Primary Source Document
with Questions (DBQs)
F R O M T H E P E O P L E ’ S D A I L Y :
“ B O U R G E O I S A N D S O C I A L I S T D E M O C R A C I E S C O M P A R E D ”
( M A R C H 1 9 9 0 )
Introduction


The Democracy Movement of 1989 was a sharp wake-up call for the Communist Party leadership. They had never
expected the incident to get so seriously out of hand. One of the lessons that the Party leadership drew from the
events of that spring was that they needed to do far more to teach the people, and particularly the young people,
about patriotism and loyalty to the Party and the government. To begin with, they needed to refute the ideas about
democracy that the students, workers, and other protestors had been discussing. The editorial below was published
in the Party newspaper, People’s Daily, in March 1990, as a part of that project of education (or indoctrination).






Document Excerpts with Questions (Longer selection follows this section)
From Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook, edited by Patricia Buckley Ebrey, 2nd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 501-503.
©1993 The Free Press. Reproduced with the permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.




From
the
People’s
Daily:

“Bourgeois
and
Socialist
Democracies
Compared”
(March
1990)



A
small
number
of
people
who
obstinately
stick
to
bourgeois
liberalization
have
made

efforts
to
advocate
bourgeois
liberal
democracy
and
distort
China’s
socialist
democracy
in
an

evil
attempt
to
overthrow
the
CPC
leadership
and
sabotage
the
socialist
People’s
Republic
of

China.
…

…
Since
mankind
entered
class
society,
there
has
never
been
equality
between
the
ruling

class
and
the
classes
that
are
ruled,
or
in
the
distribution
of
rights.
…
In
this
sense,
all
forms
of

freedom,
 democracy,
 and
 human
 rights
 are
 abstract
 and
 practiced
 on
 conditions
 that
 the

fundamental
interests
of
the
possessing
class
should
be
protected
or
left
unharmed.
This
is
class

democracy,
class
freedom,
and
class
human
rights.

…

…
 Is
 it
 true
 that
 the
 American
 proletarians
 have
 mixed
 with
 the
 bosses
 of
 financial

groups,
enjoy
the
right
of
equal
distribution
and
possession,
and
have
equal
democratic
rights?

The
answer
is
negative.

…

Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) on
FROM THE PEOPLE’S DAILY:
“BOURGEOIS AND SOCIALIST DEMOCRACIES COMPARED” (MARCH 1990)
Asia for Educators l Columbia University l http://afe.easia.columbia.edu Page 2 of 6
The
 nature
 of
 the
 socialist
 democracy
 is
 that
 people
 act
 as
 the
 masters
 of
 their
 own

country.
The
socialist
system
is
the
state
system
under
which
laborers
and
citizens
are
allowed

to
manage
the
state,
administer
society,
and
act
as
the
masters
of
their
country
in
the
history
of

mankind
 for
 the
 first
 time.
 It
 is
 because
 of
 this
 reason
 that
 the
 socialist
 country
 is
 the
 most

advanced
form
of
democratic
country
in
the
history
of
mankind.
…

…

The
 PRC
 Constitution
 stipulates
 in
 explicit
 terms
 that
 all
 powers
 in
 the
 People’s

Republic
of
China
belong
to
the
people.
…

…

…
 Take
 the
 citizen’s
 right
 to
 vote
 for
 example;
 our
 country
 instituted
 the
 universal

suffrage
system
as
early
as
1953.
Since
then,
the
Chinese
people
have
been
able
to
elect
their

own
deputies,
hold
people’s
congresses
at
all
levels,
form
people’s
governments
at
all
levels,

and
exercised
state
power.
…



Questions:


1. What purpose is served by characterizing the 1989 demonstrators as “a
small number of people”?
2. On what grounds does the editorial criticize bourgeois (particularly
American) democracy? Do the arguments have any merit?
3. How would you refute the arguments that the editorial makes about the
superior nature of China’s socialist democracy?


Longer Selection
From Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook, edited by Patricia Buckley Ebrey, 2nd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 501-503.
©1993 The Free Press. Reproduced with the permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.




