China a fascist state? - 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.
#15029629
One Party state, benvolent Dictator, controlled economy (state-capitalism), orwellian surveillence and censorship, prisons for minorities, desire to create a superhuman, exchagerated territorial claims, millitarisation

China changed from Maoism in pure Musolini Fascism
#15029636
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:One Party state, benvolent Dictator, controlled economy (state-capitalism), orwellian surveillence and censorship, prisons for minorities, desire to create a superhuman, exchagerated territorial claims, millitarisation

China changed from Maoism in pure Musolini Fascism


They are fascists. Most naive people think that fascism is a right wing thing. The truth is fascism is more common on the left. Mussolini was a socialist.

The Antifa incels act like fascist and they don't even realize it. :knife: :knife: :knife:
User avatar
By Aexodus
#15029650
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:One Party state, benvolent Dictator


One or both seen in other authoritarian ideologies, such as Communism and monarchism. North Korea has the same thing.

controlled economy (state-capitalism)


This is the crux of the discussion. In the 90s (or was it the 80s?) the Chinese Communist Party implemented reforms that were effectively capitalist in nature. However unlike unlike in the Soviet Union, the apparatus of the Communist Party and the overall political structure remained in place.

orwellian surveillence and censorship,


Surveillance, a Fascist does not make.

prisons for minorities,


The prison camps for Turkish Muslims in the West aren’t based on racial or religious supremacism. They’re related to China’s policy of state atheism and heavy handed police suppression of a minority group to suppress any thought of rebellion or separatism. These are Orwellian re-education camps not Fascist extermination camps.

[quite]desire to create a superhuman,[/quote]

Do you mean designer babies?

exchagerated territorial claims, millitarisation


The first is irredentism, the second is indeed a quality of Fascism, but it’s also a feature of most authoritarian regimes in general.

China changed from Maoism in pure Musolini Fascism


It’s certainly not Maoism, Xi Jinping calls it ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’.

Edit: For example, British Communists such as the Editor of the Morning Star, of which Jeremy Corbyn is a regular contributor and former columnist, have favourable views towards China, and say it is an economic system we in the West should copy.

https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/post-mag ... ists-dream
He passionately rejects the idea that China is “an authoritarian, dictatorial state”, saying that at a local level, “there was a lot more participation by ordinary residents in local decision-making in politics than I’ve ever seen in Britain”.

“Similarly, because it suits a Western narrative, people like to declaim that the Mao period was an economic disaster and that after he died, China dropped communism and became a capitalist country.

“Actually, of course, economic growth under Chairman Mao was pretty impressive, much more than most of the Third World. The fact that China has taken more people out of poverty than any country in history in the period since is testament to the fact the model works very well.

“So I would see China as a very encouraging alternative to an economic system that crashed in 2008 and which is really obsolete. We’re seeing in America and across Europe that more and more people are rejecting that free-market model. And they can learn a lot by looking at the way that the Chinese have handled their economy in the past three decades.”
#15036324
@Aexodus These are Orwellian re-education camps not Fascist extermination camps.



China is harvesting Organs of minorities (muslim and falun gong)

China was accused on Tuesday of harvesting human organs from persecuted groups in the country.
The China Tribunal, a pressure group that's investigating the organ harvesting, said at a tense meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council that the Chinese government was taking hearts, kidneys, lungs, and skin from groups including Uighur Muslims and members of the Falun Gong religious group.
The China Tribunal describes itself as a group of lawyers, academics, and medical professionals, backed by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, an Australian not-for-profit organization.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-h ... IwD-YI4YFg




and the crazy Jihadis just attack muslim states like Nigeria... or countries where muslim faith is not prosecuted like USA and France


America has declined due the 9/11 attacks and endless wars compared to China, but America does not surpress Islam
User avatar
By SSDR
#15036407
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:One Party state,

Multi party state is chaotic, and conflicting, thus making it unstable.
controlled economy (state-capitalism)

Stable economics is healthy in many matters.
orwellian surveillence and censorship,

To oppress criminals and thugs.
prisons for minorities,

Minorities committing crimes, and using political correctness to defend their crimes is not accepted in China.
desire to create a superhuman,

This will help technological progress in multiple ways.
exchagerated territorial claims,

This has nothing to do with fascism.
millitarisation

To protect their nation against terrorists, hostile nations, and dangerous rivals.

