[Rugoz]

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.

So the fact that wealth and income inequality is at record levels even by Western standards is irrelevant? The only thing that matters is that the state still controls a significant share of the economy and the party in power pays lip service to Marxist ideology?

[Fasces]

Are you suggesting China deliberately goes through a capitalist phase to create a proletariat and induce class consciousness? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You guys are, simply put, incredibly ignorant on this topic. You declare yourselves experts on China without ever having once had the simple curiosity to find out what they think of these issues themselves.

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that there is a split between the hardline Maoist faction and the Dengist faction within the CCP. The Maoist faction ardently believes that the peasantry is a revolutionary-conscious class, and that you can transition directly to a state of communism without needing to reach a certain level of development.

Within the CCP, especially at the highest levels, this idea was entirely and wholly discredited by the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Mao today is recognized as a brilliant general, a capable theoretician, and a disastrous administrator and the ideas of peasant communism are almost entirely discredited within the upper echelons of the CCP. The Dengists won - especially after Bo Xilai was cast out.

The Dengists hold that for China to successfully transition to a communist state, there are 3 fundamental realities it must contend with:

1. China is underdeveloped.
2. China is weak.
3. Foreign capitalist states will never tolerate a communist state, and as long as China is underdeveloped and weak, it will never succeed in implementing communism. It will be subject to foreign efforts to ferment rebellion, to derail the revolution, and to keep it in a perpetually subservient and underdeveloped state relative to the first world.

The CCP today has accepted these three statements as fact. The solution, over the last four decades, was the adoption of the idea that China must first develop and become strong, so wealthy and powerful that foreign powers cannot exploit, divide, or otherwise impede it, at which point it will be possible to finish the transition to a socialist state. This is where China is today.

The CCP, according to itself, sees itself as having a specific role in Chinese society. That it is its job to oversee the development of China into an economic and military power that can contend with the West, so that it can have the autonomy to finish the revolution. There is a lot of ancillary theory here - that the process of development will create the material conditions that make a communist state possible, but this is all secondary to the three precepts.

[Rugoz]

You guys are, simply put, incredibly ignorant on this topic. You declare yourselves experts on China without ever having once had the simple curiosity to find out what they think of these issues themselves.

Who claimed to be an expert on China?

The CCP today has accepted these three statements as fact. The solution, over the last four decades, was the adoption of the idea that China must first develop and become strong, so wealthy and powerful that foreign powers cannot exploit, divide, or otherwise impede it, at which point it will be possible to finish the transition to a socialist state. This is where China is today.

The CCP, according to itself, sees itself as having a specific role in Chinese society. That it is its job to oversee the development of China into an economic and military power that can contend with the West, so that it can have the autonomy to finish the revolution. There is a lot of ancillary theory here - that the process of development will create the material conditions that make a communist state possible, but this is all secondary to the three precepts.

So China cannot develop and become strong without capitalism? Why should it at some point manage to remain strong without it?

Moreover, China is a medium-income country nowadays. How did Western countries (or in fact the SU) manage to get to this point without massive inequality in income and wealth, while China does not?

[Fasces]

I don't know where you get the idea that Marxists don't recognize that capitalist development isn't a necessary stage of a countries material and social development. Like feudalism, however, eventually a society must move past that stage or it will plateau and eventually collapse.

And China does not appear to be particularly unequal compared to other countries at a similar stage of development. It can't compare to European rates of income inequality, they being post industrial welfare states, but is better than most in the developing world and even the United States.

In any case, China's inequality is a consequence of unequal levels of national development and should reduce as the country side catches up to the coastal regions, at any rate.

[Rugoz]

:eh: I don't know where you get the idea that Marxists don't recognize that capitalist development isn't a necessary stage of a countries material and social development. Like feudalism, however, eventually a society must move past that stage or it will plateau and eventually collapse.

Because the SU didn't need capitalism beforehand and I don't see why any country should when it develops "class consciousness" and hence a revolution earlier. Capitalism is not a requirement for capital accumulation. It was the SU that plateaued and collapsed economically towards the end, while it developed quite fine at the beginning.

And China does not appear to be particularly unequal compared to other countries at a similar stage of development. It can't compare to European rates of income inequality, they being post industrial welfare states, but is better than most in the developing world and even the United States.

China's per capita GDP is already higher than in the West in the 80s. Inequality in Europe was particularly low post-war up to that point because of high growth. Inequality in China now is already almost at current US levels.

Here's a good article:
https://voxeu.org/article/capital-accum ... -1978-2015

The share of public property in national wealth declined from about 70% in 1978 to about 30% in 2015. More than 95% of the housing stock is now owned by private households, as compared to about 50% in 1978. Chinese corporations, however, are still predominantly publicly owned: close to 60% of Chinese equities belong to the government (with a small but significant rebound since 2009), 30% to private Chinese owners, and 10% to foreigners – less than in the US, and much less than in Europe (Figure 4).

In brief: China moved a long way toward private property between 1978 and 2015, but its property regime is still markedly different than in other parts of the world. China has ceased to be communist, but is not entirely capitalist; it should rather be viewed as a mixed economy with a strong public ownership component. In effect, the share of public property in China today (30%) is higher than in the West during the mixed economy regime of the post-WW2 decades (around 15%-25%), but not hugely so.

In any case, China's inequality is a consequence of unequal levels of national development and should reduce as the country side catches up to the coastal regions, at any rate.

There's some truth to that, it would be good to have regional data as well.

[Fasces]

Because the SU didn't need capitalism beforehand and I don't see why any country should when it develops "class consciousness" and hence a revolution earlier.

The Soviet Union did use the NEP, and this is a controversial statement regardless. I don't think the USSR is a useful model and evidently neither does the CCP.

China's per capita GDP is already higher than in the West in the 80s.

Is GDP per capita a useful indicator of the structure of national economies and relative level of national development? Chinese industrialization and development should be compared to a similar period in Europe's history - the 19th century transition from late feudalism and mercantilism that most resembled Chinese development pre-1949.

[Thunderhawk]

2. It is not corporatist, at least not any more. Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin unquestionably were - their contribution to the official policy of the CCP was explicitly class collaborationist, and subsumed class struggle underneath the need to empower the state. However, Bo Xilai and Xi Jinping both represent a far left and moderate left reversal of this policy, respectively, and in recent years the CCP has committed to a socialist identity and a vanguard identity intent on establishing a communist state, explicitly describing China as a transitional socialist state. They have also taken actions to reduce the power of capitalists within China, and empower the party at their expense.

Established business-competent nomenklatura (who would be well remunerated) who manage state companies and create/direct politicies for sectors vs. sucessfull businessmen who use their business and financial powerbase to influence politics and influence their sector.
They have different skills, pasts and paths to power, but at a certain level ( when transforming money into/from power is easy and efficient, and government ability to seize/belittle/destroy businesses is always and easily viable) I see a lot in common. Crank up the corruption and nepotism (inheriting power+connections rather than 'ownership') and I see even less difference.
Does Fascism has an upper limit for state-business interaction?

[Fasces]

Only on PoFo do individuals discussing the nature of an ideology consistently try to remove the actual ideas from the equation.

The distinction is in the nature, motivation, and goal of the relationship.

In fascism, capitalists and workers are both subservient to the interests of the nation, manifest through the state. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are forced, through the wielding of state power, into a class collaborationist relationship that can be used to advance the national interest, defined as whatever the fascist party decides.

In Chinese communism, the capitalists are subservient to the proletariat (through the wielding of state power, held by the CCP, a vanguardist proletarian organization, which tends to assume that its interests and the proleterian interest are one and the same (which is, needless to state, false)) - but not eliminated, at least not yet. The Chinese communists believe that the bourgeoisie stage of development is a useful and necessary tool for effective national and social liberation and decolonization (a process which is still incomplete, according to the Dengists, and won't be complete until US/Western influence is effectively cast out of Asia.) This is stated to be a temporary stage of subservience, until such a point that the Chinese people have no more utility from the bourgeoisie class, at which point, to finish the process of national and social liberation, they too will need to be removed.

Practice may very well be broadly similar, likely because evidence and past experimentation has borne out that certain systemic models are more effective for national development than other. You can point to similarities in practice between Obama, Hitler, and the Persian King Darius (They all liked to build highways), but it won't do you any good in trying to suss out the ideological character of each individual. Understanding an ideology's motivations and desires and how it motivate practice is still useful, in my eyes, because it helps predict future actions - so I don't see why we consistently are trying in this thread to equate fascism with Chinese communism (other than to score a cheap and empty political point). If you want to find out what China will do in 2045, studying Mussolini or other past fascist movements won't get you very far.

[Rugoz]

The Soviet Union did use the NEP, and this is a controversial statement regardless. I don't think the USSR is a useful model and evidently neither does the CCP.

My point is there's no reason a planned economy cannot industrialize and accumulate capital. Needless to say capital accumulation is a process that will never end. Hence as long as a planned economy is efficient, there's no reason to delay its adoption. And to the extent it is inefficient, there's no reason to adopt it ever.

Technology and thus production is ever-changing of course but that part cannot be predicted.

Is GDP per capita a useful indicator of the structure of national economies and relative level of national development? Chinese industrialization and development should be compared to a similar period in Europe's history - the 19th century transition from late feudalism and mercantilism that most resembled Chinese development pre-1949.

GDP is certainly a useful indicator. There's no way China today is comparable to Europe in the 19th century, that's just plain silly. Even underdeveloped regions are far beyond that. E.g. here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 2410%2C000.

[Rugoz]

In fascism, capitalists and workers are both subservient to the interests of the nation, manifest through the state. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are forced, through the wielding of state power, into a class collaborationist relationship that can be used to advance the national interest, defined as whatever the fascist party decides.

That fits perfectly. The CCP doesn't allow the proles to organize.

[Fasces]

That fits perfectly. The CCP doesn't allow the proles to organize.

This is patently false. There are plenty of organizations available for working class unity.

I assume you're talking about China's rejection of pluralism and independent civil society groups, but I find their reasoning perfectly justifiable given the historical evidence that such things are vectors for foreign interference. In a perfect world, the CCP would allow for independent organization, but this isn't a perfect world because of bad faith international actors such as the United States.

GDP is certainly a useful indicator.

Why? You make a lot of statements, but no arguments.

[Rugoz]

This is patently false. There are plenty of organizations available for working class unity.

I assume you're talking about China's rejection of pluralism and independent civil society groups, but I find their reasoning perfectly justifiable given the historical evidence that such things are vectors for foreign interference. In a perfect world, the CCP would allow for independent organization, but this isn't a perfect world because of bad faith international actors such as the United States.

AFAIK there's only a single state-controlled union, hence your definition of fascism fits.

Foreign interference can be prevented by other means. That's just a pretense to justify the totalitarian state, you know that as well as I do.

Why? You make a lot of statements, but no arguments.

How does that require an argument? Per capita GDP is the most widely used indicator for the level of economic development. You could look at physical and human capital individually, but they both enter GDP.

[Fasces]

AFAIK there's only a single state-controlled union,

The definition of fascism has nothing to do with whether there is a single state-controlled union. You're trying to replace discussing ideas in ideology with structural similarities, and I don't think that makes any sort of sense. You're just trying to make China fit into this box that it doesn't necessarily fit in. Why? Who knows.

Foreign interference can be prevented by other means. That's just a pretense to justify the totalitarian state, you know that as well as I do.

For example?

Per capita GDP is the most widely used indicator for the level of economic development. You could look at physical and human capital individually, but they both enter GDP.

I told you earlier that I disagree - per capita GDP tells you nothing about economic development, the character of a national economy, or anything of substance. It's overly reductive to the point of being useless, as I stated above.

[Rugoz]

The definition of fascism has nothing to do with whether there is a single state-controlled union. You're trying to replace discussing ideas in ideology with structural similarities, and I don't think that makes any sort of sense. You're just trying to make China fit into this box that it doesn't necessarily fit in. Why? Who knows.

By only allowing a single state-controlled union the state exercises full control over workers. I literally used your definition of fascism, nothing else.

For example?

Forbidding foreign financing or the employment of foreigners.

I told you earlier that I disagree - per capita GDP tells you nothing about economic development, the character of a national economy, or anything of substance. It's overly reductive to the point of being useless, as I stated above.

It that supposed to be an argument? Every economist out there disagrees. You don't seem to understand GDP. Either way, feel free to cite capital stock measures or education levels.

[Fasces]

By only allowing a single state-controlled union the state exercises full control over workers. I literally used your definition of fascism, nothing else.

No, you focused on the result - not the reason. Why do some fascist states have a single state-controlled union? Is it for the same reason China has one? I don't buy into this concept that you can strip ideology of the ideas in any meaningful way.

Forbidding foreign financing or the employment of foreigners.

The former of which is impossible to enforce effectively and the latter of which is just stupid.

It that supposed to be an argument? Every economist out there disagrees. You don't seem to understand GDP. Either way, feel free to cite capital stock measures or education levels.

I don't think any economist, of any stripe, would agree with you that you can sum up economic national development into a single number. That seeing

Qatar $64,000
United States $65,000

gives you any meaningful information about the character of the respective national economies, distribution of wealth, level of development, and so on.

[Rugoz]

No, you focused on the result - not the reason. Why do some fascist states have a single state-controlled union? Is it for the same reason China has one? I don't buy into this concept that you can strip ideology of the ideas in any meaningful way.

I don't see why China would ban non-state unions otherwise. Your "foreign control" argument is incredibly weak.

The former of which is impossible to enforce effectively and the latter of which is just stupid.

Why should it not be enforcable? No doubt China enforces limits on foreign control/financing in all sectors of the economy. I don't see how the latter is supposed to be stupid if you're serious about limiting foreign influence.

I don't think any economist, of any stripe, would agree with you that you can sum up economic national development into a single number. That seeing

Qatar $64,000
United States $65,000

gives you any meaningful information about the character of the respective national economies, distribution of wealth, level of development, and so on.

Qatar is a small oil-producing state and hence a special case. Resource rents are negligible in the case of China and Western countries. I didn't say GDP says something about the distribution of wealth, at least not directly. But it says a lot about the level of development, that is simply not debatable.

That said, claiming China is at the same level of development as Europe in the 19th century is ridiculous by any measure.

[Fasces]

I don't see why China would ban non-state unions otherwise. Your "foreign control" argument is incredibly weak.

The only legal political entities in the PRC are those associated with the United Front. It is their own view, not mine. They see a pluralistic society as a weakness because it gives two groups power to divide and conquer - foreign states and domestic oligarchs. You can hardly have an election in the West without people complaining of foreign interference or corporate interference through PACs, so this seems like a logical conclusion world-over. I'm not defending their view points, just explaining it. If you want to understand China, you'd do good to try to understand them from their own point of view rather than just being satisfied with trying to justify calling them fascist because its synonymous with 'bad'.

Qatar is a small oil-producing state and hence a special case. Resource rents are negligible in the case of China and Western countries. I didn't say GDP says something about the distribution of wealth, at least not directly. But it says a lot about the level of development, that is simply not debatable.

It says nothing about the political or social development of a state, the character of the national economy, and the material conditions of that state. It is a useless number for any sort of discussion about national development. Taiwan and Spain have similar levels of GDP per capita - what does that figure, without looking anything else, tell you about development, infrastructure, major industries, economic faultlines, etc? It is useless to base your entire analysis of a country, especially one like China which explicitly follows a regional model of development where local economic rights, investment, and industries are starkly different from province to province and city to city, on a single number - which is what you're doing.

That said, claiming China is at the same level of development as Europe in the 19th century is ridiculous by any measure.

It is the reality of things for approximately a third to a quarter of a billion people yet. China has made great strides in the last forty years, but its development program is nowhere near complete. And in 1949, the developmental situation in China was absolutely comparable to pre-industrial Europe.

[noemon]

@Deutschmania China is neither a fascist state, nor is it a socialist worker's state. It is a capitalist state with an authoritarian government.

China is the very definition of a fascist state in all aspects, economically, socially, politically and constitutionally.

She is a corporatist & fully protectionist economy ruled by an official dictatorship that

1) subscribes to a points-based social structure and backed by total surveillance.
2) represses all political dissent and ethnic minorities
3) is run on an absolutist manner

[Fasces]

None of those three are inherent characteristics of fascist ideology.

No one in this thread seems to actually care about the ideological character of fascism. They've started at the conclusion that China is bad and are retroactively trying to make what amounts to a political slur stick.

[Unthinking Majority]

None of those three are inherent characteristics of fascist ideology.

No one in this thread seems to actually care about the ideological character of fascism. They've started at the conclusion that China is bad and are retroactively trying to make what amounts to a political slur stick.

You really need to stop defending Nazis: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html