingdom and United States think that a constitutional political system is like this: The constitution is the supreme authority above all and also a manifestation of natural and common will, and, therefore, the U.S. is a society of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

However, the U.S. Constitution itself is a paradox. On the one hand, it enables the bourgeoisie to monopolize production and strip away power from the people; on the other hand, it talks about “rule by the people” and freedom for all in various arenas. In reality, these two sides cannot coexist, so which of the two is in fact the reality?

In the United States, it is true that the Constitution is supreme over the will of the American public, but it does not overpower everything. The U.S. Constitution is not the highest supreme authority; rather, the will of the U.S. capitalist oligarchy is. The interpretation and implementation of the U.S. Constitution and laws change according to the interests and will of this monopoly. The bourgeoisie is able to achieve all of these manipulations because society relies on the monopolizing production these tycoons own. The bourgeoisie claims that its interests are the common interests shared by all members of society, giving an element of universality to its selfish ideas. Contemporary American independent intellectuals, such as academics in critical legal studies, do not deny this phenomenon.

Hence, we can see that the ideals of the U.S. Constitution are not compatible with its actual implementation. U.S. constitutional scholars and their Chinese followers promulgate a certain type of all-encompassing, God-willed “constitutional governance” that does not exist in reality. These paradigms are myths that America uses to fool the public in order to maintain totalitarian rule. They are also psychological war weapons that American tycoons and their partners in China use to topple Chinese socialist society. But of course, a constitutional system that could be compatible with socialism does not exist.

Of the U.S. founding fathers, Hamilton revealed truthfully in "The Federalist Papers" the essence of American constitutional governance: It is a type of rule, in which all means should be used to prevent the majority of poor people from encroaching on the benefits of the few property owners. It is best to achieve this goal, not by feudal totalitarianism, but in such a way that “the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.” And this is best exemplified in the federal republic of the United States.

The wheels of American politics have been turning steadily for 200 years, in essence because of the maturity, power and organization of the American bourgeois class, compared to the relatively naïve, meek, scattered proletariat. Externally, the main reason for its smooth functioning was that imperialistic nations have been using neocolonialism to exploit the "Third World," and not because of their “marvelous” system. For example, because of the relative ease of their external environment, the bourgeoisie and the U.S. Constitution made it through critical moments like the Civil War. However, developing countries like India and the Philippines, which implemented American-style democracy, failed because their bourgeois class was too weak and dependent, failing to solve its long-time problems to gain control.

The power of the American presidency is not locked in the cage of the U.S. Constitution, but rather in the cage of capitalistic, monopolizing tycoons. American government officials often breach constitutional and legal limits, using the power in their hands to help capitalist, profit-seeking groups earn huge profits, while themselves earning a huge sum of commission. They are not obstructed in any way. In the United States, it is common to see a “revolving door” phenomenon, in which one person is involved, simultaneously or consecutively, in both the business world and government. On the other hand, if one breaks through constitutional and legal limits to harm the sacred property rights of the bourgeoisie, he will certainly be punished. In reality, there is one law higher than the Constitution: It is not the will of God or natural law, but of the monopolizing capitalists.

To protect the essential power of the bourgeoisie, the U.S. Constitution must protect the foundation of bourgeois totalitarian rule, the right to monopolize production. Since the Constitution acts as a disguise for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it has to bear a certain degree of hypocrisy. It cannot explicitly recognize that the U.S. is a bourgeois, totalitarian nation, so it also contains those abstract concepts of “freedom for all,” “human rights,” and so on. Yet, there is an irreconcilable conflict between capitalism and democracy: As long as the bourgeoisie has a monopoly on production rights, democracy and freedom will not exist for all U.S. citizens. This is the reason why the U.S. Constitution fails to live up to its name.

On the same point, the Chinese constitution is absolutely different.

Proletarians govern the country in a fundamentally different way from the bourgeoisie. Socialist countries take note of the consequences of the U.S. Constitution and will not make any room for the bourgeoisie to seize power. Gorbachev failed to reform the political system in the USSR because he based the reform on Western constitutional governance. This failure is a lesson, from which we should all learn.