China is not a fascist state. Usually it is anarchists that falsely believe that China is a fascist state.
#15037637
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:One Party state, benvolent Dictator, controlled economy (state-capitalism), orwellian surveillence and censorship, prisons for minorities, desire to create a superhuman, exchagerated territorial claims, millitarisation

China changed from Maoism in pure Musolini Fascism


1. One-party State
Technically China is NOT a one-party state, just that other parties do not have real influence. In some sense:
a. The government of Singapore or even Japan resemble the system, but they respectively are freer and keep a better formality of democracy.
b. You can say China is even worse than North Korea since the latter regularly hold elections and "encourage" locals to participate. China doesn't even put this facade up.

2. Benevolent Dictator
All leaders up to Hu Jintao can be said as this, but I will not bestow this honour to Xi Jinping. It's correct that he faces more challenges than his predecessors, but his cruelty has expanded too much (necessarily or not) and now we realize that the System no longer works and has to be brought down sooner or later.

3. Controlled Economy (state-capitalism)
It depends on your point of view whether this is actually better or worse than Liberal Capitalism as practiced in most Western democracies -- heck, even for Sweden most foreigners probably only know Ikea, Volvo and Scania. IMHO different people have different abilities, and wealth accumulation onto the few is an established physical phenomenon -- just look up the sky and observe the galaxies yourself to see how matter accumulate. This will not change regardless of Liberalism, State capitalism or even Socialism. Ordinary people probably do not give a damn on it as long as they have as much freedom, rights and wealth as they can control (okay, maybe a little bit more...).

4. Orwellian Surveillance and Censorship
To be fair, the Western democracies do this as well -- if you believe in Snowden that is. However, in the ways of using it, I still trust the Western democracies much more than the Chinese. Think about the real difference in between.

5. Prisons for Minorities
This is partially exaggerated. I mean, they actually do that to whoever opposing them, it's just that some other races (e.g. Han) had been too poor or oppressed by other countries that they approved of this action. Personally I don't find the Chinese's action very different to the Jews today. Mind you, not that I approve this policy: I will not be surprised if they do the same for Hongkongers, who are technically the same race as most other Chinese.

6. Desire to Create a Superhuman
Scientifically I don't know about this, and you need to provide a little bit of evidence. If you are talking about Xi Jinping (again), though, I must say that this is how the Chinese history had been for at least two millennia, and this characteristic is hardly any news.

7. Exaggerated territorial claims
I think you are talking about the South China Sea islands. Believe it or not, the South China Sea claim should be seen as part of the partition of Japanese holdings just after WW2. It is just like how Japan had been allowed to administer the North Pacific Islands after WW1, and then how the United States is allowed to administer them NOW, just in a much smaller scale. Mind you, none of the surrounding countries were even independent when the claim was seen on ROC maps (NOT PRC!) in 1947, so it's natural that ROC was allowed to be the custodian because they are seen as the most powerful friend of the US around. Had China not descended into the situation as we know, the claim would have been totally legitimate.
On a side note, Taiwan / ROC might have "abandoned" many of the territorial claims (most notable Mongolia, which China did possess for several hundred years), but the primary reason behind is that they are now weak, not that they don't want to.

8. Militarisation
To be honest, I have no objection to this, because almost every other geographically non-isolated country will do this in a way or another. Even Switzerland will do that (in fact, they will not be so much a paradise if they don't!)
========

In general, Many of these more closely resemble Nazism than Fascism. Mussolini might be the earlier one to do some of these but he's neither the most definitive nor the most successful.

And of course, China turned out much, much worse. Even Nazism is just about oppressing other races. In China, everybody, Han or not, have equal chance to be oppressed.

========

P.S.

SaddamHuseinovic wrote:China is harvesting Organs of minorities (muslim and falun gong)


Most Falun Gong practitioners are Han Chinese, the majority race.

Moreover, I never hear them accusing Xi Jinping (or Hu Jintao in that matter) as openly as Jiang Zemin (who's some 15~20 years out of power and in his 90's now). I have suspicion that Falun Gong, while persecuted as usual, is a secret associate of the later leaders. And even not, their ideology does not entitle such a great organization power (their rallies easily exceed pro-democracy protests had the Extradition Law Incident not happened), and I don't think it is a good thing if they win.
#15039210
Julian658 wrote:The Antifa incels act like fascist and they don't even realize it. :knife: :knife: :knife:


Antifa are anarcho-communists, and they act like anarcho-communists. They're smelly morons whom claim to speak truth to power, while being funded and praised by those with power.
#15039216
Code Rood wrote:China is communitarian.
With the government extremely undemocratic (which is what communitarianism adapts to) your statement is fundamentally wrong.
By late
#15039223
One of the traits of fascism is the way they tend to wrap themselves in their religion. China doesn't do that.

The problem here is that the closer you get to a dictatorship, or totalitarian rule, the smaller the role politics plays.

