China a fascist state? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By noemon
#15139076
Yes, China is a fascist state indisputably. Her politburo is an official dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and her system is totalitarian, corporatist, ultra-capitalist with extreme nationalist protectionism. She is a mono-cultural & utterly racist state that officially keeps "social credit scoring" on its citizens.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-s ... -explained

Liu Hu is a journalist in China, writing about censorship and government corruption. Because of his work, Liu has been arrested and fined — and blacklisted. Liu found he was named on a List of Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement by the Supreme People's Court as "not qualified" to buy a plane ticket, and banned from travelling some train lines, buying property, or taking out a loan.

"There was no file, no police warrant, no official advance notification. They just cut me off from the things I was once entitled to," he told The Globe and Mail. "What's really scary is there's nothing you can do about it. You can report to no one. You are stuck in the middle of nowhere."


China is a fascist state on steroids.
By late
#15139103
noemon wrote:
Yes, China is a fascist state indisputably. Her politburo is an official dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and her system is totalitarian, corporatist, ultra-capitalist with extreme nationalist protectionism. She is a mono-cultural & utterly racist state that officially keeps "social credit scoring" on its citizens.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-s ... -explained



China is a fascist state on steroids.



I found this article on fascism. It's quite interesting, but as is the case with so many things that follow academic norms, it's not politically satisfying..

"So, What is Fascism?

It’s fair to say that literally nobody knows. Descriptions and criticisms of fascism have existed since immediately after its birth in 1919. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books and papers about fascism have been written over the years, and there are still scholars involved in comparative fascist studies. Our understanding of what fascism is continues to evolve over time.

In his book “Fascism,” Robert Griffin discusses the history of the understanding fascism as an ideology. "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic [relating to rebirth] form of populist ultra-nationalism."

I started this post with the intention of disagreeing with you. Most posts are wrong, after all, to one extent or another.

But that definition certainly agrees with you.


#15139127
Igor Antunov wrote:This is a city in China you've never heard of. It does not promote itself abroad, it has no history of doing as such. It simply developed rapidly from nothing to a world class highly livable 21st century mini-metropolis in under 20 years. Your eyes can be the judge.


I take away from this is that the government of the U.S. should have been a lot more insistent that people wear masks and take other measures and actually made them mandatory. A lot of the cases in the U.S. is due to Trump as he promoted the idea that make wearing was bad and then it became a "right" not to wear one amonst his blind base as well as to go open up closed non-essentials. When one group of people get behind something they must oppose it for whatever reason and it really isn't because they're not authoritarian either but rather they must fight anything that Trump opposes.

Thanks mainly to Trump, this authoritarian regime did respond much better than we did.
#15139571
The core difference is the inherent business freedom in Fascist states, and the high (capitalist) standard of living.
> Fascist states did not forbid ownership. Everyone remained a private owner of property. In fact this was an important concept in the Fascist state (that everyone owns his house, etc).
> Fascist states did not promote State atheism and dismantle churches.
> Fascist state did not eliminate all its bourgeoisie and impose dictatorship of the proletariat, as China did.
> Above all there was no social engineering in the fascist state, comparable to the Chinese/communist social engineering based on marxist ideology.

That said, China has just become an extremely corrupt communist state, where they've essentially allowed crony-capitalism to exist.
Chinese CCP is like a prostitute. Pay them enough and they bend over.

So you have an extremely corrupt and rotten communist structure full of party bonzes who enrich themselves with bribes from companies doing business in China, at the expense of the downtrodden masses living in suffering.

However since XI is in power, he's re-establishing communist power and making life hard for the crony capitalists. Lots of companies have left China, as government control of companies has increased. For example any company implanted in China needs to have CCP oversight.

None of this is remotely comparable to what happened in places like Nazi Germany, where businesses thrived, including all kinds of American corporations like Coca Cola, IBM, Ford motors, etc.
#15139573
Random American wrote:I take away from this is that the government of the U.S. should have been a lot more insistent that people wear masks and take other measures and actually made them mandatory. A lot of the cases in the U.S. is due to Trump as he promoted the idea that make wearing was bad and then it became a "right" not to wear one amonst his blind base as well as to go open up closed non-essentials. When one group of people get behind something they must oppose it for whatever reason and it really isn't because they're not authoritarian either but rather they must fight anything that Trump opposes.

