What's new

Is China a Fascist State?

I dont think it can be called fascist state, they dont treat their minorities that bad, they dont have extremists in power. They do have rule of law.

China is not fascist, but I would like to point out persecution of minority group is not what makes fascist state. While Germans gained notoriety in their persecution of minority groups during WWII, the European states in general has been doing the same for thousands of years. What makes a fascism state is powerful expansionist policy which the decision lays in the hands of a single individual. (Okay, this is a huge piece of flame bait, but since the OP asked for rational discussion, I will elaborate on the issue)

First of all, we need to understand a simple fact: Powerful nations WILL expand their influence regardless of their system. Just because your neighbor is more powerful than you and encroaching on your piece of pie does not mean they are fascist.

To understand what makes Fascism, you need to understand the political environment which produces it. Fascism is born in late 19th century where the colonial era is near its end. Much of the available colonies has already been divided up and powerful colonial powers are heading for an inevitable collision. To put this simply, too few pies are left (or more specifically, too few pies are still hold by the weak and easy-preys) and the predators are looking at each other. Fascism is an ultra-right wing group, this means they are an ultra-conservative group. (中国的读者记住,中国的左右派定义和西方的不一样。西方定义中右派是保守派。) This means they put their own nations interest above everything else, meaning if you are not one of us, your interest means nothing to us. In Fascism's case, it eventually mutated into a casual disregard to the point that other culture groups are not even viewed as human beings.

What makes Fascism dangerous is that it has a hair trigger to total war. Due to its ultra conservative tendencies, it is much easier for fascist states to perceive that they have been wronged. The high power concentration into a dictator also means that the entire nation can jump into a total war even if it means total destruction on both sides. In comparison, modern states like China or US, even though they are also very interest in expanding their interest, is sane enough to prefer uneasy co-existence over mutual destruction. This is why while US started a lot of wars since Korean war, none of them is actual wars with a major power. The Korean war itself can actually be attribute to the fact that US doesn't recognize PRC as a major power at that point.

The thing to remember is that. It is much easier to turn into Fascism when you were the loser previously. This is because losing states is much more likely to perceive that they has been "wronged" by others. Like a wounded animal, it will turn to ultra-right wing systems to protect the little things it has left. This is why Germany turned to Fascism after WWI.

In today's East/Southeast Asia, Cambodia is more likely to turn to Fascism than China, Japan or even Vietnam. This is because in China's case, it is the stronger party has been the stronger one in the past decade. While China does perceive itself to be wronged in the past, it is distant enough that it is unlikely to turn to ultra-conservative simply because its base necessities has not been gravely threatened in recent time.

Similarly, while Japan is losing influence to China, the fact is that Japanese mainland itself is never actually in any sort of danger. Vietnam is in more danger to turn to fascism than Japan, because it has more to lose in the coming days in SCS. It also already has a socialist system in place, which makes jump into another socialist system easier. However, it is still far from becoming Fascist, because like Japan, Vietnam only stands to lose interests in the sea, its core necessities is not in danger. I said it in a previous post, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but not bitter enough that it can't be stomached.
 
Last edited:
Granted, Fascism is a sub-branch of socialism where Chinese system also belong to

Vietnam is in more danger to turn to fascism than Japan, because it has more to lose in the coming days in SCS. It also already has a socialist system in place, which makes jump into another socialist system easier.

why are you connecting socialism to fascism again and again ??

were che guevara and muammar gaddafi fascists ??
 
why are you connecting socialism to fascism again and again ??

were che guevara and muammar gaddafi fascists ??

I do believe I have clearly stated that fascism is a sub-branch of socialism. Socialism is a broad school of thought that generally involves state-centered and coordinated activities of the nation, in particular the economics. Its opposite is capitalism which emphasize on individual-centered and coordinated activities of the nation.

Fascism is a sub-branch of socialism because it also believes in state coordination of the nation. Of course, Che Guevara isn't a fascist. He is a socialist and more specifically a Marxist Socialist, which is a rival socialist school to Fascism. Marxism is different from Fascism because Marxism believe nations without borders that the entire world should cooperate with each other. Fascism, on the other hand, is ultra-conservative and focus on the believer's own nation before everyone else.

Both Marxism and Fascism believe state-coordination as part of national policy, hence why they are both Socialism schools. However, modern Marxism nations are generally left or middle-left wing instead of ultra-right wing like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

BTW, I am not sure about Gaddafi because he is mostly known to the Chinese as the moron who managed to piss off all five of UN permanent security council members at the same time.

Edit: Oh, before I forget. Nazi is actually short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Marxism and communism is sometimes referred as scientific socialism or utopian socialism.
 
Last edited:
1. skylab was a government/military project... i don't think they ever foresaw guests living on board, though yes, the americans themselves were not experienced in space station operation that much.

2. surely you mean "ussr" instead of russia.

3. mir was the last space station that ussr/russia operated independently.

4. mir had a few guest cosmonauts, including abdul ahad mohmand of afghanistan and rakesh sharma of india, both visiting in the 80's.

Abdul Ahad Mohmand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rakesh Sharma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and abdul ahad mohmand was awarded "hero of the soviet union" for his help in averting a fire disaster on mir.



in the 70's and till the 90's, china would still have retained ideological involvement internationally at non-military level, and also for mutual benefit... i understand.

but presently, it is different scenario... wouldn't you agree ??



prc participated in korea war on the proper side.

and then it became non-internationalist militarily, at least to what i know of... you must tell me.

Korea was for self defense alone. Helping Korea was helping ourselves.

Also, see tranquilium's reply. Fascism is first and foremost defined by its love of violence. Chinese are VERY anti-violence and the government is very heavy on promoting nonviolence, both internationally and domestically.