First thing a dictator usually does is kill or imprison anyone that could challenge him Obviously this includes politicians, but it also means intellectuals, judges, etc.

Politics is killed.

When you have a situation like that, the similarities are going to be much greater than the differences. Soviet communism was a dictatorship under Stalin, and became a bureaucracy after he died. But the power structure didn't change much on the ground. The gulags stayed full, the suppression of the people continued.

All of which to say the label isn't important. What is crucial is to remember that an extreme concentration of power is a really bad idea.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044333
late wrote:the smaller the role politics plays.

Politics is killed.

A multi political party state is unstable, untrustworthy, and gives chances for traitors and corrupt criminals to change the destiny of a civilization.

A socialist state does not need a capitalist, anarchist, nor a monarchist party in it.
By late
#15044452
SSDR wrote:
A multi political party state is unstable, untrustworthy, and gives chances for traitors and corrupt criminals to change the destiny of a civilization.

A socialist state does not need a capitalist, anarchist, nor a monarchist party in it.



'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others'
Winston..

When you say Socialist, what exactly do you mean? Would it have elections? Because if it doesn't, that's bad.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044736
late wrote:When you say Socialist, what exactly do you mean? Would it have elections? Because if it doesn't, that's bad.

There are no needs for "elections" in a socialist state since everything is produced for the people, and not for profit - Since in socialism, profits and currency do not exist.

You claiming that "that's bad" is useless since you are not a socialist, and you are just opinionating and ranting about how a socialist economy does not need elections, which is an out of socialist context rant.
By late
#15044741
SSDR wrote:
There is no need for "elections" in a socialist state since everything is produced for the people, and not for profit - Since in socialism, profits and currency do not exist.

You claiming that "that's bad" is useless since you are not a socialist, and you are just opinionating and ranting about how a socialist economy does not need elections, which is an out of socialist context rant.



China has profit, and currency, and markets...

Every organisation runs into problems. Companies fail, governments fall.

The unanswered question is what we can do about that. No one so far has a good answer. Elections will sometimes help, but they are not a panacea. They are the proverbial icing on the cake.

What tends to happen is power concentrates into a few hands. That's how we got kings and emperors. Elections sometimes help there, but as I imagine you have noticed, in America power is concentrated in very few hands these days. For the most part, anyway.

The type of organisation doesn't matter much. The more power gets concentrated, the worse off most people get.

The Soviet system failed because it could not adapt fast enough.

The people that designed the American government tried to create a system of checks and balances, to keep power from being overly concentrated. It's a great idea still looking for a way to pull it off.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044743
late wrote:China has profit, and currency, and markets...

China is a socialist country that is using state capitalist policies as a scientific process to toughen the Chinese population up.
What tends to happen is power concentrates into a few hands. That's how we got kings and emperors. Elections sometimes help there, but as I imagine you have noticed, in America power is concentrated in very few hands these days. For the most part, anyway.

In a socialist economy, elections are not needed because all production is for the people.
The type of organisation doesn't matter much. The more power gets concentrated, the worse off most people get.

It depends on what power, politics, and who has power.
The Soviet system failed because it could not adapt fast enough.

Incorrect.

The Soviet Union collapsed because many of the people were not socialist, and they abused the Soviet system because of that. Socialists do not slack, corrupt, nor mistreat the industrial production. These are anti socialist actions that liberals advocate.
By late
#15044761
SSDR wrote:
1) China is a socialist country that is using state capitalist policies as a scientific process to toughen the Chinese population up.

2) In a socialist economy, elections are not needed because all production is for the people.

3) It depends on what power, politics, and who has power.

4) Incorrect.




1) The same way America toughened it's people when we became capitalist.

2) You know, I adore the Chinese fake Rolls Royce. I mean, it's not an especially good car, but the chutzpah. (That's Yiddish for audacity) The top 1% hold about 1/3 of the country's wealth, and the poor are really very poor. Is that what you meant by for the people?

3) Doesn't it always?

4) The reason China is succeeding,and Russia failed, is that Russia tried to run the economy. China doesn't try to micromanage the whole economy. If it's your farm, you simply do what you need to do. But in Russia, the Soviet bureaucracy had a process, and it was not agile. There was a lot going on, but the drop in oil prices slowed down the inflow of foreign currency. The economy was already in trouble, and suddenly the foreign supplies they needed were taking a much larger share of Russian wealth. Since the ruble was nonconvertible, that needs some explaining. Russia bought things like coca cola, for example. They would barter for such things mostly with resources like oil, diamonds, etc. At the same time, the stagflation was putting pressure on across the economy, and the bureaucracy simply could not keep up with the pace of change.
#15044771


China is a communist state. The main thing it has in common with a fascist state is the Gulag system to impose thought control. The camps in Xinjiang are set up to make rebellious Muslim minorities good communists by re-educating them. The Chinese are erasing minority cultures from both the public and the private arena. They are criminalizing ethnic identities and minority languages just like Stalin went after Ukrainian nationalists. Hitler copied the Soviet system when he created Nazi Germany, which is why Nazi Germany resembled the USSR. The Nazi extermination camps and the vast Soviet Gulag represent the two dictatorships in their most inhuman form.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044787
late wrote:1) The same way America toughened it's people when we became capitalist.

The United States did not use a political agenda to reach their "goal." The United States' government did not apply fixated politics into their economy nor population to reach their politics that they have today.
2) The top 1% hold about 1/3 of the country's wealth, and the poor are really very poor. Is that what you meant by for the people?

The Chinese economy is not socialist. The Chinese government is using non socialist policies like they have now to toughen its people up. The Chinese state does have a political agenda, which is socialism.
3) Doesn't it always?

Everything is determined by politics. When people bond, they usually bond with those who have similar or same ideologies. It is not common for a Nazi to fuck an anarchist.
4) The reason China is succeeding,and Russia failed, is that Russia tried to run the economy.
China doesn't try to micromanage the whole economy. If it's your farm, you simply do what you need to do. But in Russia, the Soviet bureaucracy had a process, and it was not agile. There was a lot going on, but the drop in oil prices slowed down the inflow of foreign currency. The economy was already in trouble, and suddenly the foreign supplies they needed were taking a much larger share of Russian wealth. Since the ruble was nonconvertible, that needs some explaining. Russia bought things like coca cola, for example. They would barter for such things mostly with resources like oil, diamonds, etc. At the same time, the stagflation was putting pressure on across the economy, and the bureaucracy simply could not keep up with the pace of change.

The Chinese state does have lots of coordination power over its production and industry. Many of the enterprises within China that the country relies on are state owned enterprises, or are privatized enterprises that the state has power and regulations over.

The Soviet Union collapsed not because the Soviet state had lots of coordination power over its production and industry. The Soviet Union collapsed because The people were not socialists.

A socialist country cannot exist unless if the majority of the people are socialists. If a socialist country is composed of a non socialist majority population, then the country will be full of labour slackation, corruption, mismanagement, and abusing a secular atmosphere by taking advantage of a non religious environment in a bad, mocking, satire of what religious people think a non religious populace is (religious caricature of a secular society).
By late
#15044788
SSDR wrote:
1) The United States did not use a political agenda to reach their "goal." The United States' government did not apply fixated politics into their economy nor population to reach their politics that they have today.

2) The Chinese economy is not socialist. The Chinese government is using non socialist policies like they have now to toughen its people up. The Chinese state does have a political agenda, which is socialism.

3) The Chinese state does have lots of coordination power over its production and industry. Many of the enterprises within China that the country relies on are state owned enterprises, or are privatized enterprises that the state has power and regulations over.

4) The Soviet Union collapsed not because the Soviet state had lots of coordination power over its production and industry. The Soviet Union collapsed because The people were not socialists.




1) Let me give you an example. We used to have row houses. These would be built by the company, and workers would live there. Something similar is going on in China, where you have dorms. In both instances, the workers lived sharply constrained existences.


2) The modern world is a result of cooperation between government, business, and knowledge institutions. You can say you are using capitalism to get to socialism; but what I hear is wishful thinking. China is following a well established pattern in Asia, capitalism with autocratic rule.

3) Of course, but nowhere near as much as was the case in Soviet Russia.

4) You keep saying that, and while it is funny, it's quite impossible to take seriously. We have a saying that describes what you are doing: Blame the victim.

Soviet Russia was an autocratic bureaucracy. Most of the things it said about itself were not true. It wasn't socialist or communist. The people were brutally repressed.

There is potential in a discussion about how we might create a country that was actually socialist. For example, one could require companies include stock (or something similar) as part of employee compensation. They would literally be part owners. We could also require a worker to be a member of the Board. You could go further, and require a bicameral structure with the workers being like the House, and the Board being like the American Senate.

There are a lot of ideas, what I don't see is much interest in turning them into reality.
Trump and Russiagate

I just did. You said mugshot, the judge didn't. […]

He's fucked.... Retire and fight the charges y[…]

Ukrainegate

Thanks, you should go into comedy. The Republica[…]

Another school shooting

Two people, including a student, have been arrest[…]