Is China a Fascist State?

[jamahir]

Is the communist/socialist party in India legit?

well, they exist as a visible component despite indian political system being the british "representative democracy" type, but the indian socialists failed to get into national power in 68 years while some other societies became socialist in the same time and existed until regime-changed.

@Shotgunner51 had asked me in the "che and china" thread to describe the communist/socialist movement in india... i will try do so tomorrow or when i have time in the week.

day before yesterday, i went to the state office of one of the public communist parties and spoke for membership... it seems i now am being evaluated by them before i become what they call "candidate member".

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

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?

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.

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”.



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.

Poor workers rights in a poor country - how is that surprising, regardless of what the system is? US - triangle shirtwaist factory in early 1900's, workers LOCKED into a burning building and physically constrained from leaving their job. Does China have that? USSR- people worked to death building Siberian railroads and military bases. Fact is, when you are a poor country, nobody is going to be treated well. The difference in ideology is whether this is a shame that must be corrected, or "no big deal". And minorities in China are treated either the same as Han or better than Han.

The traditionalist elements I was talking about are in terms of political philosophy. In practical terms, all 4 (with maybe the right wing liberal as an exception) freely quote ancient or imperial Chinese tradition in support of their values. There's so much to quote that you can basically acknowledge any non-insane philosophy.

For example, rightists often justify capitalism by saying: 人不为己，天诛地灭。(if a man is not out for himself, even the sky and earth destroy him)

Leftists quote: 故人不独亲其亲，不独子其子，使老有所终，幼有所长，矜寡孤独废疾者，皆有所养。(let man not only be concerned with his relatives, nor only care about his children, but let the old have their sunset, let the young have their growth, and let the widowed, lonely and handicapped be cared for).

 

[William Hung]

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.

Firstly, please don’t exaggerate. I remember Germany only ceded around 15% of its territory, parts of which they gained before WW1. Secondly, losing those territories and population was not a threat against their “core/base necessities”.

You originally used the words “base/core necessities”, not “core interest” like you’ve used here. What is “core interest” anyway? thats a vague concept. Core/base necessities would be the bare minimum necessities a nation would need in order to exist. The Treaty of Versailles did not infringe on the base necessities of Germany. Granted that part of those ceded territories did include a mine and some industrial area, but it wasn’t so much as to threaten the existence of Germany. Plus, you originally tried to explain that a threat to core/base necessities is what gave rise to fascism, but Japan did not went through this situation before it went Imperial.

Unless, you had other concepts in mind of what base/core necessities means. Just like how Taiwan is a “core interest” even though China would still be able to function and exist as a country if Taiwan went independent. So if “core/base necessities ” to you means the necessities required to become great and powerful, then I would agree with you, and that’s what I was arguing for. Even Imperial Japan could be seen as fighting for this “necessities”. And it would also mean that China currently is also beginning to fit this description.

But if “core/base necessities” means the bare minimum required for a nation to exist, just like how the humble Palau still has the base necessities to exist as a nation, then no, losing 15% of territories and 10% population did NOT threaten Germany’s base necessities.

There were a few like Keynes who argued that the treaty was carved in such a way to destroy Germany, but most contemporary historians and economists don’t accept this view as accurate. Check the volume “The Treaty of Varseilles: an assessment after 75 years”. Its a collection of research papers by scholars, including German scholars, who mainly debunk that Carthaginian peace view.

The ultimate proof is that Germany post-WW1 did in fact managed to survive and recover even with the treaty imposed on them. To think that losing 15% of territories and some population could threaten its “base necessities” is absurd.

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"?

Yes, pretty much all textbooks hightlights the connections between the German social issues+Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Nazism. I’ve never denied the connections in my previous posts, I myself also made the connections, i.e. with the German perception of being wronged and the treaty putting unfair chains and restrictions on Germany, etc. What I am rejecting, and what I hardly see in textbooks, is YOUR EXPLANATION of how they are connected. You specifically singled out the “threat to core/base necessities” as the fundamental reason that gave rise to Nazism (and fascism in general). While I made the counter-claim that it was the deep desire to become great, the perception of being wronged and being chained with the treaty (along with other conditions that I’ve mentioned) that gave rise to German fascism.

This description is from the same book I’ve mention, and it is from a German Historian:

“During the 1920s, the Treaty of Versailles was viewed by all German parties, with minor exceptions, as a “dictate of shame,” the conditions of which were designed exclusively to keep Germany in punitive bondage and to prevent it for the foreseeable future from rebuilding itself into a Superpower.” (pg. 535)

And this description is common in most textbooks. The emphasis is on Germany’s desire to rebuild itself as a superpower (and its perceived entitlement to it), the sense of being shamed and wronged by the Treaty, the sense that the treaty was unfair and a chain on the German people. There is hardly any emphasis on the “threat to base necessities” like what you tried to argue for.

Most narrative does not single out the “perceived threat against core necessities” as the fundamental cause to the rise of Nazism (it may influenced the rise to it, but not its fundamental and sufficient cause). Before Hitler came to power, his rhetorics was not primarily “our core necessities are under threat and we must secure it”. His rhetorics was mostly, “we should be the greatest, we are entilted to it, the treaty is a shame and a chain, etc”. Things that my theory was trying to explain in my previous posts.

And this is also the reason why your theory could not answer my question: the demand for war reparation (something that most historians regard as most damaging to the German economy, not the ceded territories), but the demand for war reparation was suspended in 1932, and Germany recovered well post-1933, so why did Nazi Germany continue to implement their fascist expansionist policy? If the reason was for securing “base necessities” then shouldn’t they have stopped by then?

My theory said it is because Germany’s acceptance of Nazism was not just for securing “core necessities” like you tried to argue for, but the main reason is the deep desire to be a superpower, a sense of entitlement to it, etc. And unlike your theory, my theory also fits Imperial Japan’s narrative.

And my suggestion was that China’s current condition is also beginning to resemble this narrative. Note I didn’t say China is a full-fledged fascist state, just that it is resembling it more than it resemble a true socialist state.

 

[jamahir]

Are there any other socialist/leftist member in pdf?

@Atanz please join this discussion.

 

[tranquilium]

Firstly, please don’t exaggerate. I remember Germany only ceded around 15% of its territory, parts of which they gained before WW1. Secondly, losing those territories and population was not a threat against their “core/base necessities”.

You originally used the words “base/core necessities”, not “core interest” like you’ve used here. What is “core interest” anyway? thats a vague concept. Core/base necessities would be the bare minimum necessities a nation would need in order to exist. The Treaty of Versailles did not infringe on the base necessities of Germany. Granted that part of those ceded territories did include a mine and some industrial area, but it wasn’t so much as to threaten the existence of Germany. Plus, you originally tried to explain that a threat to core/base necessities is what gave rise to fascism, but Japan did not went through this situation before it went Imperial.

Unless, you had other concepts in mind of what base/core necessities means. Just like how Taiwan is a “core interest” even though China would still be able to function and exist as a country if Taiwan went independent. So if “core/base necessities ” to you means the necessities required to become great and powerful, then I would agree with you, and that’s what I was arguing for. Even Imperial Japan could be seen as fighting for this “necessities”. And it would also mean that China currently is also beginning to fit this description.

But if “core/base necessities” means the bare minimum required for a nation to exist, just like how the humble Palau still has the base necessities to exist as a nation, then no, losing 15% of territories and 10% population did NOT threaten Germany’s base necessities.

There were a few like Keynes who argued that the treaty was carved in such a way to destroy Germany, but most contemporary historians and economists don’t accept this view as accurate. Check the volume “The Treaty of Varseilles: an assessment after 75 years”. Its a collection of research papers by scholars, including German scholars, who mainly debunk that Carthaginian peace view.

The ultimate proof is that Germany post-WW1 did in fact managed to survive and recover even with the treaty imposed on them. To think that losing 15% of territories and some population could threaten its “base necessities” is absurd.



Yes, pretty much all textbooks hightlights the connections between the German social issues+Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Nazism. I’ve never denied the connections in my previous posts, I myself also made the connections, i.e. with the German perception of being wronged and the treaty putting unfair chains and restrictions on Germany, etc. What I am rejecting, and what I hardly see in textbooks, is YOUR EXPLANATION of how they are connected. You specifically singled out the “threat to core/base necessities” as the fundamental reason that gave rise to Nazism (and fascism in general). While I made the counter-claim that it was the deep desire to become great, the perception of being wronged and being chained with the treaty (along with other conditions that I’ve mentioned) that gave rise to German fascism.

This description is from the same book I’ve mention, and it is from a German Historian:

“During the 1920s, the Treaty of Versailles was viewed by all German parties, with minor exceptions, as a “dictate of shame,” the conditions of which were designed exclusively to keep Germany in punitive bondage and to prevent it for the foreseeable future from rebuilding itself into a Superpower.” (pg. 535)

And this description is common in most textbooks. The emphasis is on Germany’s desire to rebuild itself as a superpower (and its perceived entitlement to it), the sense of being shamed and wronged by the Treaty, the sense that the treaty was unfair and a chain on the German people. There is hardly any emphasis on the “threat to base necessities” like what you tried to argue for.

Most narrative does not single out the “perceived threat against core necessities” as the fundamental cause to the rise of Nazism (it may influenced the rise to it, but not its fundamental and sufficient cause). Before Hitler came to power, his rhetorics was not primarily “our core necessities are under threat and we must secure it”. His rhetorics was mostly, “we should be the greatest, we are entilted to it, the treaty is a shame and a chain, etc”. Things that my theory was trying to explain in my previous posts.

And this is also the reason why your theory could not answer my question: the demand for war reparation (something that most historians regard as most damaging to the German economy, not the ceded territories), but the demand for war reparation was suspended in 1932, and Germany recovered well post-1933, so why did Nazi Germany continue to implement their fascist expansionist policy? If the reason was for securing “base necessities” then shouldn’t they have stopped by then?

My theory said it is because Germany’s acceptance of Nazism was not just for securing “core necessities” like you tried to argue for, but the main reason is the deep desire to be a superpower, a sense of entitlement to it, etc. And unlike your theory, my theory also fits Imperial Japan’s narrative.

And my suggestion was that China’s current condition is also beginning to resemble this narrative. Note I didn’t say China is a full-fledged fascist state, just that it is resembling it more than it resemble a true socialist state.

Here we go again. Apparently "only" losing 15% of your territory doesn't count as threatening your core interest. This is equivalent of US losing Texas, Florida and California at the same time. Or Indians losing Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. I would like to see you convince any Americans or Indians that losing the above territories are not a threaten to their core interest.

 

[William Hung]

Here we go again. Apparently "only" losing 15% of your territory doesn't count as threatening your core interest. This is equivalent of US losing Texas, Florida and California at the same time. Or Indians losing Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. I would like to see you convince any Americans or Indians that losing the above territories are not a threaten to their core interest.

Look, you’ve continued to change your argument by using the concept “core interest” instead of “core/base necessities” which you originally used (And you refused to address my other points that refutes your argument)

Let’s look back at your post #16 when you tried to explain what fascism is and what gave rise to it:

To understand what makes Fascism, you need to understand the political environment which produces it....
...
{{ my comment: you then gave some narrative about the “colonial pies” which I agreed with, but then you talked about the “core/base necessities threatened” element being a necessary condition for fascism, which I don’t agree with.}}

...
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 losein 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.

So first of all, you originally used the “core/base necessities” argument and now changed it to the “core interest” argument.

As I’ve mentioned in my previous reply, “core interest” and “core/base necessities” are different concepts. Losing 15% of my personal savings or wealth will not be considered a threat to my “base necessities” (I will still survive!), but it can be my “core interest” to protect that 15%. Is that clear? China says Taiwan and the South China Sea is its “core interest” but I’m pretty sure China would still survive if China lose them both. So from 1919 to 1934 before Nazi Germany implemented its expansionist ideology, Germany managed to survive and recover from their problems, even with the Treaty of Versailles imposed on them.

You originally used the “core/base necessities” threat as a condition for the rise of fascism, not “core interest”. You’ve said that even though Japan is losing influence today, Japan will not turn fascist because its mainland is not in danger. Similarly, you argued that VN will also not turn fascist because our “core necessities” is not in danger. Likewise for China, her “base necessities” are not in danger you said.

So you specifically singled out the “core/base necessities” threat as the necessary and sufficient condition that gave rise to fascism, then concluded that China (and VN,JP) are unlikely to turn fascists because they are currently not in that condition.

My counter-argument was that the “core/base necessities” threat was/is not the necessary nor sufficient condition to gaive rise to fascism. I wasn’t denying that Germany went through economic issues and turmoil, but that is not the necessary nor sufficient condition that give rise to fascism (A LOT of countries faced those issues during the Great Depression but they didn’t turn fascist).

Which lead to my second point, before Japan went fascist in WW2, her mainland was not under threat and her core/base necessities was not threatened. So your base/core necessities argument looks flawed.

So please, get back to your “base/core necessities” argument and don’t try to weave out of your argument by changing it to “core interest”.

P.S. if you change your argument into the “core interest” argument, then it is even easier to connect China to fascism, since “core interest” is much more broad and vague than “core/base necessities”. For example, Imperial Japan taking over mainland China was not for their “base necessities” but for their “core interest” to become a superpower. It is along this line that the Filipino president is labelling China “Nazi” for trying to take over the SCS for their “core interest” to become a superpower. So you might want to think again before changing your argument into the “core interest” argument.

 

[Aepsilons]

Good exchange here @tranquilium and @Yorozuya .

Now this is what I call a debate. Good Job both of you.

 

[William Hung]

Good exchange here @tranquilium and @Yorozuya .

Now this is what I call a debate. Good Job both of you.

Thanks bro, although I prefer to call it a “friendly discussion” to learn more about the conditions that we are all living in.

I will later give a full description of what I think fascism is and wanna know what you think of it. It will be a description where modern Japan and Cambodia will not fit into.

 

[Aepsilons]

Thanks bro, although I prefer to call it a “friendly discussion” to learn more about the conditions that we are all living in.

I will later give a full description of what I think fascism is and wanna know what you think of it. It will be a description where modern Japan and Cambodia will not fit into.

*claps*

The shear fact that the normal trolls aren't impeding discourse here is a sign of qualitative improvement.

 

[William Hung]

*claps*

The shear fact that the normal trolls aren't impeding discourse here is a sign of qualitative improvement.

I am happy that this thread has remained relatively civil and intellectual so far. Reminds me of the early days when discussions were mainly academic and indepth instead of petty racist insults that are common these days.

Now I want to give my personal view on what I think fascism is, the full-fledged version. Let me know if you see any holes or flaws with my descriptions (Poli-Sci is not my AOS).

---------------------------
But before I do that, I want to quickly summarize what was discussed previously to make it easier to understand where I’m coming from and in case some readers were wondering what the fuss was all about in the previous pages:

So obviously the discussion was mainly about what constitute fascism. @tranquilium further explained what caused fascism.

Fundamentally, tranquilium’s explanation was using the method of identifying some variables (let’s call it “A”) and asserting that variable(s) “A” causes variable “B”. So my friend tranquilium argued in post #16 that variable “B” (fascism, or the rise of fascism) was caused by variable “A” (having your core/base necessities threatened or perceiving it to be so, and being in chaos/turmoil and on the brink of starvation).

But tranquilium’s explanation and argumemt has 3 major flaws. First, he seems to have committed a logical fallacy by ignoring the principle “Correlation does not imply causation”. He tried to identify two variables A and B that seems to be correlated, and then argued that A causes B. But this is not necessary true because “correlation does not imply causation”.

The second flaw is that there are no strong correlation between variable A and variable B in the first place. There are cases where have we observed variable B without having observed variable A. Imperial Japan became fascist but they were not going through chaos/turmoil, on the brinks of starvation, perceived their base necessities being threatened, etc. Basically variable A is not necessary for variable B. Also, we often observe variable A without observing variable B (countries in chaos, starvation, perceiving their core necessities threatened, etc. but didn’t become fascist). Basically, variable A is not sufficient for variable B. Variable A is not necessary nor sufficient for variable B. There are no strong correlation between A and B.

The third flaw in my friend tranquilium’s explanation and argument is that his description of variable A is unclear amd ambiguous. In the second half of post #16, my friend seems to argue that having your “core/base necessities” threatened (or perceiving it being threatened) is the fundamental element of variable A.

However, my friend later changed his argument by talking about “core interest” instead of “core/base necessities”. But core “interests” and core “necessities” are two different things. For example, he asserted in post #16 that even if Vietnam loses the South China Sea, it won’t turn fascist because Vietnam would only loses it sea interests while its core necessities are still not in danger. I agree with my friend that the SCS is not a core “necessity” (VN can still survive without it). But just like China, the SCS is in fact officially a core “interest” of VN. So core “interest” and core “necessities” are different concepts. Furthermore, the notion of “core interest” are vague and what each different countries consider its core interest is arbitrary (like how securing mainland China was Imperial Japan’s core interest, the SCS are core interest of China/VN). So basically, tranqilium’s description of variable A is quite vague and ambiguous (and if “core interest” is part of variable A, then it is a variable that is arbitrary). So trying to identify a correlation between variable B and variable A where variable A is ambiguous, vague and arbitrary is unsound. And arguing variable B is caused by that variable A is simply, in my opinion, absurd.

So that’s the summary of what we were arguing/discussing in the previous few pages. @tranquilium my friend, please correct me if you think I’m wrong or have misrepresented you.

So leaving this debate aside, I would now like to move on and give my own description/theory of what constitute fascism or what causes it. I have previously mentioned, what I believe to be, the core elements of fascism. Now I want to give a full description of it:
------------------------------

First of all, the principle “correlation does not imply causation” will also applies for me. So my description/theory should be regarded more like a hypothesis. But I will try to argue for and describe variables (conditions or characteristics) that are both necessary and sufficient for fascism (or necessary and sufficient to produce fascism).

Actually, I need to go soon so I will just list out what I think these conditions and characteristics are that constitute fascism (or produces fascism). I will then come back and describe them later when I have time. Here are the conditions or characteristics:

- Strong desire to become great and powerful (become a superpower). Along with this is a sense of entitlement to it.
- Sectarian outlook: making a clear distinction between one’s own group and the “others” (this distinction can be along the line of ethnicity, nationality, etc.)
- Disregard for the dignity, worth and wellbeing of the “others”. The dignity, worth and wellbeing of the “others” has no priority over the task of fulfilling the desire mentioned above.
- Expansionist policies in order to achieve that desire.
- Authoritarian and structural (similar to what John Weeks described in the first article).
- Brainwashing or shaping citizen’s opinion in an authoritarian method so that the thoughts and actions of the citizens align with the characteristics described above.
- Suppresing the voice of citizens who wants to give an alternative view to the above.

So each and every one of these characters are necessary to constitute fascism (or produce it). And together, they are sufficient for it, or sufficient to produce it.

I will come back and explain these characters more in details in case there are some misunderstandings. But @Nihonjin1051, I think you can already see how Cambodia does not fit this description (contra to tranquilim’s claim that Cambodia is most likely to turn gascist). Also you can see that modern Japan also does not fit this description.

...to be continue.

 

[DaiViet]

To me its waste of time to debate with Chinese. Their emperor Xi said yes they wont say No. Their Media says the moon is bigger than the Sun they will belive so withou doubt. There are reasons why Chinese vs many, there are reasons no one likes them and listen to their crap. There are reasons why Manchurian, Mongols, Japan once invaded China they commit brutal acts massacred and rape. Unfortunate, the Manchu and Mongol paid the great price once rule China for too long.

 

[William Hung]

To me its waste of time to debate with Chinese. Their emperor Xi said yes they wont say No. Their Media says the moon is bigger than the Sun they will belive so withou doubt. There are reasons why Chinese vs many, there are reasons no one likes them and listen to their crap. There are reasons why Manchurian, Mongols, Japan once invaded China they commit brutal acts massacred and rape. Unfortunate, the Manchu and Mongol paid the great price once rule China for too long.

My good Viet brother, let’s calm down and show respect to everyone. I’m not here to debate or to fight anyone. I’m just here to discuss, learn and expand my worldview in the most objective and respectful way.

Like I said before, I don’t consider this thread a debate, but just a friendly discussion between friends in a genuine and respectful way. I created this thread so that I can learn more about the world we’re living in. You are also welcomed to join this thread and discuss with me. Do you agree with what I’ve said so far? I would be happy to learn your perspective.

Although keep in mind that my intention was not to link China to fascism, I actually love China. It just happen that there are resemblence between China and what I consider to be fascism when I think about it. Ultimately, I would like to move our discussion from fascism to socialism.

So, I welcome you to join the discussion.

 

[William Hung]

Interesting article from a anarcho-communist. I am not an anarchist or Libertarian but the article argues for some point that I agree with: that fascism is NOT a branch of socialism. His characterization of Fascism is also similar what I was arguing for.

Why We Fight II: Anarchism vs. Fascism

Here's a snippet from the article:

The simplest answer is a libertarian form of communism, but this really misses the core values at the center. Anarchism seeks to liberate us from oppressive systems of illegitimate authority and hierarchy, with the actors of this being the oppressed classes. In terms of economics, this means the working class taking the means of production in a form of stateless communism that is founded on the necessity of freedom and individual identity. It also means the confrontation of existing forms of social oppression, as well as the ongoing process of challenging new forms and subverting oppression whenever it comes up. The foundation then is that a free and healthy society is one that is fully socially and economically equal, where differences between people are no longer expressed through hierarchy, and an ongoing process of living lives with more direct control and less mediation is key. Anarchists believe that race, gender, and other identities as social constructs, as well as nation states that must be abolished in favor of internationalism.

In direct contrast, fascism and related ideologies is best expressed by the title of Tomislav Sunic’s book on the European New Right, ‘Against Democracy and Equality.’ They agree with radical traditionalist mystic Julius Evola when see stated that society is most healthy when stratified. They are against democracy, as they don’t see the masses as having the ability to rule. They are in favor of an upper controlling elite with aristocratic interests, as they believe that there is inherently a class best meant to rule. They believe in the pure rule of genetics over identity, where things like racial ethnicity as having a determining factor over internal qualities like temperament and intelligence. They believe in nationalism, where a set people have interests in each other rather than the rest of society. They are often also opposed to capitalism, but this is because they capitalism creates too much equality and takes the importance away from nation and race. They instead want to purposely re-enforce social stratification and separation instead of just allowing some measure of this to happen on its own, as is the neoliberal situation. They may or may not support totalitarian state measures, but they always support a form of social authoritarianism where a society has strict social mores set by elites whose interest is maintaining a social order.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

To me its waste of time to debate with Chinese. Their emperor Xi said yes they wont say No. Their Media says the moon is bigger than the Sun they will belive so withou doubt. There are reasons why Chinese vs many, there are reasons no one likes them and listen to their crap. There are reasons why Manchurian, Mongols, Japan once invaded China they commit brutal acts massacred and rape. Unfortunate, the Manchu and Mongol paid the great price once rule China for too long.

Afterwards we always got revenge. Mongols were smashed by the Ming, their capital sacked (both their capital in China and their capital in Mongolia) and they were separated into small rival Khannates that were individually conquered.

Yongle Emperor's campaigns against the Mongols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manchus? They lost every war except one when they got lucky (by a traitor allowing them to pass the gates). Now they lost their language, half of them abandoned their identity to become Hans.

Japan? Didn't even have to take personal revenge, US smashed them for us.

Did Vietnam ever get revenge on a great power for their losses? Who will avenge the deaths of the innocents that Vietnam suffered to Japan and US? Nobody. They died for nothing. And what of your so called "1000 years conquest" by Chinese? If that was indeed a crime - how come nobody has ever avenged it? That's the truth of this world. Nothing is a sin until it has been avenged.

 

[Desert Fox]

BTW, what are you guys referring to by Fascism? Fascism as in Italian Fascism?? AFAIK Nazi Germany wasn't Fascist, it was National Socialist.