Also, in Chinese, left and right wing are different in the sense of what conservatism is, and what liberalism is.

In China, a conservative is a socialist, thus left wing is associated with conservatism. Right wing is associated with capitalism/nationalism, and alot of liberals who are against the current government want pure capitalism on one hand and pure Han nationalism, so right wing is considered liberal, even though it is associated with uncontrolled markets and nationalism.
 
I do believe I have clearly stated that fascism is a sub-branch of socialism. Socialism is a broad school of thought that generally involves state-centered and coordinated activities of the nation, in particular the economics. Its opposite is capitalism which emphasize on individual-centered and coordinated activities of the nation.

Fascism is a sub-branch of socialism because it also believes in state coordination of the nation. Of course, Che Guevara isn't a fascist. He is a socialist and more specifically a Marxist Socialist, which is a rival socialist school to Fascism. Marxism is different from Fascism because Marxism believe nations without borders that the entire world should cooperate with each other. Fascism, on the other hand, is ultra-conservative and focus on the believer's own nation before everyone else.

Both Marxism and Fascism believe state-coordination as part of national policy, hence why they are both Socialism schools. However, modern Marxism nations are generally left or middle-left wing instead of ultra-right wing like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

BTW, I am not sure about Gaddafi because he is mostly known to the Chinese as the moron who managed to piss off all five of UN permanent security council members at the same time.

Edit: Oh, before I forget. Nazi is actually short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Marxism and communism is sometimes referred as scientific socialism or utopian socialism.


Excellent !

I can tell you, tranquilium, took some
Political science courses in undergrad? Or you're just very well read in political thought. :)

Keep it up with such doctoral-level quality posts!
 
Excellent !

I can tell you, tranquilium, took some
Political science courses in undergrad? Or you're just very well read in political thought. :)

Keep it up with such doctoral-level quality posts!

sorry to be brusque but tranqilium is talking nonsense.

Korea was for self defense alone. Helping Korea was helping ourselves.

Also, see tranquilium's reply. Fascism is first and foremost defined by its love of violence. Chinese are VERY anti-violence and the government is very heavy on promoting nonviolence, both internationally and domestically.

Also, in Chinese, left and right wing are different in the sense of what conservatism is, and what liberalism is.

In China, a conservative is a socialist, thus left wing is associated with conservatism. Right wing is associated with capitalism/nationalism, and alot of liberals who are against the current government want pure capitalism on one hand and pure Han nationalism, so right wing is considered liberal, even though it is associated with uncontrolled markets and nationalism.

i will reply to you tomorrow... must sleep now.
 
Wow,thanks everyone for joining and keeping this thread civil and intellectual. Lets keep it this way. I see more replies than expected, so it will take me some time to reply to all of you. I hope to learn and be enlightened by you all.

see, here's why you cannot have this question discussed: it is an unfair question because it singles out China, when many countries are pretty much the definition of fascism. See, for example, Singapore or Japan.

Hey brother long time no see. That China article is just a starting point for a discussion. If there was a “Is VN a fascist state?” article, then trust me I would use that one instead. But this is the only open source article available that discuss what I wanted to talk about.

My intention was not to single out China. The main goal of this thread is to discuss and learn what fascism is and what socialism/communism is. It also continues the discussion in the Che Guevara thread where Jamahir and I were discussing whether the west are more “socialist” than some Asian countries.

So this article about China is the perfect starting point for our discussion because China is run by a self-proclaimed “communist” party yet the article`s author argues that China has fascist characteristics.

In fact, the "Asian values" argument has *never been put forth by Chinese scholars* because Chinese do not recognize "Asian values" - we recognize Chinese, then neighboring countries, then Europeans/Africans, then Americans in increasing order of distance. The theory of Asian values was put forth by Singapore and advanced by Japan.

Yes I think the author might have came up with the wrong name for that. But notice he is not arguing that China is following a certain “Asian value”. Rather,he is just using “Asian values” as a label for the “Chinese” values that he has observed (his quote):

"Chinese people want an improvement in their material conditions, not western democracy"

He should have just used “Chinese values” as the label.

I also think that the entire premise of the argument is incorrect: the author says Chinese have anti-inquiry values and there is no civil society. All you need to do is open up any search engine, and you can find examples of perfectly legal Chinese NGOs in work ranging from rural literacy to animal welfare.

For example...

Firefly Project (Rural Literacy): 萤火虫计划_百度百科

Friends of Nature (Environmental Protection): 自然之友_百度百科

Green Angels (Animal Welfare) 绿色使者志愿者协会_百度百科

OK I think I know why you are disagreeing with the author and I think there might be some misunderstanding here. You seems to be interpreting his arguments in its extremities. He is not saying that there are absolutely no open inquiry in China or that the CCP does not tolerate any bits of it. He only mentioned the Chinese tendency to endorse rote-learning in the soft sciences, from his experiences. He leaves the possibility that there are open inquiry in the hard sciences. So no,he is not arguing that there are absolutely no open inquiry in China and that ALL form of education are based on rote-memorisation.

We must also not think in black and white either when we try to define what fascism (or socialism) is. For example we can probably agree that Nazi Germany was truly fascist,yet they still tolerated to a certain degree some civil society or private organisation. With their treaty with the Vatican, Hitler even agreed not to interfer with the German Catholic church,to let the Church stay independent and continue its ties with the Vatican (btw,China does not even allow this for the Chinese Catholic church, correct? So even Nazi Germany had one up against the CCP, jk).

So the important thing to remember is that being Fascism does not mean that you cannot absolutely tolerate this or that. The author even said a dictatorship still allows civil society to continues as long as its organisations doesn`t manifest political opposition. So mentioning those Chinese NGOs does not necessarily mean that China is not fascist.

He then talks about chauvinism. What chauvinism does he mean? Gender chauvinism? China has more gender equality than pretty much every other Asian country and many European ones. National chauvinism? China has never proclaimed itself "exceptional", which is the true definition of chauvinism. So what chauvinism is he talking about?

I think he was referring to National Chauvinism. China may not have explicitly proclaimed itself as “exceptional”,but I think much of China`s and Chinese rhetorics hint at it. For example, you have previously mentioned that the Japanese and Singaporean put forwards the “Asian values” idea but Chinese scholars have never put forward this idea because Chinese only recognises the “Chinese values” and not the “Asian values”. The “Chinese dream” motto also hints at this. I agree with @jamahir`s example of Chinese economic expansionsim into Africa. I have read too much articles about disputes between the Chinese and the locals in Africa because of unfair and prejudice attitudes from the Chinese.

You can also see again and again in this forum the racist and prejudice attitude of most Chinese members in this forum. This is not just the trolls playing around,I see it quite common with educated mainland Chinese students on campus,not the openly racist mentality that calls people monkey,but the unique “han Chinese” that is superior to most “other” people.

Attitudes: According to Global Views of Economic Opportunity and Inequality | Pew Research Center Vietnamese (60% majority) believe (under section Many Say Low Taxes Are the Answer) that LOWER taxes reduce inequality. Chinese (42% plurality; all other choices lower) believe HIGHER taxes reduce inequality.

Chinese also tend to 1. view inequality as a huge economic threat (42% do) and 2. view government as responsible for solving inequality (43% plurality). Meanwhile, Vietnamese believe that 1. inequality isn't a big deal (only 34% do) and 2. it is not the government's problem but rather because wages are simply too low (33% plurality).

I`m not sure how this relates to whether a state is fascist or socialist.

Although it does support what I argued in the Che Guevara thread, that Vietnamese are generally less communitarian that the west. The survey indicate that the Vietnamese are more selfish and individualistic than all the advanced Western countries in that survey. I respect the fact that the average Chinese cares more about inequality than the average Vietnamese,so kudos to your country for that.

But if you look at that survey where it ask if inequality is a major challenge,it shows that even the US cared more about inequality than China. Infact all of the advanced western countries,except for Germany, cared more about ineaquality than China. @Indos bro,both VN and Indonesia cared less about inequality than ALL the western countries. This supports my previous argument that Asians are generally less communitarian and more individualistic than the average westerner.


Also note that many state owned corporations in China operate at a loss to provide services and products at prices affordable to the public. For example, the railroads, electricity companies and universities are not expected to make any profit whatsoever. Contrast to the market orientation of universities in the US who even have brand managers, customer service representatives and the other characteristics of a corporation.

The author's argument is actually a very old 19th century racist one based on ideas of white supremacy, rather than any sound argument based on facts.

Im not going to deny (and I dont think the author is denying it either) that China has strong state owned corporations. This is something you can be proud of,and something I wish Viet Nam could be proud of,but the Vietnamese state corporation generally do more harm to the people than good.

BTW,the author is a retired leftist professor. I have previously read some of his papers where he criticises the west and especially the western corporations and MNCs. He is definitely not a racist.
 
Last edited:
Wow,thanks everyone for joining and keeping this thread civil and intellectual. Lets keep it this way. I see more replies than expected, so it will take me some time to reply to all of you. I hope to learn and be enlightened by you all.



Hey brother long time no see. That China article is just a starting point for a discussion. If there was a “Is VN a fascist state?” article, then trust me I would use that one instead. But this is the only open source article available that discuss what I wanted to talk about.

My intention was not to single out China. The main goal of this thread is to discuss and learn what fascism is and what socialism/communism is. It also continues the discussion in the Che Guevara thread where Jamahir and I were discussing whether the west are more “socialist” than some Asian countries.

So this article about China is the perfect starting point for our discussion because China is run by a self-proclaimed “communist” party yet the article`s author argues that China has fascist characteristics.



Yes I think the author might have came up with the wrong name for that. But notice he is not arguing that China is following a certain “Asian value”. Rather,he is just using “Asian values” as a label for the “Chinese” values that he has observed (his quote):

"Chinese people want an improvement in their material conditions, not western democracy"

He should have just used “Chinese values” as the label.



OK I think I know why you are disagreeing with the author and I think there might be some misunderstanding here. You seems to be interpreting his arguments in its extremities. He is not saying that there are absolutely no open inquiry in China or that the CCP does not tolerate any bits of it. He only mentioned the Chinese tendency to endorse rote-learning in the soft sciences, from his experiences. He leaves the possibility that there are open inquiry in the hard sciences. So no,he is not arguing that there are absolutely no open inquiry in China and that ALL form of education are based on rote-memorisation.

We must also not think in black and white either when we try to define what fascism (or socialism) is. For example we can probably agree that Nazi Germany was truly fascist,yet they still tolerated to a certain degree some civil society or private organisation. With their treaty with the Vatican, Hitler even agreed not to interfer with the German Catholic church,to let the Church stay independent and continue its ties with the Vatican (btw,China does not even allow this for the Chinese Catholic church, correct? So even Nazi Germany had one up against the CCP, jk).

So the important thing to remember is that being Fascism does not mean that you cannot absolutely tolerate this or that. The author even said a dictatorship still allows civil society to continues as long as its organisations doesn`t manifest political opposition. So mentioning those Chinese NGOs does not necessarily mean that China is not fascist.



I think he was referring to National Chauvinism. China may not have explicitly proclaimed itself as “exceptional”,but I think much of China`s and Chinese rhetorics hint at it. For example, you have previously mentioned that the Japanese and Singaporean put forwards the “Asian values” idea but Chinese scholars have never put forward this idea because Chinese only recognises the “Chinese values” and not the “Asian values”. The “Chinese dream” motto also hints at this. I agree with @jamahir`s example of Chinese economic expansionsim into Africa. I have read too much articles about disputes between the Chinese and the locals in Africa because of unfair and prejudice attitudes from the Chinese.

You can also see again and again in this forum the racist and prejudice attitude of most Chinese members in this forum. This is not just the trolls playing around,I see it quite common with educated mainland Chinese students on campus,not the openly racist mentality that calls people monkey,but the unique “han Chinese” that is superior to most “other” people.



I`m not sure how this relates to whether a state is fascist or socialist.

Although it does support what I argued in the Che Guevara thread, that Vietnamese are generally less communitarian that the west. The survey indicate that the Vietnamese are more selfish and individualistic than all the advanced Western countries in that survey. I respect the fact that the average Chinese cares more about inequality than the average Vietnamese,so kudos to your country for that.

But if you look at that survey where it ask if inequality is a major challenge,it shows that even the US cared more about inequality than China. Infact all of the advanced western countries,except for Germany, cared more about ineaquality than China. @Indos bro,both VN and Indonesia cared less about inequality than ALL the western countries. This supports my previous argument that Asians are generally less communitarian and more individualistic than the average westerner.




Im not going to deny (and I dont think the author is denying it either) that China has strong state owned corporations. This is something you can be proud of,and something I wish Viet Nam could be proud of,but the Vietnamese state corporation generally do more harm to the people than good.

BTW,the author is a retired leftist professor. I have previously read some of his papers where he criticises the west and especially the western corporations and MNCs. He is definitely not a racist.

For the last point: Jack London was a 19th century socialist. He was also a rabid racist who believed in socialism for the white man only. He even wrote a book glorifying the genocide of Chinese and the colonization of China by whites. Being a leftist doesn't mean you're not a racist; its an expression of your beliefs in economics, nothing else.

Another thing is to think about attitudes vs. action. Some people talk PC, while having huge bigotry, and some ppl don't talk in a PC way, but treat people as individuals. For instance... number of blacks killed due to racism in China or in Chinese companies in Africa? Something close to zero. Foreigners or minorities killed in race riots or racial massacres in China? Zero - indeed its the minorities rioting and killing Han, not the other way around. Meanwhile 4 Chinese were killed by Vietnamese racists in 2014.

I also don't like the sort of logic the author has. Making extreme statements like the author did means you better be well fucking prepared to get extreme questions back and for others to also take extreme positions of black and white. Don't like it, then stay moderate. He says there is a forbidden inquiry and tries to say oh, that's different than Russia and Eastern Europe, and he says that it promotes rote memory. Ok, by Western standards, they frequently associate mathematics with rote memory - but do you know anyone who is good at math and did it by memory? The whole notion of rote memory has become essentially a tool by racists to bash Asians and especially Chinese with. But let's just entertain that notion: the Gaokao has an essay portion where you are given a quote and expected to write a short essay explaining how you feel about that quote. Every year, perfect papers are circulated. That's normal. However, what's even more interesting is that zero point papers are also circulated and much more popular than the perfect papers; the perfect papers are all similar, but the zero point papers are all zero pointers in their own unique way. How many people in the US view SAT as anything more than a robotic exercise to regurgitate things though?

Also, you don't think that fascism is also defined by its view that violence is not merely a necessary evil for territorial defense and the maintainence of order alone but sometimes desireable, and for ideological purposes? Has *any* government in Asia, other than Japan, voiced this sort of viewpoint?
 
For the last point: Jack London was a 19th century socialist. He was also a rabid racist who believed in socialism for the white man only. He even wrote a book glorifying the genocide of Chinese and the colonization of China by whites. Being a leftist doesn't mean you're not a racist; its an expression of your beliefs in economics, nothing else.

Why did you ignore the other thing I said about John Weeks criticizing the west? Furthermore,he is a Social democrat,progressive,pro-immigration,have advised African countries as an economist and in the article itself,he praised South America as the only region to avoid the drift towards right-wing capitalist authoritarianism.

In one article,he even defended immigration and condemned xenophobia:

“In the United Kingdom immigration is not out of control. The government is out of control of the voters than brought it into office. In pursuit of legitimization of its reactionary assault on social provision, and the public sector in general, the government transfers blame from itself with xenophobic polemics.”-John Weeks.

Does he sound like a racist to you?

Another thing is to think about attitudes vs. action. Some people talk PC, while having huge bigotry, and some ppl don't talk in a PC way, but treat people as individuals. For instance... number of blacks killed due to racism in China or in Chinese companies in Africa? Something close to zero. Foreigners or minorities killed in race riots or racial massacres in China? Zero - indeed its the minorities rioting and killing Han, not the other way around. Meanwhile 4 Chinese were killed by Vietnamese racists in 2014.

Here you are discussing concepts in its extremities again. Why equate racism with its extreme violent form only? Do you have to kill someone in order to qualify as a racist? You dont think that there are real racist neo-nazi who would never kill? Yes there are racists who would never kill or even injure someone.

So the fact that there have been no well known case of racist killing in Africa or inside China does not mean that there are no racism in China.

Keep in mind, when I previously mentioned my experiences with mainland Chinese students, I didn`t consider them to possess any extreme form of racism either, i.e. not to the point where they would openly call another ethnic group as monkey (although some of them might do it on the internet). But I can still perceive a level of prejudice against non-han and non-white and a sense of superiority over other ethnic group. But definitely not on the level of the South Koreans.

I also don't like the sort of logic the author has. Making extreme statements like the author did means you better be well fucking prepared to get extreme questions back and for others to also take extreme positions of black and white. Don't like it, then stay moderate. He says there is a forbidden inquiry and tries to say oh, that's different than Russia and Eastern Europe, and he says that it promotes rote memory.

No,I think it is you who is interpreting his word as extreme statements. He did not say there is no open inquiry or that the CCP is forbidding all form of inquiry. Here is his exact quote about open inquiry in China:

“As for freedom of intellectual inquiry, it is my experience that Chinese academics based in China tend to endorse variations of rote learning in the social sciences and humanities (I cannot comment on teaching and research in the sciences).”

Firstly,he is only referring to the social sciences and humanities,not in mathematics or the hard sciences or anywhere else. Secondly,he speaks about the tendency to endorse variations of rote learning in the social sciences. This is far from your interpretation of him saying there is no open inquiry or a “forbidden inquiry”. You are the one who is making his statement sounds extreme,not him.

His description of fascism as “explicitly denying the values of the Enlightenment--individual freedoms including the principle of open inquiry.” Also fits China. This description does not imply that there are absolutely no individual freedom and open inquiry in Fascism (remember Nazi germany allowed the Catholic church their autonomy and freedom, at least on paper). It just means that “complete” individual freedom and open inquiry,as argued for by Enlightenment thinkers, is denied in a Fascist state.

In China,individual freedom and open inquiry is restricted correct? There are certain things that you cannot say or do if it doesn`t align with the party. So there is no complete freedom. Now,I don`t want to get into the details,but me being Vietnamese and you being Chinese will know very well that political freedom is restricted in our country compared to the west. If you deny this then I don`t think you would be honest,but I think you will concede this point.

Also, you don't think that fascism is also defined by its view that violence is not merely a necessary evil for territorial defense and the maintainence of order alone but sometimes desireable, and for ideological purposes? Has *any* government in Asia, other than Japan, voiced this sort of viewpoint?

No,I don`t agree that this partly defines fascism. I agree that fascists readily accepts violence as a means to carry out their agenda,but I dont agree that they necessarily consider violence as a “desirable” means.

I think you probably have Imperial Japan`s actrocities (and Nazi actrocities) in mind. But even if they don`t commit their infamous actrocities,I would still regard them as fascists. Also I think that Imperial Japan would probably “desire” or prefer all of Asian to surrender and bow to them without putting up a fight. I concede that fascists historically have a tendency to resort to violence and sadism but I don`t regard violence as the core ideology of fascism.
 
Last edited:
while the author, john weeks, is in line with our previous discussions about china not a socialist society at all, i sense that the author seeks to connect china to the old-germany ultra-expansionist ideal.

we must also be careful about the source website because it is most definitely a nato project... look at articles about syria here ( Through Syrian eyes | openDemocracy )... they are all anti-syrian-government in a softly softly manner.

I`m not sure what the agenda or who is behind that website, but John Weeks is a real fanatic leftist, he is a Social Democrat. He puts some of his lectures on youtube, but nothing really spectacular.

look at expansion of china in africa... there is no ideological decisions behind chinese entry into african nations... it is a plan for commercial monopoly.

look at china's mixed role in libya 2011... from ( China’s Libya Problem | The Diplomat )...

mixed message... was china being supportive of a comradely socialist society or was it just hoping that the libyan jamahiriya military ( government ) would win and life would go on without too much trouble ??



so china government is cutting deals with libya's current occupation government that is made up of terrorists of qaeda and ikhwaan ( mb group ) mainly ?? why didn't the chinese communist party stop this ??

remember, this article is from march 2012, just five months after the nato regime-change happened and hillary clinton visited tripoli like a conquering queen.

I agree with you. There is no longer any form of internationalism practiced by China (or VN). Everything now is for their own self-interest, whether it is profits, resources or for promoting their PR image. At best, their activities involves mutual benefits only.

And internationalism is a necessary core element of socialism/communism/leftism. I think we have agreed on this before (I think some members here have their own definition of socialism, so lets come up with our own definition first so everyone is all clear on what we are talking about).

i don't know if the author is talking about venezuela, but this bolivarian revolutionary republic is getting transformed at citizen level... venezuela is getting converted as a society of communes - decentralized neighborhoods that are self-sufficient in decision making and most local upkeep, but guided overall by socialism, and with each citizen in a locality participating in the social/day-to-day maintainance of the locality... isn't this the beginnings of true communism ??

from ( Building Socialism from Below: The Role of the Communes in Venezuela | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization )...


from ( Venezuela: More than 1000 communes registered | Green Left Weekly )...

so there's a entire "ministry of communes"... this is a ongoing live experiment.

the commune system was what existed in the libyan jamahiriya... direct-democracy socialism.

Yes, I agree that is the beginning of true communism. Although Venezuela is currently facing issues and has its own problem and flaws, but certain communities ( and elsewhere in Latin America) is doing something right.

I also agree that true socialism/communism needs to start at grassroot level, not being imposed from the top down (the PRC authoritarianism John Weeks was talking about in the article).

And I want to add my own definition to this: The heart of Socialism/Communism/Leftism is the empathy for the stranger, empathy for ALL of mankind.

Che Guevara himself has always argue for this core element, as clearly seen in this famous quote:

“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality...Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice...
In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.”

So not only does true communism/socialism must start from the grassroot level, but these commune system must have their foundations on pure humanity. Citizens getting together and building their communes not out of their own self-interest, but out of their own humanity and love for their fellow humans as put forward by Che. And out of this humanity, other socialist characteristic starts to manifest itself. Such as equality between gender and race, because you have a pure humane heart, you see everyone`s worth and value as equal to yours. You no longer differentiate people based on country boarder, all are humans that you care about. You give workers their full rights because you see their true worth as a human being, not a means of production. You want universal healthcare and education because you care about all your fellow citizens. You share your wealth and resource with others because your fellow humans are more valuable to you than your material possessions.

Simply put, I think the other guys here who have defined socialism in terms of centralised govt structure, state co-ordination of the country, economic policy, etc. only has a shallow understanding of what socialism is. They are only decribing the outwards characters of certain forms of socialism. And their definition is often used by non-socialist, thats why I suspect they are not socialist themselves, and why I said it is hard to find a real Chinese socialist.

Real socialist will start their ideology at the core element, which is the humanity, love and empathy for the stranger. Even the neo-marxist will stay close to this line of thoughts. The popular neo-marxist Axel Honneth writes his political thoughts around the central theme of “recognition”, how real socialist see and recognize people for who they are, their true worth. And thats where you begin to build up your community and society.

Starting from this core element will also aswer the common criticism of socialism...such as a socialist state will encourage people to be lazy, etc. The simple answer is if a person becomes a real socialist and has a heart for humanity as a real socialist should, then he would work hard to help and share the burden of his fellow citizen, there is no room for sloth.

And here is the last thought on building a true socialist society, and something that my secular socialist friends often disagree with:

If true socialism/communism needs to start from the grass root level, and that it requires everyone to have a heart for humanity and empathy for the stranger, then one of the institution that can contribute to this, and do it well, is the religious institution. It is religion that fundamentally ask us who we are, and who we should become. So in Christianity, you have things like “love thy neighbour”, in Buddhism you are taught to have compassion for all life form, etc. And usually religion do it well, thats why you often see devout religious people, whether its Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

But leaving this religion thing aside, if we are to ask if China is a socialist country, whether it has the core element of socialism, whether it is building up a socialist society in a proper way (from the grass root up, imparting into their citizens a love for humanity and empathy for everyone around the world), then I would say it is a big NO. Before anyone accuse me singling out China, I would say this applies to my country VN as well. So there you go.
 
Last edited:
I`m not sure what the agenda or who is behind that website, but John Weeks is a real fanatic leftist, he is a Social Democrat. He puts some of his lectures on youtube, but nothing really spectacular.



I agree with you. There is no longer any form of internationalism practiced by China (or VN). Everything now is for their own self-interest, whether it is profits, resources or for promoting their PR image. At best, their activities involves mutual benefits only.

And internationalism is a necessary core element of socialism/communism/leftism. I think we have agreed on this before (I think some members here have their own definition of socialism, so lets come up with our own definition first so everyone is all clear on what we are talking about).



Yes, I agree that is the beginning of true communism. Although Venezuela is currently facing issues and has its own problem and flaws, but certain communities ( and elsewhere in Latin America) is doing something right.

I also agree that true socialism/communism needs to start at grassroot level, not being imposed from the top down (the PRC authoritarianism John Weeks was talking about in the article).

And I want to add my own definition to this: The heart of Socialism/Communism/Leftism is the empathy for the stranger, empathy for ALL of mankind.

Che Guevara himself has always argue for this core element, as clearly seen in this famous quote:

“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality...Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice...
In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.”

So not only does true communism/socialism must start from the grassroot level, but these commune system must have their foundations on pure humanity. Citizens getting together and building their communes not out of their own self-interest, but out of their own humanity and love for their fellow humans as put forward by Che. And out of this humanity, other socialist characteristic starts to manifest itself. Such as equality between gender and race, because you have a pure humane heart, you see everyone`s worth and value as equal to yours. You no longer differentiate people based on country boarder, all are humans that you care about. You give workers their full rights because you see their true worth as a human being, not a means of production. You want universal healthcare and education because you care about all your fellow citizens. You share your wealth and resource with others because your fellow humans are more valuable to you than your material possessions.

Simply put, I think the other guys here who have defined socialism in terms of centralised govt structure, state co-ordination of the country, economic policy, etc. only has a shallow understanding of what socialism is. They are only decribing the outwards characters of certain forms of socialism. And their definition is often used by non-socialist, thats why I suspect they are not socialist themselves, and why I said it is hard to find a real Chinese socialist.

Real socialist will start their ideology at the core element, which is the humanity, love and empathy for the stranger. Even the neo-marxist will stay close to this line of thoughts. The popular neo-marxist Axel Honneth writes his political thoughts around the central theme of “recognition”, how real socialist see and recognize people for who they are, their true worth. And thats where you begin to build up your community and society.

Starting from this core element will also aswer the common criticism of socialism...such as a socialist state will encourage people to be lazy, etc. The simple answer is if a person becomes a real socialist and has a heart for humanity as a real socialist should, then he would work hard to help and share the burden of his fellow citizen, there is no room for sloth.

And here is the last thought on building a true socialist society, and something that my secular socialist friends often disagree with:

If true socialism/communism needs to start from the grass root level, and that it requires everyone to have a heart for humanity and empathy for the stranger, then one of the institution that can contribute to this, and do it well, is the religious institution. It is religion that fundamentally ask us who we are, and who we should become. So in Christianity, you have things like “love thy neighbour”, in Buddhism you are taught to have compassion for all life form, etc. And usually religion do it well, thats why you often see devout religious people, whether its Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

But leaving this religion thing aside, if we are to ask if China is a socialist country, whether it has the core element of socialism, whether it is building up a socialist society in a proper way (from the grass root up, imparting into their citizens a love for humanity and empathy for everyone around the world), then I would say it is a big NO. Before anyone accuse me singling out China, I would say this applies to my country VN as well. So there you go.

on my phone .short reply to the last point. the government in China tries indeed to promote empathy and caring in textbooks but the ultra traditional elements of society dont.
 
The population is fed with nationalistic sentiments, and they call themselves socialist.

You'll get the point.
 
Excellent !

I can tell you, tranquilium, took some
Political science courses in undergrad? Or you're just very well read in political thought. :)

Keep it up with such doctoral-level quality posts!

Japani start to teach political course, lool.
 
Would you care to elaborate on the part you disagree with?

I know this question is directed at @jamahir, but I`ll join in as well.

First of all, most people actually disagree on what constitute various political ideologies. Even the leftists within academia often disagree on what exactly constitute socialism/communism. Most have their own definition. In my previous posts, I made it clear that my decription of it is my on personal view. This also applies to fascism, most academics disagree on what constitue fascism. There are no definitive consensual agreement on what fascism is. The author in the OP article also made it clear that he will be giving his own definition of what fascism is.

But this lack of agreement is cool because it leaves it open for us to debate/discuss what really defines these political ideologies. And some of your descriptions I can agree with, while some I dont agree with. So lets discuss:

What makes a fascism state is powerful expansionist policy which the decision lays in the hands of a single individual.

I agree that a fascist state will end up carrying out an expansionist policy. Not sure what you mean by “powerful” though. But I do believe that China is still in the process of transitioning from its traditional isolationist policy. In certain places, it is still a bit confused about its foreign policy. So China is currently not undertaking any full-fledged expansionist policy, but I do see indications that China is heading towards this path. I.e. its heavy investment into Africa, coupled with its disregard for the fairness, equality and dignity of the local Africans. Implementing actions in the SCS to claim sovereignty over the 9 dash lines that never existed before 1944.

And I disagree on that “decision lays in the hands of a single individual” bit. I think this one-man-show description is a false caricurature and unnecessary for any political discussion. Decisions has never been in the hands of a single individual alone for any modern state. Hitler has his own officials and advisors. I dont even agree that NK is a one man show, Kim has his own senior officials and advisors who play important roles in decision makings. So this one-man-dictatorship is a myth that doesnt really exist anywhere in recent history. You may have states where one individual has more power/priviledge than the rest, but most states are like that, regardless if they are left, right or even a democracy (Obama has unique power/priviledge that the rest don`t have). So let`s forget about this one-man-dictatorship definition, it is misleading.

First of all, we need to understand a simple fact: Powerful nations WILL expand their influence regardless of their system.


I agree that when a nation becomes strong/wealthy/powerful, its influence will usually expand. But the devil is in the details. What do you mean by “influence”? Are you referring to cultural influence like K-pop or hollywood? Then there is nothing with that kind of expansion and certainly doesn`t mean one is fascist. However, if expanding influence means to extent your reach to other parts of the world for your own self-interest and monopoly as suggested earlier by @jamahir, and especially if it is accompanied with a disregard for the dignity and respect for the locals, then I would say that type of expansionism does belong to the fascist type.

Again, the devil is in the details, like what a smart Chinese member here always say.

Just because your neighbor is more powerful than you and encroaching on your piece of pie does not mean they are fascist.

Wow, this statement sounds alarming. This alone is not sufficient to make one a fascist, but it is certainly a common trait of a fascist state. But again, the devil is in the details. “Encroaching” and “piece of pie” are ambiguous words.


To understand what makes Fascism, you need to understand the political environment which produces it. Fascism is born in late 19th century where the colonial era is near its end. Much of the available colonies has already been divided up and powerful colonial powers are heading for an inevitable collision. To put this simply, too few pies are left (or more specifically, too few pies are still hold by the weak and easy-preys) and the predators are looking at each other.

I mostly agree with your historic assessment, but there is one important thing that you have left out. Germany and Italy`s existence as a sovereign nation was not threatened before it became fascist. Germany`s “core necessities” was not threatened. It just didn`t have enough necessities and resources to become a great and powerful nation like some other European countries have become, because all the colonial “pies” was already taken by these European power. So your historic narrative about the colonial pies is only partly correct. Germany became fascist and carry out their expansionist ideology not out of its necessities for survival, but out of the necessities to become a strong and powerful country. In other words, they would not settle for mediocrities, they want to be great, that was the main motive.

And I begin to see some resemblence in where China is heading to, from my perspective. China`s existence is not endangered, as you have rightly claim. But China too won`t settle for mediocrity, it want to be great. Chinese nationalist often say they want to become greater than the US. And it is also for this reason that China is now undertaking an expansionist policy reaching the region of Africa and South America. Is its action bad like Nazi Germany? No definitely not on that level. But I can already see some indications that resemble the fascist type of expansion (per the examples I used earlier). Put it simply, China is expanding because it wants to become great and powerful, while disregarding the dignity and well being of the locals. This too was the character of Nazi Germany`s foreign policy. And it is certainly NOT in line with my definition of the core element of socialism: the love and empathy for all humans.

Fascism is an ultra-right wing group, this means they are an ultra-conservative group. (中国的读者记住,中国的左右派定义和西方的不一样。西方定义中右派是保守派。) This means they put their own nations interest above everything else, meaning if you are not one of us, your interest means nothing to us.

Agree. And I do see China putting their interst above everyone else`s. Even with recent initiatives like the AIIB, eventhough there are mutual benefits, China`s primary motive is for its self-interest.

In Fascism's case, it eventually mutated into a casual disregard to the point that other culture groups are not even viewed as human beings.

It may or it may not. What is essential for the fascist characteristic is the disregard for the well-being and interest of the “other” groups. This is opposite to socialism, where its core element is the love and empathy for the “other”, for all mankind.