From
the
People’s
Daily:

“Bourgeois
and
Socialist
Democracies
Compared”
(March
1990)



A
small
number
of
people
who
obstinately
stick
to
bourgeois
liberalization
have
made

major
efforts
to
advocate
bourgeois
democracy
and
distort
China’s
socialist
democracy
in
an

evil
attempt
to
overthrow
the
CPC
leadership
and
sabotage
the
socialist
People’s
Republic
of

China.
In
their
minds,
the
capitalist
system
is
more
democratic
than
the
socialist
system
instead

of
the
other
way
round,
and
only
with
the
establishment
of
the
capitalist
system
can
there
be

genuine
democracy.
These
bourgeois
liberal
fallacies
must
be
exposed
and
criticized.
…

In
a
class
society,
democracy
bears
a
class
nature.
Since
mankind
entered
class
society,

there
has
never
been
equality
between
the
ruling
class
and
the
classes
that
are
ruled,
or
in
the

Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) on
FROM THE PEOPLE’S DAILY:
“BOURGEOIS AND SOCIALIST DEMOCRACIES COMPARED” (MARCH 1990)
Asia for Educators l Columbia University l http://afe.easia.columbia.edu Page 3 of 6
distribution
of
rights.
Democracy
is
equal
power
distribution
in
the
possessing
class.
The
classes

that
are
ruled
can
only
obtain
a
part
of
democratic
rights
that
serve
the
power
distribution
in

the
ruling
class.
In
this
sense,
all
forms
of
freedom,
democracy,
and
human
rights
are
abstract

and
 practiced
 on
 conditions
 that
 the
 fundamental
 interests
 of
 the
 possessing
 class
 should
 be

protected
or
left
unharmed.
This
is
class
democracy,
class
freedom,
and
class
human
rights.

A
small
number
of
people
who
obstinately
hold
to
bourgeois
liberalization,
including

Fang
Lizhi
and
Wang
Ruowang,
have
made
energetic
efforts
to
beautify
American
democracy.

They
 asserted
 that
 this
 democracy
 “is
 genuine
 democracy
 for
 the
 entire
 people.”
 In
 their

opinions,
exploitation
of
the
majority
by
the
capital‑possessing
minority
has
been
over
long
ago.

They
 said
 Marx
 wished
 to
 proletarianize
 the
 capitalists
 and
 turn
 them
 into
 self‑supporting

laborers,
but
Western
society
has
capitalized
the
proletarians.
Some
Americans
in
power
have

also
asserted
that
“America
is
the
beacon
of
the
world.”

Is
it
true
that
the
American
bourgeoisie
are
so
kind‑hearted,
“do
not
exploit,”
“do
not

exercise
dictatorship,”
and
have
become
the
“beacon
of
world
democracy”?
Is
it
true
that
the

American
proletarians
have
mixed
with
the
bosses
of
financial
groups,
enjoy
the
right
of
equal

distribution
and
possession,
and
have
equal
democratic
rights?
The
answer
is
negative.

In
the
present‑day
world,
capital
is
still
characterized
by
exploitation,
oppression,
and

dictator.
This
is
a
historical
definition
provided
for
capital
by
the
law
governing
human
history.

Similarly,
 the
 United
 States,
 where
 “capitalists
 are
 the
 personalization
 of
 capital,”
 cannot

exclude
itself
from
this
definition.

In
 the
 United
 States
 capitalists
 still
 dominate
 everything.
 A
 look
 at
 the
 nature
 of

American
democracy
will
make
it
easy
to
draw
a
conclusion
that
corresponds
to
historical
facts.

First,
U.S.
democratic
elections
are
actually
the
trials
of
capital
and
wealth.

