Is China a Fascist State?

[William Hung]

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.

This is cool if it is true. Tell me more about it when you have time.

In VN, the social science and literature subjects in high school also teach a thing or two about humanity, how to be a good person, etc. And it is the literature subject that ask for open inquiry. An exam question might ask you to give your thoughts on a certain passage or story, etc.

But I still see them as being extremely extremely inadequate. And this show itself in Vietnamese society, a lack of care and empathy for people outside your close circle of family and friends. And it shows itself in the survey where most Vietnamese said they dont care about the gap between the rich and the poor.

I thought it was opposite to what you said, that traditional elements of society emphasise humanity and care while modern consumeristic society causes one to lose the humanity and empathy for other people.

 

[tranquilium]

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:



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.



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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Well, since you have your own definition of Fascism, then there is little I can do about it. Definition is not set in stone and can be changed to suit your interest. However, since the intent of calling China Fascist is an attempt to connect China to Nazi Germany, it is only fair that I discuss the historical circumstances.

"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.

I will have to ask. Are you serious when you said that Germans do not felt their core necessities is threatened after WWI? Where is some paragraph from Treaty of Versailles:

"The treaty stripped Germany of 25,000 square miles (65,000 squire km) of territory and 7,000,000 people. It also required Germany to give up the gains made via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and grant independence to the protectorates that had been established. In Western Europe Germany was required to recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and cede control of the Eupen-Malmedy area. Within six months of the transfer, Belgium was required to conduct a plebiscite on whether the citizens of the region wanted to remain under Belgian sovereignty or return to German control, communicate the results to the League of Nations and abide by the League's decision. To compensate for the destruction of French coal mines, Germany was to cede the output of the Saar coalmines to France and control of the Saar to the League of Nations for fifteen years; a plebiscite would then be held to decide sovereignty. The treaty "restored" the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to France by rescinding the treaties of Versailles and Frankfurt of 1871 as they pertained to this issue. The sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein was to be resolved by a plebiscite to be held at a future time (see Schleswig Plebiscites)."

This is just a very small portion of the treaty. There are all mandates, compensations, Guarantees, restrictions. The wikipedia page can be seen here:
Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The treaty itself can be seen here:
Avalon Project - The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919

If you do not consider this to be a reason to cause a wounded animal response, then please stop reading the rest of my post because there is nothing to discussed further.

The axis powers are not the only cases of nations turning to ultra-right conservative after some event which causes the nation to feel less secure than previous. The flourish of Neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe after the fall of USSR is an example of chaos and turmoil within the nation give rise the feeling of being wrong somehow and ultra-conservative groups benefit from this kind of emotions.

Imperial Japan's story is actually quite a bit different from Germany's. Its turn to Fascism is caused by continued historical issues and long term events rather than short term drastic changes like Nazi Germany, but hey, it comes back to the same issue----since this is an attempt to link China to Nazi Germany, I would only concentrate on the particular issue. Your problem with China's growing influence is another topic and like I said, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but you will get use to it.

The fundamental misunderstanding you have on socialism is the mistake that socialism as a specific system. That's something called a Hollywood movie definition. Socialism refers to an economic and social belief that state coordination will yield better result than individual effort. Nothing more and nothing else. Dignity, worth and values are common virtue all systems tends to strive for, it is certainly not unique to certain schools of socialism thought or even socialism at all. US is not socialist (though republican radios will like to argue differently), but it still strives for dignity worth and values for its people. The idea that Fascist nations like Nazi Germany doesn't strive for dignity, worth and value is also false. Fascism nation is highly dangerous because its tendency to lead to total destruction with no victor standing and we learn history to avoid that mistake, but imagining Fascists as movie villains is an insult to history.

This brought up another point. Movies and fictions tends to add "obvious" mistakes and weakness to negative examples. This is because readers are not necessarily the most well versed individuals on the subject, hence it forces the author to add in obvious cue. "Oh, this ideology doesn't treat its subject as worthy individuals, it must be the villain in the story." A common plot among TV shows is that the villain will give some promise and it also ends with a betrayal. It is all fine and dandy as far as a story is concerned, but if taken as actual lesson, then it also fails spectacularly. Dangerous ideologies in real world certainly doesn't have obvious cues. In fact, it will be very persuasive and logical from the listener's perspective. Many of those also have decent chance to succeed and bringing the promised reward, but that does not change the fact that they are dangerous and can lead to great disaster. This is why we learn history to avoid them.

The way I see it, the base issue here is actual not what Fascism is, since at the very beginning you said that you have your own definition. Frankly, by that argument you can also say US is Fascist because all it takes is that "I have my own definition". That is not true and neither is the belief China is Fascist because China's circumstance doesn't fit what actual Fascist nation in history has experienced.

The issue here you actually want to say is that you feel threatened by China's expand influence over the region and you need to believe that you are in the right and China is in the wrong and China will fail (because the Fascism states failed at the end). That is actually fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't bring history into this.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is cool if it is true. Tell me more about it when you have time.

In VN, the social science and literature subjects in high school also teach a thing or two about humanity, how to be a good person, etc. And it is the literature subject that ask for open inquiry. An exam question might ask you to give your thoughts on a certain passage or story, etc.

But I still see them as being extremely extremely inadequate. And this show itself in Vietnamese society, a lack of care and empathy for people outside your close circle of family and friends. And it shows itself in the survey where most Vietnamese said they dont care about the gap between the rich and the poor.

I thought it was opposite to what you said, that traditional elements of society emphasise humanity and care while modern consumeristic society causes one to lose the humanity and empathy for other people.

There's 5 sections of history for most Chinese people:

1. slave society (奴隶社会）- a society defined by tradition, absolute power of individuals over others, supremacy of military strength (rather than morality, law or even economic power), centered on family and clan, fragmented government.
2. feudal society (封建社会）- more accurately stated as imperial society, a society defined by centralized absolute government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy and the rule of law, centered on the village and hometown, but still with heavy emphasis on tradition, family and clan.
3. capitalist society (资本主义社会） - a society defined by centralized but not autocratic (but perhaps authoritarian or oligarchic) government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy, rule of law, centered on the individual, where traditions are heavily weakened.
4. socialist society (社会主义社会） - a society defined by centralized but not autocratic (but perhaps authoritarian or oligarchic) government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy, rule of law, centered on society as a whole ("the people"), where new traditions are being built up.
5. communist society (共产主义社会） - defined by material plenty, enlightened government, everyone cooperates... basically, defined as heaven.

Most Chinese regard ourselves as 社会主义初级阶段 - opening stages of socialism, or in transition from capitalism to socialism. Tradition in our sense is looking backwards towards early capitalist society or feudal society. Forward in our view is moving towards socialism. See, in Chinese, when we talk about "right wing conservative" it is different than a "left wing conservative". A "left wing conservative" is "conservative" in the sense that they want to revive the 1950's and 1960's. They obviously don't want to revive the ROC. A "right wing conservative" wants to revive ROC or maybe even the dynasties. Similarly, a "left wing liberal" in China is someone who wants to recreate Maoist society - but better than before, using modern technology and business techniques to supplement the weaknesses of both Maoist society and free market capitalism. And a "right wing liberal" is someone who wants China to become the next USA.

Let me just give you a hint of how Chinese people help each other. In 2008 during the Sichuan earthquake, people from all over China donated, nobody rioted or looted, and the soldiers did not even have to carry guns into the disaster zones. There was never an order to "shoot all looters" like there was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Premier Wen himself rushed to the disaster zone.

Let me also give you an idea of what fascism really is - fascism places no value on human life. For example, Chiang Kai Shek killed 1 million Chinese in the 花园口决堤事件 in 1 night and didn't say SHIT. He also was so cowardly that he had to be kidnapped by his own generals in the Xi'an incident to fight against Japan. meanwhile, Premier Wen (who is even known for being a liberal) personally went to the disaster zone to monitor rescue efforts, and President Hu has always emphasized "以人为本“ - People First.

 

[jamahir]

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.

wise words.

True socialism see every humans in their dignity, worth and values in themselves as a human being.

@Nihonjin1051 ^^^ is worth being among some great writing on political systems.

 

[William Hung]

Well, since you have your own definition of Fascism, then there is little I can do about it. Definition is not set in stone and can be changed to suit your interest.

My mentioning of us having different definitions doesn’t mean that I’m saying we all have our own different definition so let’s just end it there. No, I’m saying that we have different definitions in mind so let’s discuss about it and try to see what an accurate definition should be like.

I will have to ask. Are you serious when you said that Germans do not felt their core necessities is threatened after WWI? Where is some paragraph from Treaty of Versailles:

Yes, I was serious. And read my post carefully again. I said their core or base necessities was not threatened and their existence as a country was not threatened. A better example for your claim would be Israel during the 1948 war, where their existence as a new nation looks to be under real threat. This was not the case for Germany.

The German people definitely felt they were wronged and treated unfairly with the treaty of Versailles. I’ve never denied this. I’ve also mentioned that the sense of being wronged historically is also still ingrained in the memory of the Chinese people and how some scholars argue that this influence China’s politics.

So back to the case of the treaty of Versailles, yes, the German people perceived it to be unfair and that they were wronged. But the treaty itself did not threatened the existence of Germany as a nation. It still left Germany with its “core” and “base necessities” to function as a nation. Yes, I’m aware of the territories that Germany had to concede, the restrictions imposed on its military, the war raparations that Germany had to pay back. But these demands did not threatened the existence of their country. These demands are not “core necessities” without which Germany would not be able to exist and function as a nation.

Don’t tell me you had Keynes’ Carthaginian peace argument in mind where that notion implies that the Treaty of Versailles was imposed in order to destroy Germany as a whole. You do know that most comtemporary historians no longer accept that argument as being accurate? Most argue that the treaty still left Germany the necessities to exist and recover from the war. Some even argued that the treaty was actually good for Germany.

The war reparation demand might seems a bit excessive and some might argue that this served the purpose to destroy Germany. Leaving aside the fact that a lot of contemporary economists have rejected this argument, we must acknowledge a more important fact is relevant to our discussion: the fact that the demand for war reparations was suspended in 1932. So if the war reparation was suspended in 1932, then what “core necessities” excuse did Nazi Germany have left to carry out their expansionist policy post-1933??? It certainly was not for securing their “core necessities” as you were trying to argue for, as Nazi Germany was fully recovered from WW1 after 1933 (matter of fact, Nazi Germany was actually in a much stroger position than pre-WW1).

Now you may talk about the Great Depression (and the “chaos and turmoil” and other effects that had on Germany) that influenced Germany’s path towards fascism but this was not the sufficient condition that triggered the acceptance of the Nazi party. It influenced their decisions no doubt but this alone cannot push a country towards fascism. After all, the whole world got hit by the Great Depression but we didn’t see everyone turning fascists. Furthermore, you admit that Imperial Japan’s path to fascism was different. It wasn’t this abruptive chaos and turmoil that triggered it. Simply put, a sense of one’s “base necessities” being threatened is not what was experienced by the German people.

If you do not consider this to be a reason to cause a wounded animal response, then please stop reading the rest of my post because there is nothing to discussed further.

I do agree that the German people would have felt like a wounded animal that had to respond. But not because of the perception that their “base necessities” were under threat, or because of the chaos and turmoil (Nazi Germany was already well recovered when they started to impose their expansionist policy post-1933).

So here I give again give my analysis of why Germany turned fascist. And not only do I think my account better protrays Nazi Germany, but it also protrays Imperial Japan as well:

First and foremost, Germany turned fascist because of a deep desire to become great and powerful, greater than the other existing powers. Secondly, there was a sense that they are entitled (and destined) to become a great and powerful nation. Thirdly, and this relates to the second, there was a strong perception that Germany was wronged or had been treated unfairly, that they deserved to be a great nation but are in chains and restrictions. This may not directly applies to Imperial Japan but it is in a subtle way due to the second condition: that Japan deserved to be the leader and should is supposedly destined to become great, yet they are not, hence the need to respond and carry out their expansionist ideology.

Now what do I see? I see China and her condition beginning to resemble what I have described: Firstly, China has a deep desire to become great and powerful, to even overtake the US. Secondly, there is a sense of entitlement (and destiny) to become great and powerful. China was once great they say, China was THE middle kingdom and center of the universe they say. So now, China has the entitlement and destiny to become great like it once was. Thirdly, and just like it was the case for Nazi Germany which also relates to the second condition: there is a perception that China was wronged in the past and was treated unfairly. There is that century of humiliation, the past crimes committed against its people, and this somehow contributed to the fall of the once great middle kingdom. And so like Imperial Japan, China believed its entitlement to become great, its destination to become a powerful nation, so they must expand in order to secure the necessities to reach that destiny. And finally, China seems to preceive the world through these lenses. When there is a trade dispute, its the evil west trying to restrain China’s rise. Territorial disputes? Ah it is nothing but the US trying to contain China to become mighty again.

...this is an attempt to link China to Nazi Germany, I would only concentrate on the particular issue. Your problem with China's growing influence is another topic and like I said, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but you will get use to it.

Please don’t accuse me of conspiring to link China with Nazi Germany and don’t try to introduce personal insinuations into the discussion, lets keep this thread academic and objective as I have requested in the OP. I am just giving an objective analysis and expect you to give an objective reply back, not these petty personal remarks like “this is your bitter pill to swallow, but you’ll get use to it.” I have argued why your analysis is flawed and how mine is more accurate. If you disagree, then you must argue how yours is not flawed like I said and how my own analysis is flawed.

My intentions is not to insult or to conspire to make any unwarranted links between China and Nazism. You know I love China and always said Viet Nam is the one and only true friend of China when it counts. I just want to examine and learn about the conditions that our countries are in, and discuss what true Socialism is all about. My deep desire is that VN and China would walk the path of true socialism, hand in hand, to spread pure humanity across our dark and selfish world.

The fundamental misunderstanding you have on socialism is the mistake that socialism as a specific system. That's something called a Hollywood movie definition. Socialism refers to an economic and social belief that state coordination will yield better result than individual effort. Nothing more and nothing else.

You are absolutely wrong here. Ever heard of Anarcho-communism or Libertarian-socialism? These ideologies is in fact quite popular amongst the left in academia. They don’t endorse state-coordination or any form of state interference (in its extreme form). Yet they are still regarded as socialists and leftists. I believe @jamahir was explaining to me his “green” socialism which looks to be a branch of Libertarian-socialism. But they are ALL considered in academia as socialists, just different believes on how socialism should be implemented.

What you are talking here is “authoritarianism”. And you can be a socialist authoritarian or a right wing authoritarian. But if you prefer your own definition of authoritarianism then its fine, this issue doesn’t really have an effect on our discussion.

Dignity, worth and values are common virtue all systems tends to strive for, it is certainly not unique to certain schools of socialism thought or even socialism at all.

Not just dignity, worth and values alone but recognizing the dignity, worth and values of ALL human beings. Are you telling me that the Nazi respected the dignity, worth and values of the Jews and their other minorities? In your words “Are you serious?”

US is not socialist (though republican radios will like to argue differently), but it still strives for dignity worth and values for its people.

I said the central element of socialism is empathy for the stranger and love for ALL mankind, not just for your own people. But if the US strives for dignity, worth and value for its own people, then it’s still a good thing that show a tiny element of socialism. This is why jamahir and I agreed in the other thread that the US/west do indeed manifests more socialist characteristics in their countries than in VN or China.

My question is, why was workers right so poor in China compared to the west? Especially the factories during the early 1990s to early 2000s period? Why some factories had atrocious working conditions and envinronments? Bad to the point that some factory workers committed suicide? Did the state cared about their dignity, values and worth? Or were they just dispensable tools and means to grow the economy?

(and this apply to VN as well, poor workers right no doubt)

The idea that Fascist nations like Nazi Germany doesn't strive for dignity, worth and value is also false.

Are you serious? Did they strive for the dignity, worth and value of the Jews? The minorities? And the other ethnicities and nationalities?

I did said it clearly that the fascists make a clear distinction between their own group and the “others”. And that the dignity, worth and values of the “others” has no priority over their “desire” and goal to make their own group become great.

Fascism nation is highly dangerous because its tendency to lead to total destruction with no victor standing and we learn history to avoid that mistake, but imagining Fascists as movie villains is an insult to history.

Then show me where my portrayal of fascism is not accurate, don’t just give my portrayal a name and then dismiss without pointing out where is inaccurate.

That is the purpose of this thread. You give me a description/defintion of fascism/socialism, I disagree so I point out where it is inaccurate. I give you my own definition/description, if you disagree then point out specifically where it is inaccurate.

Example, you said a threat of core necssities gave rise to fascism in Germany, then I argued no, their core interest wasn’t really threatened.

This brought up another point. Movies and fictions tends to add "obvious" mistakes and weakness to negative examples. This is because readers are not necessarily the most well versed individuals on the subject, hence it forces the author to add in obvious cue. "Oh, this ideology doesn't treat its subject as worthy individuals, it must be the villain in the story." A common plot among TV shows is that the villain will give some promise and it also ends with a betrayal. It is all fine and dandy as far as a story is concerned, but if taken as actual lesson, then it also fails spectacularly. Dangerous ideologies in real world certainly doesn't have obvious cues.

But you previously tried to give obvious cues on what fascism is and how it arises, did you not???

The way I see it, the base issue here is actual not what Fascism is, since at the very beginning you said that you have your own definition. Frankly, by that argument you can also say US is Fascist because all it takes is that "I have my own definition". That is not true and neither is the belief China is Fascist because China's circumstance doesn't fit what actual Fascist nation in history has experienced.

Again, me telling you that we have different definitions means that we need to discuss it. I wasn’t saying that we have different definitions and so we should stick to our gun and leave it at that. If you don’t ahree with my definition, then discuss with me where and how it is wrong.

The issue here you actually want to say is that you feel threatened by China's expand influence over the region and you need to believe that you are in the right and China is in the wrong and China will fail (because the Fascism states failed at the end). That is actually fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't bring history into this.

You are trying to bring personal insinuations into our discussion again, please don’t do that. Lets keep this thread academic and objective.

There's 5 sections of history for most Chinese people:

1. slave society (奴隶社会）- a society defined by tradition, absolute power of individuals over others, supremacy of military strength (rather than morality, law or even economic power), centered on family and clan, fragmented government.
2. feudal society (封建社会）- more accurately stated as imperial society, a society defined by centralized absolute government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy and the rule of law, centered on the village and hometown, but still with heavy emphasis on tradition, family and clan.
3. capitalist society (资本主义社会） - a society defined by centralized but not autocratic (but perhaps authoritarian or oligarchic) government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy, rule of law, centered on the individual, where traditions are heavily weakened.
4. socialist society (社会主义社会） - a society defined by centralized but not autocratic (but perhaps authoritarian or oligarchic) government, unified language and culture, civil bureaucracy, rule of law, centered on society as a whole ("the people"), where new traditions are being built up.
5. communist society (共产主义社会） - defined by material plenty, enlightened government, everyone cooperates... basically, defined as heaven.

