China a fascist state? - Page 12 - 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.
#15174591
Rancid wrote:Xi Jingping = Stalin

High praise indeed, @Rancid. But don't you think it's going a bit over the top? Xi Jingping's achievements, considerable though they may be, are hardly on a par with those of the destroyer of fascism, the Gentle Father of Nations and the Gardener of Human Happiness, Comrade Marshal Stalin. :)
#15174595
Potemkin wrote:High praise indeed, @Rancid. But don't you think it's going a bit over the top? Xi Jingping's achievements, considerable though they may be, are hardly on a par with those of the destroyer of fascism, the Gentle Father of Nations and the Gardener of Human Happiness, Comrade Marshal Stalin. :)


You can't forgot the atrocities that give him a minus. The industry built on slave labour, the holodomor which is an antrificial famine or genocide, the millions of soldiers dead because of incompetent leadership especially at the start of WW2 and so on, creation of a system that didn't work without Stalin and his atrocities that ultimately lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.
#15174601
No. China isn't fascist. Believing it doesn't make it so.

No, China Isn’t ‘Fascist’
Once again, Western media misunderstands China’s political system.

A recent commentary from The Sydney Morning Herald’s international editor, Peter Hartcher, described China (along with Islamic State and Russia) as “fascist,” sparking an angry response from China’s Foreign Ministry. Yet the piece likely sparked cheers among people with similar views. There’s no problem with being so straightforward, even as China celebrate the 70th anniversary of victory in the “World Anti-Fascist War.” But the logic behind this piece does not stand firm.

The article gives three defining characteristics of fascists to support its argument: authoritarianism, highly centralized power structures, and exalting the nation above the people.

Becoming authoritarian was not the inevitable path for China to stand as an independent, sovereign state after being forced open by the West. Why then is China’s political system this way? As Martin Jacques explains, China is a unique civilization-state, rather than a Western style nation-state. If people attempt to analyze China through a Western lens, there will always be problems. Criticizing China for its political reality, developmental model, and “non-cooperative” behavior is easy, but seeing and truly understanding the differences and divergences between civilizations is far more difficult — so much so that quite often people choose not to even try. Instead, they import a Western concept (in this case, fascism) to try and conceptualize a non-Western system.

Now, is China centralized? In general, yes — but how centralized? Actually, China is far less centralized than many outside observers assume. To cite one example: for years, fiscal decentralization between the central government and local provinces has played a critical role in the unbalanced flow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the Chinese market. This decentralization has had several readily observable consequences, including different levels of economic growth and green development among the various regions. In his 2012 book, Pierre F. Landry described China’s political system as “decentralized authoritarianism.”

As for the final point, the nation (and the family) has a uniquely important role in China’s contemporary political philosophy. But this is not new, much less an invention of the current regime. Reverence for authority, emphasis on leaders’ moral quality, and collectivism have all been rooted in China’s political culture for thousands of years and these concepts have had natural and inevitable impacts on contemporary Chinese politics. Yet somehow this has made China unpopular in the eyes of the West and some Western media.

To many in China, the West seems only interested in making demands on China. First, the West wanted a market, cheap labor, and raw materials. As China grew richer, the demands changed to calls for investment as well as Chinese participation, cooperation, and coordination on various regional and global issues. But still the West is not satisfied with China.

It’s popular in the West to conceptualize state behaviors based on certain value judgments, particularly when evaluating the rise of China. Viewed through the prism of Western values (which are still dominant), China’s arguments and behavior on various issues, even when based on solid historical facts, are seen as pale and valueless.
This singular deductive approach hinges on one assumption: since China is different and does not behave as we want, it is wrong, evil, or even “fascist.” And if China is assumed to be “evil,” that implies that every single claim — be it territorial, political or ideological — by other parties against China must be righteous and lawful.This approach quite often fails (or simply refuses) to understand why China is different and how China has been changing in the past decades, both domestically and internationally.