Thanks mainly to Trump, this authoritarian regime did respond much better than we did.


China is doing what the Soviet Union did. Which is pokazuha. People who lived under totalitarian systems understand this pretty well.

Having said that, it is hard to say if China is doing worse than the US since US fucked up pretty hard. So probably better than US but also not even remotely close to the numbers that they are reporting.
#15139758
lancer345 wrote:The core difference is the inherent business freedom in Fascist states, and the high (capitalist) standard of living.

Chinese CCP is like a prostitute. Pay them enough and they bend over.


Quite the opposite, you can't pay them off, even billionaires lose their heads for trying. You're describing every western regime.

China will grow larger.
#15140352
The American Lion wrote:China isn't fascist state. How can you be a Marxist Leninist state and be fascist? It's a contradiction. That is like saying USSR is Fascist.

Actions speak louder than words . If the PRC is conducting itself like a fascist corporative state , rather than like a socialist workers state , then no matter what they call themselves , they are going to be seen as being repressive reactionaries . Especially given such incidents as this . https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669509554/in-china-the-communist-partys-latest-unlikely-target-young-marxists , https://www.ft.com/content/fd087484-2f23-11e9-8744-e7016697f225
#15140363
@Deutschmania China is neither a fascist state, nor is it a socialist worker's state. It is a capitalist state with an authoritarian government.
#15140367
Deutschmania wrote:Actions speak louder than words . If the PRC is conducting itself like a fascist corporative state , rather than like a socialist workers state , then no matter what they call themselves , they are going to be seen as being repressive reactionaries . Especially given such incidents as this . https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669509554/in-china-the-communist-partys-latest-unlikely-target-young-marxists , https://www.ft.com/content/fd087484-2f23-11e9-8744-e7016697f225


I wouldn't use liberal sources as "evidence" of Fascism since they will be bias against China anyway.

The FT article on "Young Marxists" is mainly spin. They are referring to Maoists. Who think Communism died when Mao passed away. Maoists are pretty much ultras.

China is a Marxist Leninist state which is using since principles of the USSR and Cuba. You can not call it capitalist when there are no capitalists running the party it self. Basically the CCP has a leash on the capitalist class for their own needs. Plus if you claim China is Fascist than Vietnam is too because they are following the same policy!

I recommend some sources from a valid comrades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6_6nKSMmQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLDV9A4JNJg

And The Long Game and Its Contradictions
#15140368
Godstud wrote:@Deutschmania China is neither a fascist state, nor is it a socialist worker's state. It is a capitalist state with an authoritarian government.

That's why I posted " like a" , rather than " as a" . I didn't mean that it is necessarily exactly like Hitler's Germany , or Mussolini's Italy , for example . I was merely pointing out to this comrade , @The American Lion that just because one identifies in a certain way , it doesn't automatically follow that they will always live up to the self designation . And furthermore , I would contend that China is neither socialist or capitalist , in the conventional sense . https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/24/socialist-or-capitalist-what-is-chinas-model-exactly/ , https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/what-is-socialism-like-in-china?rebelltitem=5 Some authoritarian right types , in the United States , even note this approvingly . https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-century-of-chinese-corporatism/ , https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/10/corporatism-solidarity-china-thrives-america-suffers/
#15140372
The American Lion wrote:I wouldn't use liberal sources as "evidence" of Fascism since they will be bias against China anyway.

The FT article on "Young Marxists" is mainly spin. They are referring to Maoists. Who think Communism died when Mao passed away. Maoists are pretty much ultras.

China is a Marxist Leninist state which is using since principles of the USSR and Cuba. You can not call it capitalist when there are no capitalists running the party it self. Basically the CCP has a leash on the capitalist class for their own needs. Plus if you claim China is Fascist than Vietnam is too because they are following the same policy!

I recommend some sources from a valid comrades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6_6nKSMmQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLDV9A4JNJg

And The Long Game and Its Contradictions

First of all , dismissing critical information , because of the source , is what political cults do . But , just to satisfy your ideological bias , here is a source that is solidly left-wing . https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/on-december-24-2004-maoists-in-china-get-three-year-prison-sentences-for-leafleting/ As to Vietnam , I would differentiate " doi moi" from what China's economy is , based upon what I have heard from this Vietnamese comrade .
#15140375
While China is nowhere near as bad as Oceania is in 1984, I do think they do share a particular trait in common. They're both interested in long term survival over all else. They don't care about ideology all that much. They will ironically crush socialist views in the name of socialism and implement whatever policy they want.

Their political system while not ideal is something that is pretty resilient.

Anyway, I should stop calling them a "communist" regime. We wouldn't be outsourcing labor there if they were.
#15140386
There is an insanity among the Western left that societies are born immediately communist shortly after revolution and that any failure is a betrayal of revolutionary principles. This is, incidently, why such a revolution is impossible and ultimately breaks up into autocannibalism. China is not a capitalist state for a variety of reasons:

    1. There is no private ownership of land. All of it, literally all of it, is leased from the government in 40-80 year leases.
    2. The government is not capitalist - it is a very traditional Marxist-Leninist vanguard party structure intended to operate as a dictatorship of the proleteriat.
    3. There is no private ownership of the means of production of key industries, and limited private ownership of all industries over a certain size. Expanding to a certain size requires giving the Chinese government some aspect of control over your firm's capital, even if they do not ever exercise their right to use it.

China is a transitional socialist state. Transitional in that it is trying to develop from a pre-industrial economy to a post-industrial economy. Socialist in that it is doing by a vanguard Leninist party for the purposes of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat where the people own the means of production.

China is also a market economy. This is simply where it is at its current stage of development. Just like the industrial revolution did not happen in Ancient Greece despite the invention of a steam engine, because social and material conditions did not permit or exert demand for an industrial revolution one cannot reasonably expect a society to develop from a pre-industrial feudal system into a post-industrial communist one within a single generation or without first going through the market revolution that creates a proletariat and a proletarian consciousness. This is where the current CCP has sharply turned away from Maoist thought, which though peasants were a revolutionary capable class - and while its a nice theory, evidence appears to bear out that developing in a more traditional way is more effective at developing the national economy and improving the material conditions of the poorest sectors of society.

China is socialist, and only westerners, with their fetishizing of deontological ethics where the principle is more important than the consequence, try to say otherwise.

"It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

As for how they did on coronavirus... individuals like @JohnRawls fundamentally cannot imagine or deign to imagine a shred of Chinese competence. They are unquestionably doing better, and the numbers are likely reasonably accurate to boot. But this sort of 'China will collapse' and 'China's rise is a mirage' will continue to be a truism as it has been since the 1990s. :roll:
#15140397
They don't care about ideology all that much. They will ironically crush socialist views in the name of socialism and implement whatever policy they want.


You're conflating China's unwillingness to export its socio-economic system abroad with your own ideas of political disinterest. Domestically, the CPC is as socialist and policy-wise asleftist as it gets. However, just like the US, it is willing to work with completely different entities abroad (see saudi arabia example, a medieval head chopping absolute kingdom best buds with a so called free and open democracy eh?) But unlike the US, it doesn't impose its financial system on others beyond the very surface level needed to initiate and conduct trades of goods and resources.
User avatar
By ralfy
#15140434
Fascism is far-right and extreme nationalist.

Communism is not far-right and not necessarily nationalist.
#15140743
The American Lion wrote:@Deutschmania,

Luna is a great comrade. Vietnam and China's economies are similar. Luna still believes China is a Socialist State.

In certain respects, their post-reform developments have diverged sharply. In both countries, early, mild market reforms benefited the masses, "liberating" small peasants and petty-bourgeois elements from premature state control. The greater urgency of Vietnam's situation meant such reforms were even more essential. However, from 1992, China became the radical reformer, while Vietnam's government paused from the mid-1990s, once the crisis was overcome. Despite the problematic nature of certain policies implemented by the VCP and the dangers of growing capitalism, no definitive point of capitalist restoration has been passed.
China's deeper pro-capitalist reform is far more anti-popular than earlier stages, strengthening new wealthy classes against smallholders, privatising industries and laying off masses of workers. This stage began after the massacre of the worker-student movement in Tiananmen Square in 1989. No equivalent event has occurred in Vietnam, where popular pressure has more often influenced state policy.5 The biggest challenge was the peasant uprising in Thai Binh in 1997, which the state responded to with concessions to the peasants and the disciplining of 2000 cadres. In the following years came other concessions to the masses and a slowing of the "reform" process... A sharp ideological shift accompanied Chinese privatisation. In 2001, Jiang Zemin invited capitalists to join the CCP. The Sixteenth Congress in 2002 accepted Jiang's "Three Represents" theory that the CCP represents "the advanced productive forces", "advanced culture" and the "fundamental interests of the Chinese people",86 rather than the workers and peasants.
A party representing "advanced productive forces", i.e. the capitalist class, would be unlikely to defend the interests of workers and the poor when they clash with these "forces". It may also be beneficial for party leaders to lead such "advanced" forces. "The bureaucracy is intimately involved in promoting private economic activity, supporting some firms and inhibiting others and often having close economic and family ties to entrepreneurs."87
Those invited to join the party and assume leading political roles are not small businesspeople. Xu Guanju, millionaire president of the chemical Chuanhua Group and chairperson of the Zhejiang Federation of Industry and Commerce, who owns assets worth 800 million yuan ($97 million), is vice-chairperson of the Zhejiang People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Vice-chairperson of the CPPCC in Chongqing is Yin Mingshan, listed in Fortune magazine as one of China's top 50 millionaires, chairperson of the Lifan Hongda Industrial Group and vice-chairperson of Chongqing's General Chamber of Commerce.88
Zhou Zerong, number 24 on Asiamoney's list of China's 100 richest people, is on the Guangzhou CPPCC, with "impeccable links to the Chinese Communist Party", and has property investments in Australia.89 The CCP deputy mayor of Dongguan city, Yuan Lisong, is managing director of Fook Man Development, a multimillion-dollar Hong Kong firm, a board member of three other Hong Kong firms, and part-owner of a 500room Los Angeles hotel.90
The CCP's People's Daily calls for "a calm and composed attitude to billionaires", who produce a lot of jobs and wealth for society. Rejecting the view that they "should repay more to our society and be more duty-bound", the article says, "We don't know what 'repay' and 'duty' here refer to and why there is a 'more' here." Having to turn down extra demands "is one of the reasons why the rich are unable to live an easy life. It is unreasonable to ask the rich to do goodwill work."91
Although the VCP still claims to represent the workers and peasants, in 2002 it resolved that doing private business was not an impediment to membership. Both countries are composed overwhelmingly of small household business owners. People running small shops, cafes, farm businesses and so on had long been party members. This was not an invitation for billionaires to join a party "representing" them—the Ninth Congress excluded "capitalist" business. The party debate on what kind of business bars membership is currently deadlocked.... he right of workers to organise against privatising SOEs or exploitation by private capital highlights another difference. The Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy reported 100,000 stoppages in China in 1999, as former SOE workers demanded unpaid pensions and wages.100 In March 2002, "protests involving more than 90,000 workers [occurred] in northeastern China, demanding work, unpaid wages or other unpaid social benefits, and punishment for corrupt government and enterprise officials".101
In 2002, two leaders of these protests were charged with "subversion", a charge that could lead to execution. The All China Federation of Trade Unions took the side of the state.102 State repression of labour movement activity is the rule in China. A US corporate intelligence site claims "the primary reason" SOE reform can resume "is the present security environment. Beijing has prevented the emergence of an organized labour movement. [It] knows the dangerous political ramifications of allowing organized labor and successfully suppressed it" because otherwise privatisation would have been brought "to a grinding halt".103
In China's private and foreign factories, "tens of millions of industrial workers are struggling for laws to allow them to bargain collectively. And they are losing."104 Workers are "beaten with cattle prods, exhausted by 14 hour working days in sweatshops where child labour, forced overtime, curses, beatings, searches, needless industrial accidents, and the military repression of workers, especially trade unionists, is routine. Most live in crowded dormitories above their factories. At night doorkeepers lock the women behind barred windows and doors. Tens of thousands of young workers have lost their lives in the epidemic of factory fires, explosions, and accidents."105
While many bosses attempt similar exploitation in Vietnam, unions are given greater state support to fight. Taiwanese bosses complain they are unable to beat workers or arbitrarily force them to work long hours in Vietnam, but this is normal in China. In Vietnam, "if the managers pushed them too far, they would just go on strike". The labour law allows a maximum of 300 hours a year overtime. In China, "workers often work for a few months without any days off. In Taiwanese enterprises, the average number of work hours was 11 hours each day. In the export toy industry in Guangdong in the busy season workers laboured for up to 14-18 hours with no days off." The difference lies in the activism of Vietnamese unions, and this being allowed by the government, compared to the Chinese government's repression. The Chinese unions act as a tool of management, whereas the Vietnamese state and unions are stricter in demanding compliance with the labour law.106
Some claim the conditions for strikes in the Vietnamese labour law virtually criminalise them,107 although it is far more pro-worker than the Chinese law, which bans strikes and spontaneous workers' organisation.108 The reality depends on practice. The Vietnamese General Confederation of Labour claims that "every strike" to date has been technically illegal, but they have all been justified. Although most strikes were led by spontaneous workers' groups rather than official unions, and although most "did not follow proper legal procedures, they were tolerated by the government with no reports of retribution against the strikers".109 In virtually every case reported, official unions forced bosses to relent to workers' demands.110 Furthermore, "labour rights sentiments are backed by a conciliation system and a judiciary sympathetic to labour demands".111 Investors complain that Vietnam's law protects employees more than employers; according to the manager of Nike Vietnam, when workers go on strike unlawfully, officials support them!
http://links.org.au/node/14
By Rugoz
#15141362
Fasces wrote:There is an insanity among the Western left that societies are born immediately communist shortly after revolution and that any failure is a betrayal of revolutionary principles. This is, incidently, why such a revolution is impossible and ultimately breaks up into autocannibalism. China is not a capitalist state for a variety of reasons:

    1. There is no private ownership of land. All of it, literally all of it, is leased from the government in 40-80 year leases.
    2. The government is not capitalist - it is a very traditional Marxist-Leninist vanguard party structure intended to operate as a dictatorship of the proleteriat.
    3. There is no private ownership of the means of production of key industries, and limited private ownership of all industries over a certain size. Expanding to a certain size requires giving the Chinese government some aspect of control over your firm's capital, even if they do not ever exercise their right to use it.

China is a transitional socialist state. Transitional in that it is trying to develop from a pre-industrial economy to a post-industrial economy. Socialist in that it is doing by a vanguard Leninist party for the purposes of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat where the people own the means of production.

China is also a market economy. This is simply where it is at its current stage of development. Just like the industrial revolution did not happen in Ancient Greece despite the invention of a steam engine, because social and material conditions did not permit or exert demand for an industrial revolution one cannot reasonably expect a society to develop from a pre-industrial feudal system into a post-industrial communist one within a single generation or without first going through the market revolution that creates a proletariat and a proletarian consciousness. This is where the current CCP has sharply turned away from Maoist thought, which though peasants were a revolutionary capable class - and while its a nice theory, evidence appears to bear out that developing in a more traditional way is more effective at developing the national economy and improving the material conditions of the poorest sectors of society.

China is socialist, and only westerners, with their fetishizing of deontological ethics where the principle is more important than the consequence, try to say otherwise.

"It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

As for how they did on coronavirus... individuals like @JohnRawls fundamentally cannot imagine or deign to imagine a shred of Chinese competence. They are unquestionably doing better, and the numbers are likely reasonably accurate to boot. But this sort of 'China will collapse' and 'China's rise is a mirage' will continue to be a truism as it has been since the 1990s. :roll:


Are you suggesting China deliberately goes through a capitalist phase to create a proletariat and induce class consciousness? That makes no sense whatsoever. The revolution already happened. The CCP owned the means of production completely.

China simply noticed the economic collapse of the SU and switched to capitalism to the extent necessary without losing too much control. There's no reason to believe it will ever switch back to socialism as long as capitalism helps the party to stay in power.
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15141368
Even if China has gained substantial financial and political clout since Deng Xiaoping drove through market-economy reforms back in the 70's, they are still only one potential Superpower and they have adapted to the state of the world that they can not control.

Is China absolute Communist? Not entirely but that is the price of power anywhere, compromises and to sacrifice ideals.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Racism definition & use

If I had to guess, the issue lies more on technol[…]

Selfish careerism is sometimes self-destructive a[…]

We are on the verge of industrial climate apoca[…]

Election 2020

@colliric Well, if you are advocating the solu[…]