Most Chinese regard ourselves as 社会主义初级阶段 - opening stages of socialism, or in transition from capitalism to socialism. Tradition in our sense is looking backwards towards early capitalist society or feudal society. Forward in our view is moving towards socialism. See, in Chinese, when we talk about "right wing conservative" it is different than a "left wing conservative". A "left wing conservative" is "conservative" in the sense that they want to revive the 1950's and 1960's. They obviously don't want to revive the ROC. A "right wing conservative" wants to revive ROC or maybe even the dynasties. Similarly, a "left wing liberal" in China is someone who wants to recreate Maoist society - but better than before, using modern technology and business techniques to supplement the weaknesses of both Maoist society and free market capitalism. And a "right wing liberal" is someone who wants China to become the next USA.

Let me just give you a hint of how Chinese people help each other. In 2008 during the Sichuan earthquake, people from all over China donated, nobody rioted or looted, and the soldiers did not even have to carry guns into the disaster zones. There was never an order to "shoot all looters" like there was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Premier Wen himself rushed to the disaster zone.

Let me also give you an idea of what fascism really is - fascism places no value on human life. For example, Chiang Kai Shek killed 1 million Chinese in the 花园口决堤事件 in 1 night and didn't say SHIT. He also was so cowardly that he had to be kidnapped by his own generals in the Xi'an incident to fight against Japan. meanwhile, Premier Wen (who is even known for being a liberal) personally went to the disaster zone to monitor rescue efforts, and President Hu has always emphasized "以人为本“ - People First.

Thanks for this, it makes it more clear. Now I understand what you mean by ultra traditional elements of Chinese society don’t promote empathy and caring.

What I had in mind was ancient Chinese thoughts. Because I have read on some ancient Chinese philosophers and thought they promoted the principle of caring and empathy. Need to check back my notes.

But you were refering another type of “traditional element”.

@Nihonjin1051 ^^^ is worth being among some great writing on political systems.

Yes, @Nihonjin1051 is very knowledgeable in politics, was hoping he would give his view here but Chinese members might not be happy reading his Japanese perspective. I think this is why he is staying out of this.

 

[jamahir]

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.

this shallow understanding of socialism i often find present in india, more immediately many indian pdf members.

the first prime minister of india, jawaharlal nehru, was interested in socialism in his college days but later he only outwardly adopted the policy attributes of ussr as part of his prime ministership... one main component was "five year planning" and another was alluding in speeches to "scientific temper" which was meant to be progressiveness that should become part of the psyche of citizens.

but everything else in india was capitalist and nationalist... the military was generally part of western bloc, bombay city retained the "bombay stock exchange" which is among the oldest stock exchanges in the world, banks although mostly nationalized worked on capitalist interest-based economics, farmers remained under bondage of feudal landlords, private money lenders remained, much of the society remained with obsolete and reactionary traditions, the so-called educated had no long-term goals, the nation became a rat-race with not many people having time for the other... there was not much change in "independent india" from the british-rule times, except that the employment systems and life became more hurried because of nominal industrialization and migration to the urban.

but these factors are not considered by those people who call india's previous decades as socialist... as you said, these people are not themselves socialist.

 

[William Hung]

this shallow understanding of socialism i often find present in india, more immediately many indian pdf members.

Bro, the knowledge of socialism is also shallow in Viet Nam, a self-proclaimed “socialist” country lol, so don’t be too disappointed if most people in India also have a shallow understanding of socialism. I’m also just in the process of trying to understand more about true socialism.

Are there any other socialist/leftist member in pdf?

the first prime minister of india, jawaharlal nehru, was interested in socialism in his college days but later he only outwardly adopted the policy attributes of ussr as part of his prime ministership... one main component was "five year planning" and another was alluding in speeches to "scientific temper" which was meant to be progressiveness that should become part of the psyche of citizens.

but everything else in india was capitalist and nationalist... the military was generally part of western bloc, bombay city retained the "bombay stock exchange" which is among the oldest stock exchanges in the world, banks although mostly nationalized worked on capitalist interest-based economics, farmers remained under bondage of feudal landlords, private money lenders remained, much of the society remained with obsolete and reactionary traditions, the so-called educated had no long-term goals, the nation became a rat-race with not many people having time for the other... there was not much change in "independent india" from the british-rule times, except that the employment systems and life became more hurried because of nominal industrialization and migration to the urban.