美国宪政的名不副实(望海楼)
马钟成
《 人民日报海外版 》( 2013年08月06日 第 01 版)
  英美主流学者认为其宪政是这样一种政治体制:宪法作为最高权威高于一切,宪法又是自然法和全民意志的体现,于是美国就是一个民主、自由、人权、法治的社会。
  但美国的宪法本身是一个矛盾体,一方面在根本上保障资产阶级垄断生产资料、剥削人民大众的权力;另一方面又在很多地方谈人民主权、全民自由。这两者是无法同时存在的。究竟哪个方面的条款更能得到落实呢?显然是前者。
  在美国,宪法的确高于美国人民大众的意志,但并不高于一切。美国宪法不是最高权威,美国垄断资本寡头的意志才是。美国宪法及法律如何解释、执行,都以美国垄断寡头的意志和利益为转移。而资产阶级能够实现这一切,从根本上看正是依靠其对生产资料的垄断。只不过为了自身的统治,资产阶级“把自己的利益说成是社会全体成员的共同利益”、“赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式”而已。当今美国真正的独立知识分子,如批判法学学派,并不否认这些。
  可见,美国的宪政之“名”,完全不符合宪政之“实”。美国宪政学者及其中国附庸们所宣扬的那种全面民主、自由并体现天意的“宪政”,在现实中是不存在的。这种宪政概念体系是美国迷惑人民大众,维护自身专制统治的神话,也是美国垄断资本寡头及其在华代理人用来颠覆中国社会主义制度的信息心理战武器。这种根本不存在的宪政制度,当然无法与社会主义兼容。
  关于美式宪政的本质,美国国父之一汉密尔顿当年在《联邦党人文集》中相对坦白地披露过。他认为要用一切手段防止多数穷人侵犯少数资产者的利益,要做到这一点,最好的办法并非封建专制的方式,而是使“社会本身将分为如此之多的部分、利益集团和公民阶级”,“使全体中多数人的不合理联合即使不是办不到,也是极不可能”,在他看来此办法“可用美利坚联邦共和国来作范例”。
  美国的政治模式稳定运转200多年,根本性的内部原因是美国资产阶级的成熟、强大以及严密的组织性,对应的则是无产阶级的相对幼稚、弱小以及一盘散沙的形态。从外部看,最主要的原因是这些帝国主义国家一直在以新旧殖民主义的方式对第三世界进行剥削,并非其本身制度的优秀。例如,正是由于外部环境的相对宽松,使美国资产阶级和美国宪政制度艰难地度过了南北战争这样的濒死时刻。一些第三世界国家(如印度和菲律宾等)实行了美式宪政,由于其资产阶级自身的软弱性、依附性,并未有效地解决其原有的痼疾。
  美国总统的权力并没有被关进宪法的笼子,而是被关进了垄断资本寡头的笼子里了。当美国官员突破宪法和法律限制,利用手中权力为资本财团牟利并获得巨额佣金时,他不会遭受阻挠——在美国,官商旋转门的现象十分普遍;但假如他突破宪法和法律的限制去动摇资产阶级的神圣财产权,他一定会遭受严惩。在美国宪法之上,还有一个凌驾其上的高级法,不过它并非上帝意志或者自然法,而是垄断财团的意志。
  为了保障资产阶级的根本权力,美国宪法必须对资产阶级专政的根基即对生产资料的垄断权进行保护;而为了对资产阶级专政的实质进行掩饰,美国宪法必然带有一定的虚伪性。比如不敢明确承认美国是资产阶级专政国家,比如那些抽象的全民自由、人民主权字眼等等。其实这两者之间,存在不可调和的冲突——只要保障资产阶级对生产资料的垄断性权利,便不会存在广大美国人民的民主和自由,这也是美国宪政名不副实的重要原因。
  这一点,中国宪法与其完全相反。
  无产阶级治理国家的逻辑和方式与资产阶级根本不同。社会主义国家借鉴美国宪政的结果,只能给资产阶级掌握政权打开缺口。戈尔巴乔夫搞的政治体制改革,就是因为以西方宪政为蓝图而彻底失败。前车之覆,殷鉴不远。
  (作者为海洋安全与合作研究院高级研究员、中国社会科学院世界社会主义研究中心特邀研究员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Australia: Trump Often Snaps at Journalists. But His Latest Meltdown Was Different

Austria: Deterrence, but Not for Everyone

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Topics

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Canada: Trump Prioritizes Commerce Over Shared Values in Foreign Policy Gamble

Australia: Another White House Ambush Sends a Message to World Leaders Entering Donald Trump’s Den

Australia: Trump Often Snaps at Journalists. But His Latest Meltdown Was Different

Germany: Trump’s Momentary Corrective Shift

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary