[Fasces]

This is boring nonsense. Your claim that China's ideology should not be judged on the practices of its government

Ideology is ideology. Praxis is praxis. The two are distinct. China is not a fascist state because China is not ideologically fascist.

Fascism is a set of ideas - motivations, beliefs and value systems - not acts. I know English is your second language, but there is no such thing as a 'fascist act'. Fascists built roads - is building a road fascist? Fascists in Italy were accountable to constitutional processes and were removed democratically - is constitutional democracy fascist?

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.

Name one fascist movement, thinker, or writing that isn't explicitly anti-Marxist. Ask any fascist if anti-Marxism is a core tenet of fascism. It absolutely, undeniably is. Fascism rejects Marx's historical dialectic, it rejects Marxist materialism, and it rejects Marxist egalitarianism.

So you wish, but it's not meaningless at all. China is a corporatist, totalitarian dictatorship.

China is a corporatist* dictatorship. China is not fascist. These statements do not contradict each other, whatever you wish to gain by using fascist as a cheap rhetorical slur.

You're on a forum that is and has been populated with actual, out, proud, and unapologetic fascists. I don't see the point in the slur.

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, does not claim to be, and does not aspire to be an ethno-nationalist state.

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.

Not according to fascists.

"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."

"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."

Tank Man Tiananmen Square 64 Falun Gong Free Hong Kong Fuck the CCP

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门 2014 Umbrella Movement 雨傘革命 Belt and Road Initiative 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路 One Belt One Road 一带一路 Debt-trap diplomacy 債務陷阱外交 South China Sea Dispute 南海爭議 Murder of Poon Hiu-wing潘曉穎命案 2019–20 Hong Kong protests反對逃犯條例修訂草案運動 Siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University香港理工大學衝突 Milk Tea Alliance奶茶聯盟 Yellow economic circle黄色经济圈 CCP/China/Wuhan Coronavirus冠状病毒Hong Kong national security law香港国家安全法 Wumao (50-cent Army)/Little Pinks五毛/小粉红 Douyin Propaganda 斗阴宣传 White Monkey Jobs 白猴子职位 Mulan 2020 Xinjiang 新疆木兰2020 laowhy86 and serpentza escapes china laowhy86和serpentza逃离中国 Jack Ma Missing? 马云失踪了吗？Coast Guard Law 海岸警卫队法

[Rugoz]

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 have provided a source for 1 million (2017), including from Hong Kong and Macau.

Now you provide a source for "a couple of millions".

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.

Well fact is that according to the latest data we have China has the smallest immigrant population as a share of the population in the world. Granted, China is rather large, though India for example has like 5-6 times the share despite being much poorer.

So either China is not attractive as a destination or is restrictive in its admittance of immigrants. I'm not even saying that's bad, just that your attempt to depict China as a paradise for immigrants is misguided.

[Fasces]

I'm not even saying that's bad, just that your attempt to depict China as a paradise for immigrants is misguided.

China being unattractive to migrants, and China being a hostile ethno-nationalist state are two different concerns.

[noemon]

Ideology is ideology. Praxis is praxis. The two are distinct. China is not a fascist state because China is not ideologically fascist.

Fascism is a set of ideas - motivations, beliefs and value systems - not acts. I know English is your second language, but there is no such thing as a 'fascist act'. Fascists built roads - is building a road fascist? Fascists in Italy were accountable to constitutional processes and were removed democratically - is constitutional democracy fascist?

You 're getting convoluted there. I know you have chosen to live in China as a teacher and that your argumentation is totally biased but do try to keep it straight. Did I say that China is fascist because she is committing the act of building roads? No, I didn't. I said that China is fascist because she is practising totalitarian corporatism, ethnic-cleansing & ethno-nationalism under a dictatorship. What she is practising is the manifestation(praxis) of the political ideology of Fascism.

Name one fascist movement, thinker, or writing that isn't explicitly anti-Marxist. Ask any fascist if anti-Marxism is a core tenet of fascism. It absolutely, undeniably is. Fascism rejects Marx's historical dialectic, it rejects Marxist materialism, and it rejects Marxist egalitarianism.

That is a ridiculous argument to make that contains several logical fallacies and is by definition a straw-man argument.

1) Explain why having an anti-marxist narrative has any effect on the praxis of fascism. It doesn't.
2) An opinion about someone else's opinion has no bearing on anything, let alone reality.
3) False cause fallacy.

China is a corporatist* dictatorship. China is not fascist. These statements do not contradict each other, whatever you wish to gain by using fascist as a cheap rhetorical slur.
You're on a forum that is and has been populated with actual, out, proud, and unapologetic fascists. I don't see the point in the slur.

I'm not using the term fascist as a slur. I'm using it as a matter of fact. China is also totalitarian & ethno-nationalist(with several proof provided and discussed already), combined with being a corporatist dictatorship, that makes her a fascist state.

Your attempt to accuse me of using "slurs" in order to render the term 'fascist' as PC unusable is insidious, sinister and quite obvious.

China is not, does not claim to be, and does not aspire to be an ethno-nationalist state.

And Hitler for the most part did not claim to be what he was, but he was what he was regardless:

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.

That is as ethno-nationalist as it gets.

China being unattractive to migrants, and China being a hostile ethno-nationalist state are two different concerns.

Not in her case.

[JohnRawls]

This thread:


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.

A bunch of general worlds. The subjective truth of the matter is that Chinese model is based on Western capitalism, Leninist bureaucracy and party model along with adaptive political ideals which means that this is not really anything new to history. Several states have undergone very similar transitions before or after the collapse of USSR:

The regime of China will run in to a similar problem as all of the regimes that followed the same path as it did:
1) The middle income gap will be the main problem because such a model of political and economic structuring forsakes rule of law/anti corruption for loyalty and stability.
2) Once the stagnation or relative small growth starts, corruption becomes an even bigger problem. Basically people are used to having more income through trade or corruption but if there is no growth more corruption is a problem and can't be really overlooked.
3) Politically this means a shift to a more fascist like state from the marxist lead ideals. This happens due to the old beurocracy clinging to power along with the established "Oligarchs" or what you want to call them.
4) Because of this process, security and military forces become the driving factors behind any decision making in the country which makes the economy even more unstable since businessman and ohter economic individuals are excluded from decision.
5) Public outcry eventually happens. And we get what we got with places like Belarus, Ukraine, Arab spring and so on. There is no clear path after this, it just depends who wins. It can go the democratic and law and order route, it can go the maintain the status quo etc...

The difference here is that China is huge, so even modest growth on GDP per capita basis makes it look like huge achievement. Reality is that on GDP per capita basis Korea, Japan, Singapore or even Taiwan were faster growers in this context.

[Igor Antunov]

I will not take your promotion of neoliberalism in China with a straight face. It has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and is failing at its source in the west as we speak.

A bunch of general worlds. The subjective truth of the matter is that Chinese model is based on Western capitalism, Leninist bureaucracy and party model along with adaptive political ideals which means that this is not really anything new to history. Several states have undergone very similar transitions before or after the collapse of USSR:

The regime of China will run in to a similar problem as all of the regimes that followed the same path as it did:
1) The middle income gap will be the main problem because such a model of political and economic structuring forsakes rule of law/anti corruption for loyalty and stability.

Eh its already passed that point, you mean middle income trap and it never happened. Almost everyone resident in the fully developed urban centers has passed high income threshold, incomes in shanghai for example have passed $35k a year. This covers over 150 million people set to reach 300 million in 5 years. Other cities are in the process of developing their infrastructure and services to match beijing, shenzhen, shanhai, guangzhou, tianjin, wuxi, suzhou, nanjing etc. Also all of these cities economies are predominantly state sector driven. Private enterprise is still minority share. Furthermore the population isn't leveraged. The average shenzhen resident for example has equivalent of over $50k usd in savings. The average Chinese over $10k. The average american is thousands of dollars in debt. Which leads me to the second paragraph.

Regarding the point in bold, Shenzhen for example, the 'free market' champion of china's special economic zones experiment,the most dramatic 'capitalist' example in china, is only ~30% based on private enterprise. 70% of the economy remains in the hands of the state and this has stayed constant for two decades now, even edging further toward state capitalist integration post 2006. The CPC is still as hands on with the economy as it was in 1983. This is SOCIALISM.

Rule of law is an american meme similar to muh democracy, and outright legalizing state corruption and calling it something benign such as lobbying is also an american meme. Had these rotting disease spread to China, it would have been either destroyed or turned into a basket case just like India and soon, the US.

The reason some people hesitate to carry out the reform and the open policy and dare not break new ground is, in essence, that they’re afraid it would mean introducing too many elements of capitalism and, indeed, taking the capitalist road. The crux of the matter is whether the road is capitalist or socialist. The chief criterion for making that judgement should be whether it promotes the growth of the productive forces in a socialist society, increases the overall strength of the socialist state and raises living standards. As for building special economic zones, some people disagreed with the idea right from the start, wondering whether it would not mean introducing capitalism. The achievements in the construction of Shenzhen have given these people a definite answer: special economic zones are socialist, not capitalist. In the case of Shenzhen, the publicly owned sector is the mainstay of the economy, while the foreign-invested sector accounts for only a quarter. And even in that sector, we benefit from taxes and employment opportunities. We should have more of the three kinds of foreign-invested ventures [joint, cooperative and foreign-owned]. There is no reason to be afraid of them. So long as we keep level-headed, there is no cause for alarm. We have our advantages: we have the large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises and the rural enterprises. More important, political power is in our hands.

Xie Chuntao, is a professor of the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China. He has written several books about the Communist Party and how it works. One notable book available in english translation is Why and How the CPC Works in China

Also note that a public corporation in china differs greatly to a public corporation in the west in terms of structure and ownership. In China 'public' connotation means it has direct links with government.

[Rugoz]

More info on China's SOEs:

In conclusion, estimations in this note suggest that the share of SOEs in China’s GDP should be
23-28% and their share in employment can be anywhere between 5% and 16% in 2017.

It is worth to note that there are more straightforward data for the shares of SOEs in industrial
output and employment. In 2017, SOEs accounted for 39% of assets, 23% sales revenue of core
businesses and 18% of employment of industrial (mining, manufacturing and utilities)
enterprises whose sale revenue was above a cutoff scale of RMB20 million.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curate ... oyment.pdf


Note "state-owned" means the state has a controlling interest. Furthermore, the state owns on average 38% of the equity (2017).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9119300437

I don't find it surprising that SOEs can do reasonably well if they are subject to private market competition. In Switzerland we also have certain large state-owned enterprises, i.e. telecom, postal services and regional banks. They all have private competition however and I don't think much would change if they were privatized.

The difference here is that China is huge, so even modest growth on GDP per capita basis makes it look like huge achievement. Reality is that on GDP per capita basis Korea, Japan, Singapore or even Taiwan were faster growers in this context.

Let's face it, the only reason we are "worried" about China is because of its huge population. Qualitatively there's nothing extraordinary about China's economic development in the context of the East Asian experience.

[Igor Antunov]

China's a little more unique than the other east asian tigers, perhaps more akin to singapore which also managed to rapidly develop without letting go of single party rule. Except that is exactly why china is interesting; singapore is a single city. China has managed to do it on a vast scale. Qualitatively it is singapore x 1000 or Japan x10 - without western influence. And that's scaring the old guard in the west.

[Rugoz]

China's a little more unique than the other east asian tigers, perhaps more akin to singapore which also managed to rapidly develop without letting go of single party rule. Except that is exactly why china is interesting; singapore is a single city. China has managed to do it on a vast scale. Qualitatively it is singapore x 1000 or Japan x10 - without western influence. And that's scaring the old guard in the west.

Taiwan, Korea and Japan all industrialized under authoritarian rule.

And of course China had plenty of Western influence, no idea how anyone can claim otherwise.

[JohnRawls]

I will not take your promotion of neoliberalism in China with a straight face. It has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and is failing at its source in the west as we speak.



Eh its already passed that point, you mean middle income trap and it never happened. Almost everyone resident in the fully developed urban centers has passed high income threshold, incomes in shanghai for example have passed $35k a year. This covers over 150 million people set to reach 300 million in 5 years. Other cities are in the process of developing their infrastructure and services to match beijing, shenzhen, shanhai, guangzhou, tianjin, wuxi, suzhou, nanjing etc. Also all of these cities economies are predominantly state sector driven. Private enterprise is still minority share. Furthermore the population isn't leveraged. The average shenzhen resident for example has equivalent of over $50k usd in savings. The average Chinese over $10k. The average american is thousands of dollars in debt. Which leads me to the second paragraph.

Regarding the point in bold, Shenzhen for example, the 'free market' champion of china's special economic zones experiment,the most dramatic 'capitalist' example in china, is only ~30% based on private enterprise. 70% of the economy remains in the hands of the state and this has stayed constant for two decades now, even edging further toward state capitalist integration post 2006. The CPC is still as hands on with the economy as it was in 1983. This is SOCIALISM.

Rule of law is an american meme similar to muh democracy, and outright legalizing state corruption and calling it something benign such as lobbying is also an american meme. Had these rotting disease spread to China, it would have been either destroyed or turned into a basket case just like India and soon, the US.


Xie Chuntao, is a professor of the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China. He has written several books about the Communist Party and how it works. One notable book available in english translation is Why and How the CPC Works in China

Also note that a public corporation in china differs greatly to a public corporation in the west in terms of structure and ownership. In China 'public' connotation means it has direct links with government.

Gdp per capita in China is 10k.
Gdp per capita in Russia is 11k
Gdp per capita in Brazil is 12k

So they have not passed the income gap in whatever measure. The situation is similar regarding this that bigger cities obviously have higher salaries compared to general population. That is not something new and quoting the best developed parts as the standard is really missleading. If Moscow or St Petersburg were the average for Russia then the average Russian would live better than Eastern Europe and around 3/4th of Western Europe but we all know it is not the case.

So until Chinese gdp per increases beyond 15-20k as of now or adjusted for inflation later then there is nothing to talk about.

Russia started experiencing problems from 2008 and onwards when they reached 11k and recovery after the crysis. That was 12 years ago. China hasn't even reached 11k on average in 2020.

[Rugoz]

So I read some Chinese news on Toutiao.com.

It's worse than you can imagine, the people who read this on a regular basis must be completely brainwashed.

[Igor Antunov]

There's no such thing as a 'middle income trap' It's called a low IQ population. China's is among the highest.

Gdp per capita in China is 10k.
Gdp per capita in Russia is 11k
Gdp per capita in Brazil is 12k

So they have not passed the income gap in whatever measure.

Come again?

China: $18,931 (PPP; 2021)

And given development has been faster on the coast, there the nominal gdp is already above 20k for over 300 million people.

Regardless, Nominal gdp is idiotic. Especially in regards to China, the factory of the planet, only self sufficient goods producer and the worlds biggest creditor, exceeding the imf and world bank. Us dollars are about to become increasingly irrelevant with the introduction of the digital yuan and the sidestepping of swift.

So I read some Chinese news on Toutiao.com.

It's worse than you can imagine, the people who read this on a regular basis must be completely brainwashed.

Hope you haven't seen cnn, cbs, fox, sky news, bbc, lately then. Especially in regards to the topics discussed by me above. Nothing but propaganda 24/7.

[JohnRawls]

There's no such thing as a 'middle income trap' It's called a low IQ population. China's is among the highest.



Come again?

China: $18,931 (PPP; 2021)

And given development has been faster on the coast, there the nominal gdp is already above 20k for over 300 million people.

Regardless, Nominal gdp is idiotic. Especially in regards to China, the factory of the planet, only self sufficient goods producer and the worlds biggest creditor, exceeding the imf and world bank. Us dollars are about to become increasingly irrelevant with the introduction of the digital yuan and the sidestepping of swift.



Hope you haven't seen cnn, cbs, fox, sky news, bbc, lately then. Especially in regards to the topics discussed by me above. Nothing but propaganda 24/7.

PPP is not a metric of measuring the middle income gap
Nominal is used for that.

The main "idea" behind the income gap is that you need to transition from low wage manufacturing to more advanced sectors on mass because the salaries have went significantly up along with the people requiring more services from the public sector. TLDR: PPP can't measure the middle income gap correctly so nominal is used. This happens because of conversion of local products in to dollar prices.

Edit: Your whole argument is that China is special somehow and doesn't have to follow some economic rules. No country is special and everyone who said they are usually failed at proving it. There is literally no country that can exist as an autarky of sorts. Even if you produce a lot like Britain in the late 19th early 20th century with almost 50% of global output or US after the world war 2 or China now. Being a world factory doesn't change the fact that you need to compete against the world or close your markets. Closing your markets we already know where that leads you to.

[Rugoz]

Hope you haven't seen cnn, cbs, fox, sky news, bbc, lately then. Especially in regards to the topics discussed by me above. Nothing but propaganda 24/7.

Not even close.

The political articles I read yesterday were more or less one of the following:
- Some trivia about Mao.
- Some great thing Xi does.
- Liberating Taiwan.
- Chinese military stronk.

Devoid of criticism, reflection or nuance. The kind of stuff you'd expect from North Korea.

PPP is not a metric of measuring the middle income gap
Nominal is used for that.

I don't think that's true.

[noemon]

China's a little more unique than the other east asian tigers, perhaps more akin to singapore which also managed to rapidly develop without letting go of single party rule. Except that is exactly why china is interesting;

China has always been interesting to fascists because they expect China will make fascism not just an ok system to have but a popular one also.

[JohnRawls]

Not even close.

The political articles I read yesterday were more or less one of the following:
- Some trivia about Mao.
- Some great thing Xi does.
- Liberating Taiwan.
- Chinese military stronk.

Devoid of criticism, reflection or nuance. The kind of stuff you'd expect from North Korea.



I don't think that's true.

Russia gdp per capita PPP is 28k. Nobody says they have surpassed the middle income gap.

[wat0n]

Russia gdp per capita PPP is 28k. Nobody says they have surpassed the middle income gap.

That's because the definition of "high income" is not fixed over time as the international USD is also affected by its own inflation rate. I actually think this point is often lost in the debate about the income thresholds.

[Rugoz]

Russia gdp per capita PPP is 28k. Nobody says they have surpassed the middle income gap.

That supposes the "middle income trap" is even a thing.

Either way, nominal GDP is highly dependent on the productivity of the export sector.

So it depends on what you want to look at.

[JohnRawls]

@wat0n @Rugoz

WOrld bank defined it as countries stuck between 1k and 11k back in 2006. There hasn't been a 300% devaluation of the dollar from that time.

[wat0n]

@wat0n @Rugoz

WOrld bank defined it as countries stuck between 1k and 11k back in 2006. There hasn't been a 300% devaluation of the dollar from that time.

Right, but for instance countries with 12k weren't considered to be developed at the time.