China has benefited from the world order in the past decades. Meanwhile there are serious challenges for China to face, some of which are so significant that they could doom either China or the ruling regime if not successfully solved. We have seen change and progress, particularly taking into account the huge geographic, economic, and demographic divergences across the country. The progress to date is not enough and is arguably insignificant from a certain perspective. So changes and reforms in China, including the on-going anti-corruption campaign, will have to continue.

China is interwoven into the international community and unfortunately its rise inevitably has caused concerns across the region. China needs to seriously address these issues, including the possible negative impacts of its behaviors. But the world needs to understand as well that China is changing. The reforms will go on regardless of external critiques, urges, and pressures — even accusations of “fascism.”

https://thediplomat.com/2015/03/no-china-isnt-fascist/
#15174602
Those who forgot the arguments, here they are again.

Trolling with "no you", does not cut it.

Address the arguments:

China is

1) an official totalitarian dictatorship.
2) "re-educating" Uyghurs to turn them into proper Han.
3) sterilising Uyghur women en mass.
4) suppressing the Tibetans.
5) suppressing the Cantonese people of Hong Kong.
6) suppressing the Mongolians.
7) controls a territory 2.5 times the size of the EU, inhabited by 1.4 billion people that 95% of them just so happened to be born Han Chinese as if by immaculate conception.

Godstud wrote:USA not Ultra-Nationalist? How can you be so blind? You can't go anywhere without hearing Americans chanting, "USA USA USA!"


This is not about "the people" but about the state. Even if we did talk about "the people" Chinese people are far more nationalist and racist than American people but still that is not the point at all. The fact is that China is an ultra-nationalist state where foreigners and foreign competition inside China is totally discouraged, that is not the case in the USA where foreign people and foreign corporations are welcome.

Also fascist corporatist economy & US corporations. It's not what you think it is. Corporations in the US do not serve the US state and are not run in a holistic manner subsumed under the state:

A fascist corporation is a government body that brings together federations of workers and employers syndicates to regulate production in a holistic manner. Each trade union would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labour contracts and the like. It was theorized that this method could result in harmony amongst social classes.[32] However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[33]

In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a "corporative state", having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy and authority in a special synthesis.[34] Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would later become a member of the Italian fascist regime.[35]

Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.[36] Its supporters claimed that corporatism could better recognize or "incorporate" every divergent interest into the state organically, unlike majority-rules democracy which they said could marginalize specific interests. This total consideration was the inspiration for their use of the term "totalitarian", described without coercion (which is connoted in the modern meaning) in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.[37]

[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.[37]

A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state").


If there ever was a fascist country that adheres to all the principles of fascism, that country is China.

The fact that people use "fascism" in here to insult the USA while refusing to call a true fascist country like China what it is, is absolutely mind-boggling and very ridiculous indeed.

China is not merely "fascist", nor does she have policies that tilt her toward "fascism".

China is a true Fascist State and the opinions of ignoramus posters or editorials does not change reality.

@Godstud Where in that article is there a single argument about Chinese fascism?

There is nothing at all in your article, just an apologist telling us:

1) that China is very authoritarian indeed, he makes no apologies. How does that support your argument?

2) he says "we cannot judge china by western eyes" thereby admitting that if we judge China by the [western/actual] definition of fascism, then she is actually & properly fascist.

3) He claims China is a "bit less decentralised" compared to what he imagines other people might imagine by the word.

A logical fallacy by definition and no context whatsoever.

As we have seen, you are not even aware of the definition of corporatism, yet not only you profess an opinion about fascism but you are also quite aggressive about it and insult those who disagree with you to boot. What is even more ridiculous is that you use the word 'fascist' quite liberally yourself to call countries that are nowhere near fascism but you reject it for official fascists.

Educate yourself first on the words 'fascism' and 'corporatism' and then come back to explain with arguments how China does not abide by their fundamental tenets to the T.
By late
#15174624
Think layer cake, or as Shrek said, an onion.

China mostly fits the definition of a fascist state.

But the reality on the ground is that China is unique, which is something you have to take into account when crafting effective diplomatic relations.

China's great fear is another collapse into chaos. They have a history of being in a race against the exigencies of their demographics. For all their success, it's a race they could still easily lose. Which speaks to motive, they aren't out to conquer the world, they are just trying to stave off various disasters.

China is new to Modernity, most of them are only a generation or two off the farm. A lot of what they do, what they are, is thin (for the lack of a better word). They are making this up as they go along. While that is true of us all, they are new to the game.

When there is a middle class wedding in China, they go to a wedding photographer. This is nothing like the guy you hired. They plan out the style they want, and the photog makes it happen. If you want to appear outdoorsy, he will pick scenic places for you. You go there, put on the clothes he gives you, and he takes a pic of you two standing on a mountain.

The wedding photos will be done before the wedding. They will also be bound in leather, and stacks of them will sit on a table, to be taken home by the guests.

They've created an illusion of a Western lifestyle. But it's not at all what they do, or want to do. On vacation, they go to the beach, snap the pics for their friends, and then quickly move on to the next place. They don't hang out at the beach. I don't think they know how to hang out.

I've spent some time trying to figure out China, from a distance, I've never been there. It's fascinating and appalling.

They did this brilliant Soft Power campaign, they had a clear win, they had America in a bind. And then they threw it all away acting tough.

China is going to be a problem, we need to try to keep them in the fold, while discouraging their militaristic and revanchist ambitions.

It won't be easy.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15174629
Igor Antunov wrote:This is false and would never work in such a huge country. Different cities have different regional systems in place. Even the metro and ticketing systems of two neighbouring cities are not unified. GUIDELINES are made at the very top, and funding is provided-funding derived from taxation and export incomes (note that the autnomous regions are not taxed-not a single yuan makes its way from tibet or xinjiang to Beijing).


With policy I primarily meant "who makes the law", not the purchase of ticketing systems. Regional regulation complementing national one is to be expected in such a huge country, but that doesn't change the fundamentally top-down nature of the system.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15174630
Godstud wrote:As for the final point, the nation (and the family) has a uniquely important role in China’s contemporary political philosophy. But this is not new, much less an invention of the current regime. Reverence for authority, emphasis on leaders’ moral quality, and collectivism have all been rooted in China’s political culture for thousands of years and these concepts have had natural and inevitable impacts on contemporary Chinese politics. Yet somehow this has made China unpopular in the eyes of the West and some Western media.


Yes, China has a long history of imperial rule accompagnied by a large bureaucracy. The West also had such experiences though, the Roman empire wasn't too dissimilar from the Han empire for example, even though imperial rule was exercised more through law than bureaucracy.

Unlike China though we also have a republican tradition, and if you have ever watched Star Wars in your life, you know where our sympathies lie in that regard. Our negative attitude towards China isn't surprising at all.
#15174809
Rugoz wrote: Every authoritarian regime I can think of has a political party attached to it.


Other authoritarian regimes in Africa, Latin America etc exist essentially just to enrich the leaders, without bothering to indoctrinate the masses, extend the scope of the state much or increase national power.
#15175143
starman2003 wrote:Other authoritarian regimes in Africa, Latin America etc exist essentially just to enrich the leaders, without bothering to indoctrinate the masses, extend the scope of the state much or increase national power.

This is just another way of saying that these nations have not yet entered modernity. Almost all governments throughout human history have been of that ilk. That only started to change after the American and French Revolutions, and gathered pace in the 20th century as the mass of the population suddenly became important political actors.
By late
#15175149
late wrote:
Think layer cake, or as Shrek said, an onion.

China mostly fits the definition of a fascist state.

But the reality on the ground is that China is unique, which is something you have to take into account when crafting effective diplomatic relations.

China's great fear is another collapse into chaos. They have a history of being in a race against the exigencies of their demographics. For all their success, it's a race they could still easily lose. Which speaks to motive, they aren't out to conquer the world, they are just trying to stave off various disasters.