As
everyone
is
aware,
U.S.
elections
are
the
“elections
of
money.”
Each
U.S.
presidential

election
costs
about
$1
billion.
During
their
presidential
campaign,
Reagan
and
Carter
spent
$45

million
each.
Even
the
expenditures
for
the
election
of
a
senator
are
as
high
as
$500,000.
At
least

$500,000
to
$600,000
are
required
for
the
election
of
a
state
senator.
Undoubtedly,
only
the
rich

can
afford
such
huge
expenditures,
whereas
the
American
workers
and
other
laborers,
even
the

middle
class,
do
not
dare
to
inquire
about
the
elections.
Statistics
suggest
that
the
per
capita

assets
of
U.S.
Senators
amount
to
$5
million,
and
seventeen
percent
of
them
have
assets
worth

over
$5
million.
No
wonder
the
American
working
people
call
the
U.S.
Congress
the
“club
of

the
rich.”
According
to
relevant
statistics
compiled
by
the
U.S.
authorities,
people
in
power
in

the
 United
 States
 control
 fifty
 percent
 of
 the
 assets
 in
 the
 industrial,
 transportation,
 and

telecommunications
field,
in
public
enterprises,
and
in
banks,
but
these
people
account
for
only

three
percent
of
the
country’s
population.
Since
the
end
of
World
War
II,
nine
U.S.
presidents

and
 vice‑presidents
 have
 been
 either
 members
 of
 monopoly
 capital
 groups
 or
 supported
 by

huge
financial
organizations;
they
are
representatives
of
these
organizations.

True,
 the
 American
 people
 do
 enjoy
 universal
 suffrage
 at
 present.
 Again,
 the

government
 waived
 restrictions
 on
 the
 property
 of
 voters
 and
 on
 women
 and
 black
 people.

Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) on
FROM THE PEOPLE’S DAILY:
“BOURGEOIS AND SOCIALIST DEMOCRACIES COMPARED” (MARCH 1990)
Asia for Educators l Columbia University l http://afe.easia.columbia.edu Page 4 of 6
Democratic
as
all
this
looks,
it
cannot
prove
that
the
democracy
practiced
in
the
United
States
is

no
sham.
I
should
like
to
ask:
What
benefits
can
laborers,
women,
and
black
people
gain
from

such
a
universal
direct
election,
which
is
held
under
the
influence
of
the
“contest
of
property

and
capital”?
In
the
history
of
the
United
States,
which
worker
has
been
elected
as
president?

How
many
workers
have
been
elected
as
congressmen
or
congresswomen?
…

With
regard
to
human
rights,
the
world
monopoly
capital
has
also
made
every
possible

endeavor
 to
 advertise
 to
 the
 whole
 world
 that
 it
 is
 the
 one
 that
 truly
 “respects”
 and

“safeguards”
human
rights.
Nonetheless,
out
of
its
own
class
interests,
the
monopoly
capital

has
not
only
trampled
upon
human
rights
at
home
but
has
also
frequently
acted
as
the
world

military
police
by‑sending
troops
to
directly
interfere
with
the
internal
affairs
of
other
countries

and
practice
power
politics
in
the
whole
world.
For
instance,
the
United
States
recently
invaded

Panama
 and
 carried
 out
 wanton
 and
 indiscriminate
 bombings
 and
 killings
 in
 Panama.
 The

United
States
seriously
violated
basic
norms
governing
international
relations.
Comrade
Deng

Xiaoping
once
laid
bare
the
true
nature
of
the
bourgeois
human
rights.
Comrade
Deng
Xiaoping

sharply
pointed
out:
“What
are
human
rights?
How
many
people
now
enjoy
human
rights?
Do

human
rights
mean
the
rights
of
the
majority
of
the
people
or
the
rights
of
the
minority
of
the

people
 or
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 people
 of
 the
 whole
 country?
 The
 so‑called
 human
 rights
 as

advocated
by
the
Western
countries
fundamentally
differ
from
the
human
rights
we
are
talking

about.
On
this
question,
our
views
do
differ.”
Andrew
Young,
former
U.S.
ambassador
to
the

United
Nations,
once
said:
In
the
United
States,
“a
lot
of
people
have
been
imprisoned
because

they
are
poor,
not
because
they
are
bad.”
In
so
saying,
Andrew
Young
gave
a
true
picture
of
the

human
rights
situation
in
the
United
States.