Interesting. I want to learn more about the socialist movement in India. Write some more if you have time.

Some of what you’ve described is also similar to my country. Some argue that we need to transit through to capitalism first before we can become communist/socialist (according to Marx). But this doesn’t sound entirely right. OK, a country needs to be industrialized first and might need capitalism to do that, alright. A country needs to be fully developed and wealthy before they can fully implement a proper universal healthcare, cant do it if you are a developing country: ok, sounds about right. But what about the other aspects of socialism? caring and being empathetic to other people, you dont need to wait until a country become developed before you can be like that. Same as worker’s rights, we should be able to give worker’s rights even when the country is still developing. Unless, the workers are only regarded as dispensable tools that can be sacrificed in order to grow the economy (not socialism at all).

but these factors are not considered by those people who call india's previous decades as socialist... as you said, these people are not themselves socialist.

Is the communist/socialist party in India legit?

 

[CHN Bamboo]

Japani start to teach political course, lool.

我想_说啊，在虚伪和礼上，你们的确功力不足啊。。那个霓虹人平时的克制，你可以尝试一下吗。。其实装圣人很有用的。你的话会给华带来负面印象。觉得克制太难就尽量不回复吧。

fascist definition in Chinese make me feel strange.
-pause

 

[jhungary]

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!

actually, I hate to say this but I have to agree with @jamahir here, what @tranquilium does not make sense.

Fascists and Socialism under two different school of thought, while socialism tend to be more society centric, fascists is more governmental centric.

I don't remember who told me this (Maybe my sophomore PoliSci professor) told me there can never be a capitalist government before some kind of socialist transition. While fascists can still be focus on society development, but such development will be under the watchful eyes of the centralised government. While in a socialist (Pure, utopia socialist) world, it won't happen as the people are the government.

 

[PIace of Space]

哦当人有得都人恶人好，哈哈哈。

我想_说啊，在虚伪和礼上，你们的确功力不足啊。。那个霓虹人平时的克制，你可以尝试一下吗。。其实装圣人很有用的。你的话会给华带来负面印象。觉得克制太难就尽量不回复吧。

fascist definition in Chinese make me feel strange.
-pause

 

[tranquilium]

So back to the case of the treaty of Versailles, yes, the German people perceived it to be unfair and that they were wronged. But the treaty itself did not threatened the existence of Germany as a nation. It still left Germany with its “core” and “base necessities” to function as a nation. Yes, I’m aware of the territories that Germany had to concede, the restrictions imposed on its military, the war raparations that Germany had to pay back. But these demands did not threatened the existence of their country. These demands are not “core necessities” without which Germany would not be able to exist and function as a nation.

Then we have no further need for discussion. If your belief is losing 20% of the nation's territory and 10% of the population does not count as threatening the core interest of the nation, then there really isn't a need for further discussion. This is, of course, on top of the hyperinflation and food shortage that hit the rest of the German land afterwards which puts the rest of the population into the brink of starvation. I don't get it though, any textbook on the Hilter and Nazi's rise to power would surely discussed the post WWI economic crisis and chaos that propelled Nazis into power. How exactly did that become "not threatening a country's core interest"?

 

[Sanchez]

In this world only US could be discussed if it is a de facto facist state or if Japan a potential facist state

 

[Aepsilons]

Japan a potential fascist state? What makes you say that? Please back up your claims with cold hard empirical facts and data and not just subjective jargon.

Thanks.

 

[PIace of Space]

Japan a potential fascist state? What makes you say that? Please back up your claims with cold hard empirical facts and data and not just subjective jargon.

Thanks.

Guess on date of 3rd Sept., how many countries will come China to attend the 70th anniversary of defeating Japanese fascist?

 

[Aepsilons]

Guess on date of 3rd Sept., how many countries will come China to attend the 70th anniversary of defeating Japanese fascist?

Please do not quote me , do not try to talk to me. I have you on an ignore list for a reason. Thank You.