China is new to Modernity, most of them are only a generation or two off the farm. A lot of what they do, what they are, is thin (for the lack of a better word). They are making this up as they go along. While that is true of us all, they are new to the game.

When there is a middle class wedding in China, they go to a wedding photographer. This is nothing like the guy you hired. They plan out the style they want, and the photog makes it happen. If you want to appear outdoorsy, he will pick scenic places for you. You go there, put on the clothes he gives you, and he takes a pic of you two standing on a mountain.

The wedding photos will be done before the wedding. They will also be bound in leather, and stacks of them will sit on a table, to be taken home by the guests.

They've created an illusion of a Western lifestyle. But it's not at all what they do, or want to do. On vacation, they go to the beach, snap the pics for their friends, and then quickly move on to the next place. They don't hang out at the beach. I don't think they know how to hang out.

I've spent some time trying to figure out China, from a distance, I've never been there. It's fascinating and appalling.

They did this brilliant Soft Power campaign, they had a clear win, they had America in a bind. And then they threw it all away acting tough.

China is going to be a problem, we need to try to keep them in the fold, while discouraging their militaristic and revanchist ambitions.

It won't be easy.



Let me bring this down to your level, kids.

Xi sucks.
#15175248
This thread:
Image

China's system is based on something far more more modern than that of the republican democracies, tailored to much older Confucian traditions. And it is doing much better now. Turns out it was a winning combination.
#15175283
Potemkin wrote:This is just another way of saying that these nations have not yet entered modernity. Almost all governments throughout human history have been of that ilk. That only started to change after the American and French Revolutions, and gathered pace in the 20th century as the mass of the population suddenly became important political actors.


Enriching the leaders may always have been the norm but many past regimes at least tried to increase national power. They didn't all just sit on their butts and live it up.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15175288
noemon wrote:Those who forgot the arguments, here they are again.

Trolling with "no you", does not cut it.

Address the arguments:

China is

1) an official totalitarian dictatorship.
2) "re-educating" Uyghurs to turn them into proper Han.
3) sterilising Uyghur women en mass.
4) suppressing the Tibetans.
5) suppressing the Cantonese people of Hong Kong.
6) suppressing the Mongolians.
7) controls a territory 2.5 times the size of the EU, inhabited by 1.4 billion people that 95% of them just so happened to be born Han Chinese as if by immaculate conception.


1. Not an exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
2. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
3. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
4. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
5. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
6. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
7. "Han" means something different to Chinese people than Westerners. It's like complaining that Europe is indigenous "white". It is a very overarching, inclusive, and broad term that basically can be renamed to 'Generic Chinese'. Many who self identify as "Han" could also be described as one of China's minority groups.

End of the day - you continue, again and again, to define an ideology by its practice rather than its ideas. I don't understand your insistence on giving China an ideological label while continually ignoring ideology itself. China is not an ideological fascist state. It's practice is vaguely similar to the practice of some historical fascist states - and many liberal states, and monarchial states, and so on. Some practices are apparently trans-ideological.

Noemon wrote:The fact is that China is an ultra-nationalist state where foreigners and foreign competition inside China is totally discouraged, that is not the case in the USA where foreign people and foreign corporations are welcome.


Foreigners in China do not report feeling unwelcome, and there are far less anti-immigrant attitudes in China than even most Western states. What anti-foreigner sentiment does exist is in contradiction of direct state policy, so it is difficult to describe the Chinese government as fascist in that sense, also. The Chinese state is absolutely protectionist in that it is hostile to market capture by foreign corporations, but it is nonetheless very welcoming to foreign investment and foreign settlement. It is ridiculously easy to immigrate to China compared to any Western state.
User avatar
By noemon
#15175316
Fasces wrote:1. Not an exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.


Totalitarianism is an intrinsic characteristic of fascism.

2. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
3. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
4. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
5. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.
6. Not an intrinsic or exclusive characteristic of fascism as an ideology.


Ethnic-totalitarianism is also an intrinsic characteristic of fascism.

Fasces wrote:End of the day - you continue, again and again, to define an ideology by its practice rather than its ideas. I don't understand your insistence on giving China an ideological label while continually ignoring ideology itself. China is not an ideological fascist state. It's practice is vaguely similar to the practice of some historical fascist states - and many liberal states, and monarchial states, and so on. Some practices are apparently trans-ideological.

Foreigners in China do not report feeling unwelcome, and there are far less anti-immigrant attitudes in China than even most Western states. What anti-foreigner sentiment does exist is in contradiction of direct state policy, so it is difficult to describe the Chinese government as fascist in that sense, also. The Chinese state is absolutely protectionist in that it is hostile to market capture by foreign corporations, but it is nonetheless very welcoming to foreign investment and foreign settlement. It is ridiculously easy to immigrate to China compared to any Western state.


An ideology is judged both on its practice and its ideas. Your apologia is disingenuous.

You ignored my argument on corporatism and then went on to create a straw-man about 'abstract foreigners' rather than foreign companies/entities and corporatism.

China is a totalitarian, corporatist, dictatorship. These are the 3 fundamental tenets of fascism.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15175322
Fasces wrote:Foreigners in China do not report feeling unwelcome, and there are far less anti-immigrant attitudes in China than even most Western states. What anti-foreigner sentiment does exist is in contradiction of direct state policy, so it is difficult to describe the Chinese government as fascist in that sense, also. The Chinese state is absolutely protectionist in that it is hostile to market capture by foreign corporations, but it is nonetheless very welcoming to foreign investment and foreign settlement. It is ridiculously easy to immigrate to China compared to any Western state.


Ah yes, China, the prime immigration destination :roll::
Despite this metamorphosis, one thing remains the same: China has almost no migrants coming to the country. According to recently released estimates from the United Nations, as of July 2017 there were almost exactly 1 million migrants in mainland China. (People born in Hong Kong and Macau now living in China are considered migrants by the UN.) That’s just 0.07% of all people in the country, meaning China has the fewest share of migrants of any country in the world. By comparison, migrants make up 15.6% of the US population.

https://qz.com/1163632/china-still-has- ... population.

Also, getting Chinese citizenship seems borderline impossible (although rather old data):
Naturalization is exceptionally rare in mainland China; there were only 1448 naturalized persons reported in the 2010 census out of the country's total population of 1.34 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_n ... %20billion.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15175423
noemon wrote:Totalitarianism is an intrinsic characteristic of fascism.


I never claimed otherwise. I said it wasn't an exclusive one. That being said - China is not a totalitarian state. Not by a long shot. It is highly decentralized and there is minimal state presence in day to day life.

noemon wrote: Ethnic-totalitarianism is also an intrinsic characteristic of fascism.


The Chinese state is ideologically multiethnic and multinational. The Chinese state actively promotes and supports multiculturalism in ways fascist states would not and did not.

noemon wrote: An ideology is judged both on its practice and its ideas. Your apologia is disingenuous.


Ideology, by definition, is defined by ideas, theories, intent, and motives. Not by practice.

noemon wrote: China is a totalitarian, corporatist, dictatorship. These are the 3 fundamental tenets of fascism.


No, they're not. Not by any reputable academic or fascist believer.

The core ideas are corporatism (the Chinese model is distinct from Fascist corporatism*); Palingenetic nationalism (kind of) ; anti-Marxism (absolutely does not define China); and hierarchical (sure.)

*in practice, most fascist states such as Italy and Germany compromised their ideology and did not fully implement corporatism as described by early fascist thinkers. In practice, these compromise programs bear vague resemblance to the Chinese system (as did the Soviet system, or the post-war consensus in the UK/West Germany/Japan/South Korea/Taiwan, but if we're going to describe the USSR and UK and post war Japan or South Korea all as ideologically corporatist fascist then the term is utterly meaningless.)

But, ultimately - the ideological programme in China and its objectives is fundamentally different from those of fascist states, and describing China as fascist as a cheap rhetorical ploy only leads to misunderstanding Chinese motives and being unable to predict Chinese actions.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15175424
Rugoz wrote:Ah yes, China, the prime immigration destination :roll::


I don't know the UN definition of migrants but the number of foreigners in China has grown significantly in the past ten years, currently numbers a couple million excluding Taiwanese, Macauan, and Hong Kong and this trend is growing as China becomes more developed.

The comparative lack of migrants in China has nothing to do whatsoever, in any case, with either Chinese attitudes towards immigration/foreigners (which are more welcoming than Western attitudes in polls); or the legal hurdles in place, which are significantly lesser than even Western states. The Chinese state is actively making efforts to improve immigration, for work and study, from BR states.

Both of these are indicative of a state that is not, as you guys try to characterize in this thread, hostile to foreigners and a totalitarian ethnic nationalist.
#15175454
Fasces wrote:I never claimed otherwise. I said it wasn't an exclusive one. That being said - China is not a totalitarian state. Not by a long shot. It is highly decentralized and there is minimal state presence in day to day life.
The Chinese state is ideologically multiethnic and multinational. The Chinese state actively promotes and supports multiculturalism in ways fascist states would not and did not. Ideology, by definition, is defined by ideas, theories, intent, and motives. Not by practice.


This is boring nonsense. Your claim that China's ideology should not be judged on the practices of its government is frankly ridiculous and proves my point. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Calling her "decentralised" or pretending that her ethnic-nationalism is "distinct from fascist ethnic-nationalism" is absolutely worthless without qualifying arguments.

No, they're not. Not by any reputable academic or fascist believer.

The core ideas are corporatism (the Chinese model is distinct from Fascist corporatism*); Palingenetic nationalism (kind of) ; anti-Marxism (absolutely does not define China); and hierarchical (sure.)


I mentioned 3 core tenets of fascism, corporatism, ethno-nationalism & totalitarianism. You agreed with the first 2 and unsuccessfully denied that the third applies. You agree with me a lot more than you let on. "Anti-marxism" is not a necessary or required tenet of fascism.

In practice, these compromise programs bear vague resemblance to the Chinese system


Of course they do as they are all fascist by definition.

post war Japan or South Korea all as ideologically corporatist fascist then the term is utterly meaningless.


So you wish, but it's not meaningless at all. China is a corporatist, totalitarian dictatorship. A well-rounded fascist nation-state by every single measure.

But, ultimately - the ideological programme in China and its objectives is fundamentally different from those of fascist states, and describing China as fascist as a cheap rhetorical ploy only leads to misunderstanding Chinese motives and being unable to predict Chinese actions.


Throwing meaningless words without qualifying argument is the only narrativistic ploy here. Countries with corporatist policies are not fascist unless they are ethno-nationalist totalitarian dictatorships, like China, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

China is not merely "fascist" for argument's sake, nor is she marginally resembling it, she is a true Fascist nation-state. She is the most successful case study of real fascism.
#15175456
Fasces wrote:I don't know the UN definition of migrants but the number of foreigners in China has grown significantly in the past ten years, currently numbers a couple million excluding Taiwanese, Macauan, and Hong Kong and this trend is growing as China becomes more developed.

I'd assume a lot of foreigners move to China for business reasons, or possibly study. I also assume this is in China's interests.

I also assume very few refugees fleeing human rights abuses in their countries head to China, or that China welcomes them.
#15175457
Fasces wrote:I never claimed otherwise. I said it wasn't an exclusive one. That being said - China is not a totalitarian state. Not by a long shot. It is highly decentralized and there is minimal state presence in day to day life.


Prove it by posting the following without using a VPN:

"China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong should be free, independent, and democratic countries and Xi Jinping should be removed from office in favor of a democratic leader."
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 16

There is no evidence whatsoever that the IDF and I[…]

Voting for this guy again would be a very banan[…]

The US government does not care about the ongoing […]

I would also say that the extreme Left can be j[…]