The
Socialist
Democracy
is
the
People’s
Democracy

Enjoyed
by
the
Majority
of
the
People

The
socialist
democracy
means
the
democratic
rights
enjoyed
by
the
broad
masses
of
the

workers,
peasants,
intellectuals,
and
all
the
people
who
love
their
socialist
motherland.

The
nature
of
the
socialist
democracy
is
that
people
act
as
the
masters
of
their
country.

The
socialist
state
system
is
the
state
system
under
which
laborers
and
citizens
are
allowed
to

manage
the
state,
administer
the
society,
and
act
as
the
masters
of
their
country
in
the
history
of

mankind
 for
 the
 first
 time.
 It
 is
 because
 of
 this
 reason
 that
 the
 socialist
 country
 is
 the
 most

advanced
 democratic
 country
 in
 the
 history
 of
 mankind.
 “The
 proletarian
 democracy
 is
 a

million
times
more
democratic
than
any
types
of
bourgeois
democracy.”
(Selected
Works
of
Lenin,

Volume
3,
page
634).

During
 the
 period
 when
 turmoil
 and
 the
 counterrevolutionary
 rebellion
 broke
 out
 in

Beijing,
a
handful
of
people
who
stubbornly
adhered
to
the
stand
of
bourgeois
liberalization

flaunted
the
banner
of
“Striving
for
Democracy”
in
an
attempt
to
confuse
and
poison
people’s

minds.
These
people
denounce
our
country
as
a
despotic
state
in
which
there
is
no
democracy

to
speak
of.
This
is
an
out‑and‑out
distortion
of
the
realities
in
our
country.
What
is
true
is
that

Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) on
FROM THE PEOPLE’S DAILY:
“BOURGEOIS AND SOCIALIST DEMOCRACIES COMPARED” (MARCH 1990)
Asia for Educators l Columbia University l http://afe.easia.columbia.edu Page 5 of 6
since
 the
 founding
 of
 the
 New‑China,
 the
 CPC
 and
 the
 People’s
 Government
 have
 made

unremitting
 efforts
 to
 build
 the
 socialist
 democracy
 in
 China.
 Although
 China’s
 socialist

democratic
 system
 is
 still
 far
 from
 perfect,
 China
 has
 after
 all
 established
 a
 comprehensive

democratic
system
under
which
people
can
participate
in
the
administration
and
management

of
the
state.

The
 PRC
 Constitution
 stipulates
 in
 explicit
 terms
 that
 all
 powers
 in
 the
 People’s

Republic
of
China
belong
to
the
people.
The
organs
through
which
people
exercise
state
power

in
a
unified
way
are
the
National
People’s
Congress
and
the
local
people’s
congresses
at
various

levels.
The
National
People’s
Congress
is
the
supreme
state
organ
which
formulates
and
ratifies

the
constitution
and
the
laws,
elects
and
removes
from
office
the
state
president,
vice‑president,

elects
the
Central
Military
Commission,
elects
the
president
of
the
Supreme
People’s
Court
and

the
 procurator
 general
 of
 the
 Supreme
 People’s
 Procuratorate,
 and,
 in
 accordance
 with
 the

relevant
 procedures,
 appoints
 the
 premier
 and
 vice‑premier
 of
 the
 Stare
 Council,
 the
 state

councilors,
 and
 ministers,
 and
 examines
 and
 ratifies
 the
 national
 economic
 and
 social

development
plans,
the
state
budget,
and
so
on.
This
is
the
basic
socialist
democratic
system

instituted
in
our
country.

The
CPC‑led
Multiparty
Cooperation
and
Political
Consultation
System
has
remained
an

important
channel
for
the
evolution
of
socialist
democracy
in
China.
The
CPPCC
has
remained

an
 important
 political
 and
 organizational
 form
 through
 which
 the
 CPC‑led
 Multiparty

Cooperation
and
Political
Consultation
System
has
been
realized
in
China.
Over
the
past
few

decades,
 the
 CPPCC
 committees
 at
 all
 levels,
 the
 various
 democratic
 parties,
 people’s

organizations,
 and
 public
 figures
 of
 all
 nationalities
 and
 all
 walks
 of
 life
 have
 played
 an

important
 role
 in
 making
 China’s
 state
 decision‑making
 process
 more
 scientific
 and
 more

democratic
and
in
promoting
the
building
of
socialist
modernization
in
China.
…

There
is
no
denying
the
fact
that
our
country
is
still
at
the
initial
stage
of
socialism
and

our
 country’s
 socialist
 people’s
 democratic
 system
 and
 socialist
 legal
 system
 are
 still
 in
 a

historical
process
of
establishment,
improvement,
development,
and
perfection.
Nevertheless,
it

is
also
an
undeniable
basic
fact
that
 the
Chinese
 people
have
already
become
 the
masters
of

their
 country
 and
 are
 currently
 enjoying
 wide‑ranging
 and
 real
 democratic
 rights.
 Take
 the

citizens’
right
to
vote,
for
example;
our
country
instituted
the
universal
suffrage
system
as
early

as
1953.
Since
then,
the
Chinese
people
have
been
able
to
elect
their
own
deputies,
hold
people’s

congresses
at
all
levels,
form
people’s
governments
at
all
levels,
and
exercise
the
state
power.

Since
1979,
China
has
several
times
revised
her
electoral
law
and
instituted
the
system
under

which
the
electorate
can
directly
elect
their
deputies
to
the
people’s
congresses
at
county
and

township
 levels.
 The
 revised
 PRC
 “Electoral
 Law”
 stipulates
 that
 apart
 from
 the
 fact
 that

political
parties
or
people’s
organizations
can
either
jointly
or
individually
nominate
candidates

for
 the
 people’s
 congress
 elections
 held
 at
 various
 levels,
 the
 voters
 or
 the
 deputies
 can
 also

jointly
 nominate
 candidates
 for
 the
 people’s
 congress
 elections
 held
 at
 various
 levels.
 In
 the

revised
“Electoral
Law,”
the
election
system
under
which
equal
numbers
of
candidates
run
for

Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) on
FROM THE PEOPLE’S DAILY:
“BOURGEOIS AND SOCIALIST DEMOCRACIES COMPARED” (MARCH 1990)
Asia for Educators l Columbia University l http://afe.easia.columbia.edu Page 6 of 6
an
equal
number
of
deputy
seats
has
been
substituted
with
the
election
system
under
which

more
candidates
run
for
fewer
seats,
thus
gradually
enlarging
the
citizens’
right
to
vote.

Given
the
basic
realities
in
China,
the
building
of
socialist
democracy
in
China
can
only

be
a
gradual
and
accumulated
process.
Since
the
founding
of
the
PRC,
we
have
done
a
lot
of

work,
made
much
headway,
and
achieved
marked
results
in
building
the
people’s
democratic

system.
However,
as
a
comprehensive
system,
our
country’s
people’s
democratic
system
has
yet

to
be
further
developed
and
perfected.
In
his
speech
addressed
to
a
Beijing
rally
in
celebration

of
the
fortieth
anniversary
of
the
founding
the
PRC,
comrade
Jiang
Zemin
pointed
out
that
it
is

necessary
 to
 make
 continued
 efforts
 to
 improve
 and
 perfect
 our
 country’s
 people’s
 congress

system
and
CPC‑led
Multiparty
Cooperation
and
Political
Consultation
System,
establish
and

perfect
 a
 democratic
 decision‑making
 and
 supervision
 procedure
 and
 system,
 expand
 the

existing
links
and
channels
of
dialogue
between
the
CPC
and
the
broad
masses
of
the
people,

raise
the
citizens’
consciousness
in
participation
in
the
political
and
state
affairs,
and
guarantee

the
full
realization
of
both
the
will
and
the
interests
of
the
broad
masses
of
the
people
in
the

state
life
and
social
life.
This
is
the
orientation
for
building
socialist
democracy
in
our
country
at

the
 current
 stage.
 In
 this
 analysis,
 those
 who
 blindly
 worship
 the
 democratic
 system
 of
 the

Western
countries
and
try
to
transplant
the
parliamentary
system
and
multiparty
system
of
the

Western
countries
to
China
are
doomed
to
failure.