China- communist or fascist?

[feistymongol]

China isn't even socialist in ideal anymore, and it definitely isn't the USSR of the 80s. There are no food queues in China or widely patronized state distribution centers. There's a large amount of free market wheeling and dealing going on. I read an article about how many of the PRC military officers work as merchants during their off time even though they are full time enlisted men. If they did this in the former USSR most likely they would have been sent to a gulag for defying the tenets of communism. In Mao's China they would have been shot. I define modern day China as a state controlled oligarchy, rather than the commonly defined fascist or communist.

The reason I say this is because there is a nominal amount of corporate/private leeway in ownership. The higher up PRC party still controls everything, even though they let it trickle down to the people. Important resources and the majority of the country's wealth is probably possessed within a few powerful party member's hands in China. They can make it or break it overnight but instead they let it run while keeping a watchful eye. I wouldn't doubt that many of the politicians have very deep pockets but not enough to draw attention or break the system down.

 

[Greadius]

I usually associate facism with the cult of personality behind a leader. China is really not that centralized of a power structure, its more a lack of balance between the state and the people that keeps it from being free. In the technical political science terms I think authoritarian government is much more appropriate.

However, I do find it odd that the word 'capitalism' gets thrown around when one has to be an avowed and educated Communist to hold positions of power, a Revolutionary council and People's Congress are important government institutions, and the Communist party controls most aspects of social life. Chinese economic control resembles more of a mercantilsm or social democratic state control (without the democracy).
Most workers in China are employees of the state, however, and that is certainly not capitalism.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

On behalf of genuine fascists, I object to being categorized with the ChiComms. Their 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' does indeed have a strong nationalist bent to it, but it is vastly different from our correct, inevitable and glorious doctrine.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'm sure you're right...I don't have much recent knowledge on China. I'm making assumptions of the economic conditions from the political conditions.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my last post, wasn't in a very good mood last night...

I think you and Greadius make good points in that many of the political conditions favor the Communist party and its officials. feistymongol does make a good point though, that the country is really no longer socialist in ideal.

Dark One, no offense was intended. I recognize the need for a good and proper regime, and certainly did not mean to compare the hollow shell of what I called fascism in China with your glorious plans :vampire: :tank:

 

[ComradeDavo]

China is not communist at all. I would say it was quite fascist, but not to the extreme.

'State communism' is stupid, whenever it is the party in control it is NOT socialism or communism (grrr I hate leninist 'party' crap) as the workers DO NOT have the power.

 

[nixon]

China is no way near being fascist, I wonder how you got the notion in the first place. China is built on Maoist foundations and remains to do so. One's sure that the ChiComms would be delighted to hear that some people call them fascists.

 

[Bifrost]

I voted 'smthg else' because China had never been neither communistic nor fascist country, it has always been the capitalistic but non-democratic country. I'm sorry, but I cant translate their official status, but i can say China has a highly developed small-business system , NOTE!--> in communistic country business is completely forbidden! All the time USSR existed, China always was of a more liberal position. China is somewhere in the middle between Democracy and Communism

 

[feistymongol]

Originally posted by nixon
China is no way near being fascist, I wonder how you got the notion in the first place. China is built on Maoist foundations and remains to do so.

Wrong. China is far from Maoist foundations ever since Deng Xiao peng started his reforms back in the 70's.

Now Nixon, you can proceed to tell us how all Chinese are evil and how fascism and richard nixon is great.

 

[lordwu84]

Maoist foundations...

Feisty Mongol.., you mean the economic reforms of Deng Xiao Ping? right. and he was ruthlessly persecuted and almost killed by Mao. I'm sure he "remembered" his Maoist foundations

 

[feistymongol]

Originally posted by lordwu84
Maoist foundations...

Feisty Mongol.., you mean the economic reforms of Deng Xiao Ping? right. and he was ruthlessly persecuted and almost killed by Mao. I'm sure he "remembered" his Maoist foundations

Arg, you're correct, I mixed up my chinese presidents i'll go back and correct that. Though Jiang Zemin did pretty much carry on what Deng Xiao Ping started.

 

[tonberry]

Originally posted by NY Hoya


Fascism doesn't necessarily require overt racism in the way we think of the Nazis. It has much more to do with the mobilization of the "people" or "volk" toward the goal of the state, without making class distinctions. China is very nationalistic, either go there and visit or look up some articles on the country's effort to win the 2008 Olympic games and then on the aftermath of that effort's success to see it. Much more of the state influence appears aimed at advancing China and Chinese prosperity than toward providing for some underprivileged (the "working) class.

Err... no. Japan, for example, were fascist but not nazi. In 1942 they invade Burma and begin to "erase" Karen population (a local ethnic group).

 

[nixon]

Originally posted by feistymongol


Wrong. China is far from Maoist foundations ever since Deng Xiao peng started his reforms back in the 70's.

Now Nixon, you can proceed to tell us how all Chinese are evil and how fascism and richard nixon is great.

1) Oh, now it's Deng Xiao Ping.
No, one's not wrong, you sickening little sinophile. The Chinese leadership knows which buttons is has to push in order to loosen up the economy from which the government is the only factor which enjoys the benefits of this process. China is communist, you silly lowlife and it remains to stay that way. It is only because of the gigantic population and the massive natural resources, that China is able to boost so powerfully, which suddenly leads the minds of many people to a deluded notion that China is jumping off the red train. China has just found a better way of boosting the economy in order to speed up the pace of its military development.

2) Trust me, your little skull wouldn't be able to process and comprehend why one thinks Richard Nixon was a great man, and certainly not fascism. Now, do go back to mommy and your nursing bottle.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In communism the people have power, in China the party has power, therefore China is not communist. Neither was the USSR, or Cuba or North Korea etc.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by tonberry
Err... no. Japan, for example, were fascist but not nazi. In 1942 they invade Burma and begin to "erase" Karen population (a local ethnic group).

When did I say Japan was not fascist and not racist during the 30's and 40's? Just because you can provide an example of a fascist country other than Nazi Germany that happened to be racist does not mean all fascist countries must be racist...

Does the fact that China persecutes ethnic minorities in its western provinces make it more fascist? I don't think so.

here is the basic definition of fascism I'm using:

- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Note the use of the word "typically" in place of always. Also, as I have stated before, China does embrace nationalistic concepts.


Here is the definition of communism I am using:

- A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Both definitions are from dictionary.com. Using these definitions I came to the conclusion that the Chinese government more closely resembles the former. If you are of the opinion that any fascist government must also be an overtly racist, imperialistic, ethnic cleansing government, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
In communism the people have power, in China the party has power, therefore China is not communist. Neither was the USSR, or Cuba or North Korea etc.

You're comparing theoretical communism to the applications of communism through Stalinism, Maoism, etc. I understand your argument and agree that what we call communism as practiced by China and the USSR is not what Marx and Engels advocated. I disagree that pure communism is even possible, as we have discussed in other threads.

For the purposes of this argument can we agree to disagree and let us continue to refer to Maoism/Stalinism/etc as communism? We can even put quotes around it if that will help to make you happy.


Edited for clarity. I hope.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
In communism the people have power, in China the party has power, therefore China is not communist. Neither was the USSR, or Cuba or North Korea etc.

Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Under your reasoning, the U.S. isn't really "capitalist."

Government gives subsidies to corporations, and the money that the government has is public money. Therefore, the government is the investor into corporations, not a private entity. So, the United States is actually a low degree of quasi-socialism.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by NY Hoya


You're comparing theoretical communism with communism as opposed to the practical applications thereof through Stalinism, Maoism, etc. I understand your argument and agree that what we call communism as practiced by China and the USSR is not what Marx and Engels advocated. I disagree that pure communism is even possible, as we have discussed in other threads.

For the purposes of this argument can we agree to disagree and let us continue to refer to Maoism/Stalinism/etc as communism? We can even put quotes around it if that will help to make you happy.

Okay, fair do's, as long as it is understood that there are many varying forms of communism.

In a Marxist (or council communist etc) perspective they are not communist.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by nixon
1) Oh, now it's Deng Xiao Ping.
No, one's not wrong, you sickening little sinophile. The Chinese leadership knows which buttons is has to push in order to loosen up the economy from which the government is the only factor which enjoys the benefits of this process. China is communist, you silly lowlife and it remains to stay that way. It is only because of the gigantic population and the massive natural resources, that China is able to boost so powerfully, which suddenly leads the minds of many people to a deluded notion that China is jumping off the red train. China has just found a better way of boosting the economy in order to speed up the pace of its military development.

It was Deng, as stated in the first post of this thread. 1978, IIRC. And just because China is no longer communist does not mean that you have to cease your crusade against the evil Chinese government. Said crusade should gain even more support as the liberals, socialists and other assorted lefties decry China's evil, fascist empire.

I urge you to visit the worker's paradise that is Hong Kong. It is meant to serve as a beacon for the rest of China as it transitions to a freer market. Or perhaps go visit one of the several IBM joint venture projects in Shenzhen and tell them they aren't collecting profits from those ventures. Again, as I and others in this thread have mentioned, China has started to allow both small businesses and non-government owned large businesses to operate within its borders, and it isn't just the party or the collective "people/workers" that are profiting from those operations. My thesis that China now has a fascist government may be incorrect, but I am certain that its government is a far cry from communism.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Under your reasoning, the U.S. isn't really "capitalist."

Government gives subsidies to corporations, and the money that the government has is public money. Therefore, the government is the investor into corporations, not a private entity. So, the United States is actually a low degree of quasi-socialism.

I of course diasgree with you.

Subisidies are economic incentives to attract companies to generate economic growth to help the countries economy.

The companies are still in the hands of buisnessmen and corparations.

I fail to see how this is anything but capitalist.

 

[:)civ2]

I live in america so i don't care!