What makes Fascism dangerous is that it has a hair trigger to total war. Due to its ultra conservative tendencies, it is much easier for fascist states to perceive that they have been wronged. The high power concentration into a dictator also means that the entire nation can jump into a total war even if it means total destruction on both sides. In comparison, modern states like China or US, even though they are also very interest in expanding their interest, is sane enough to prefer uneasy co-existence over mutual destruction. This is why while US started a lot of wars since Korean war, none of them is actual wars with a major power. The Korean war itself can actually be attribute to the fact that US doesn't recognize PRC as a major power at that point.

I believe you are making a category mistake here. We must make an important distinction between the “intentions/beliefs” and the “actions” of countries. A neo-nazi racist may have a certain “intentions and beliefs” yet may not have the capacity or will to “act” on those “intentions and beliefs”, for example, he might think all black churches should not be tolerated and must be destroyed. But that neo-nazi might be a coward or disabled so he could not carry out any actions for his beliefs/intentions. So should we then say he is not a true neo-nazi racist? No, we should still regard him as one even though he haven`t managed to carry out any actions. So it is important to make a distinction between “intentions/beliefs” and “actions”.

So when we are discussing about political ideologies, such as fascism, it is important to note that the “intentions and beliefs” is what really defines it. “Actions” are important too, but they are just mere manifestations of of those intentions nd beliefs.

Thats why I said wealth distribution, gender equality, workers right, etc. are not what is central to socialism. They just mere manifestations of what is central: the love and empathy for the “others”. And indeed, a few manifestations might resemble each other eventhough they may come from different intentions and beliefs. For example, some country may endorse state-coordination as a means to make sure everyone`s interest is represented and protected while another country may endorse state-coordination as a means to subjugate a population. Two completely different intentions and beliefs.

So here is your category mistake, you are here making a comparisons between countries based on their actions and outwards manifestations and have also defined their political ideologies based on that instead of basing it on their beliefs and intentions. This is a big mistake because the actions of a extremely cowardice and disabled neo-nazi racist may look extactly the same as the actions of a lazy left-wing pacifist.

So China may not have carried out any total war or anything similar but that does not directly make it not facist. They may lack a political will or the capacity to do so. I can even concede that China does not want a total war period. But what is more important and what partly defines fascism is its intentions and beliefs, that there is a distinction between “us” and the “other” (whether it is based on ethnicity, nationality, etc.). Furthermore, there is a desire for greater glory and power over the “others”, accompanied with the beliefs that the dignity, value and well-being of the “others” has absolutely no priority over that said desire.
I believe this is the core intentions and beliefs of Nazi Germany and of fascism in general. And it is clearly in opposition to my own definition of Socialism.

I don`t think China is a full-fledged fascist state. But I see characteristics and indications that makes China resemble my defintion of fascism more than socialism.

Here is also another element that differentiate socialism from fascism. True socialism see every humans in their dignity, worth and values in themselves as a human being. Fascism tend to see humans as a mere tools or instruments as means to carry out their intentions and beliefs. I`m not just talkimg about humans outside their “group” but also humans “inside” their group. For example, IJA brain washing their pilots to become kamakazi fighters. Nazi sending their young soldiers into the slaughter house in the eastern front. It is also from the same reason I`m not fond of some stalinists.

This also relates to what was said in the OP article. China has poor workers right. The central govt had previously suppressed the workers wage and work condition in order to feed it economic growth machine. Meaning, the workers were seen as machines, tools and means for economic growth and not seen as a true human with dignity and self-worth.

The thing to remember is that. It is much easier to turn into Fascism when you were the loser previously. This is because losing states is much more likely to perceive that they has been "wronged" by others. Like a wounded animal, it will turn to ultra-right wing systems to protect the little things it has left. This is why Germany turned to Fascism after WWI.

In today's East/Southeast Asia, Cambodia is more likely to turn to Fascism than China, Japan or even Vietnam.

I don`t think so, because I don`t Cambodia satisfying my condition of wanting greater glory and power over the rest of her neighbour. As some members here has already said, most South East Asian countries are naturally less ambitious than the NEA. But I do see China being very very ambitious. Nothing wromg with that but the devil is in the details.

While China does perceive itself to be wronged in the past, it is distant enough that it is unlikely to turn to ultra-conservative simply because its base necessities has not been gravely threatened in recent time.

This is bull man. China`s memory and perception of itself being wronged in the past still dictate its political relationship with Japan, it is not distant at all. A lot of scholars even argued that the Chinese century of humiliation still influenced its beliefs and intentions today.

In Viet Nam, the common perception and stereotype of the Chinese people is that the Chinese has long memory, hold grudges and can`t let go of the past and will always seek revenge. If you don`t believe me then ask the other Viet members.

Will these memory of being wronged in the past lead to ultra-conservatism that leads to a major war? I dont know and I don`t think there would be any major war anymore....but we have seen that these “memory” has lead to ultra-nationalism in some segment of Chinese society and thats not a good sign.

Similarly, while Japan is losing influence to China, the fact is that Japanese mainland itself is never actually in any sort of danger. Vietnam is in more danger to turn to fascism than Japan, because it has more to lose in the coming days in SCS. It also already has a socialist system in place, which makes jump into another socialist system easier. However, it is still far from becoming Fascist, because like Japan, Vietnam only stands to lose interests in the sea, its core necessities is not in danger. I said it in a previous post, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but not bitter enough that it can't be stomached.

Here`s your mistake and the same mistake happened in the last paragraph. The “core” or “base” necessities of pre-nazi Germany was not threatened either. The “core” necessities of these country (including JP/VN/China/pre-Nazi Germany) are always secured if they are willing to settle as being a average or a minor (VN) power. It is the desire to become great that causes a fascist country to expand in order to secure the “necessities” to become great. And I see China possessing a strong desire to become great, moreso than Cambodia, Viet Nam and Japan.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom