That raises an interesting point. Maybe China doesn't currently exhibit that behavior, but the People's Liberation Army certainly did. Remember all the operas in which the female soldier was a heroine? If you include waging war against your own, then there is a core of this in China. But you point is well taken. Perhaps you are reading 'mouse too literally. The classic definition of fascism may be too tightly bound to the Italian and German experience of it. One can still label the PRC fascist relatively.
Maybe, but at that time China was firmly in the Communist camp. The discussion at present is what political label we should put on China as of recent times.
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood". Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
My Cantonese grandfather, a landowner and my uncles, aunts, and cousins doctors, lawyers and one of which, a mayor, were all executed in 1949 to Mao's dictates; my continued interest in political science; my commercial dealings and educational involvement; and personal visits to China, particularly in the past 20 years, and 'Fascism' never a description, heard or ventured.
The father of one of my close friends was also executed. He was a property owner, banker, and finance minister.
Later on the day of the execution they came to the family's home and demanded payment for the bullet used in the execution. Something like 5 cents, just as an insult to injury.
I thought one of the most predominate characteristics of Fascism was the view that war waging was a character building virtue. China has not really exhibited this type of philosophy.
I wouldn't consider that a necessary characteristic, to an extraordinary degree, unless one wishes to define fascism so narrowly that it applies only to historical states. On the other hand, they aren't exactly an entirely pacific regime. The point, though, is that they aren't Communist, they are a brutal, repressive, authoritarian regime that shares more characteristics of Fascism than of anything else.
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
My Cantonese grandfather, a landowner and my uncles, aunts, and cousins doctors, lawyers and one of which, a mayor, were all executed in 1949 to Mao's dictates; my continued interest in political science; my commercial dealings and educational involvement; and personal visits to China, particularly in the past 20 years, and 'Fascism' never a description, heard or ventured.
None of the above lends support to your position. It's simply become convention to refer to China as a communist state, even when the actions and policies of the regime no longer bear any resemblance to the same.
I wouldn't consider that a necessary characteristic, to an extraordinary degree, unless one wishes to define fascism so narrowly that it applies only to historical states. On the other hand, they aren't exactly an entirely pacific regime. The point, though, is that they aren't Communist, they are a brutal, repressive, authoritarian regime that shares more characteristics of Fascism than of anything else.
Comparatively the most obvious differences between Communism and Fascism as it relates to China is that in China there are some elements of capitalism and private property ownership but aside from that what are the other differences within your description of 'brutal, authoritarian and repressive' that makes them any more or less objectionable than those same characteristics in Communism?
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood". Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Exactly. Compare for example to this entry:
Quote:
Communism
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate...
Now, which of these sounds more like present day China?
Let's hear your choice of existing political labels and why you think it's more accurate. To call them "Communist" is simply fantasy today.
That's all well and good, but you avoided a direct answer to his question. I was very curious to hear it. Just what would be your descriptor label for the PRC today?
I had never called them "Communist." Well, not exactly true. I did prior to NIxon's visit in 1972. Up to that time, I had spent most of my leisure time perusing military and socio-political studies outside of China. But after reading most of the books, particularly on the generals of World War II, my interest turned towards Vietnam. It was after reading on Ho Chi Min and how Truman turned him away when he asked for help to repatriate Vietnam from the French. So 7 years of combat and 50,000 American lies later, a conflict that could have been prevented because of a fear of communism that didn't represent China's or Russia's form of government.
Today, I try not to label anybody. But for China, it is 'communist' with a lower case 'c' as the US is a democracy with a lower case 'd'. There is no society true or perfect to either.
Today, I try not to label anybody. But for China, it is 'communist' with a lower case 'c' as the US is a democracy with a lower case 'd'. There is no society true or perfect to either.
And to call China a Fascist state is ludicrous.
It makes more sense than calling them anything else. Why is it even, "'communist' with a lower case 'c'?" They have absolutely no characteristics that would make them a communist state. Just because the ruling party is named the "Communist Party"? That's ludicrous.
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and
[Fascists ]produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Do you know what eugenics means. Certainly a policy that China has not proposed or the "…rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Sounds like 'Fascism' could well be a label for many of the 'white' supremacy groups in America.
Do you know what eugenics means. Certainly a policy that China has not proposed or the "?rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Sounds like 'Fascism' could well be a label for many of the 'white' supremacy groups in America.
No need to be insulting, I really was curious to hear what you had to say, not being snarky.
Sorry my basic intelligence was not evident in my previous posts. Yes, eugenics was practiced by those of my racial background (German) in WWII. I don't think it is too big a stretch to include the Chinese policy of limiting the number of children, and the common practice of limiting female births within the rubric of eugenics. Anyway, that's what passed through my mind as I read the fascism definition I posted. Also resonating from your quote above is the fact that China is a pretty homogeneous society, and that members of minority groups (Uighurs for instance) are routinely looked upon as outsiders. Certainly China is much less diverse than the U.S. And let's not even get into how mixed "blood" Chinese are received at home.
As for Fascism being a label for American white supremacists--no argument from me there.
But all this is really irrelevant to main points of the definition of fascism--read the first (and primary) parts of the definition and tell me how they don't apply. You keep avoiding the main points of our (Anonymouse and me) argument.
But all this is really irrelevant to main points of the definition of fascism--read the first (and primary) parts of the definition and tell me how they don't apply. You keep avoiding the main points of our (Anonymouse and me) argument.
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
Something I would equally oppose on your categorization of China.
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
The U.S. may be in grave danger of slipping into fascism, but that has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether China is. You've dodged questions, selectively picked your own "parts", tried to distract from the issue. Your assertion that China is communist is patently absurd. China is now, in all meaningful ways a fascist state.
Well said. The net result is an oligarchy in both countries.
In the US, 97 families made over $500 million last year. 31 of them paid zero tax. The average was 17% tax.
GE made $14 billion last year and paid zero tax. The average for US Corporations was 6%.
Something is amiss, afoot, alas!
They paid zero tax because of tax loopholes on subsidiary or overseas operations.
Any money generated from a companies external or overseas operations are not taxed by US law. Even if they are US headquartered companies.
There are billions upon billions of dollars just sitting in foreign bank accounts under US companies ownership. Nobody wants to brings these cash into the US for fear of them getting taxed.
There are talks in congress of plugging this loophole for good. But there is heavy opposition, as expected, from the business community.
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
Something I would equally oppose on your categorization of China.
Carl Herman is a fringe-oid and his argument embodies a common fallacy: being wrong by degrees of magnitude. I like black music and soul food, by Carl's line of reasoning that would make me African-American.
I haven't been selective, I've supplied Chinese examples for every part of the definition that you've questioned. It's you who persists in failing to address those parts of the definition that are mentioned first in the list and I would argue are there because they are the primary ones.
Yes, my "loose" definition could allow the label of fascism to be applied to other governments, if they were as good a fit. But I don't think many are.
I can't help but wonder why someone whose family has been so victimized by the PRC regime is so keen on protecting them from a negative moniker. Or is your argument purely academic--what you see as the misapplication of a term?
For what it's worth, I don't think China is necessarily going to remain fascistic forever. I am an optimist. And to put an appropriately ludicrous closing punctuation on this pleasant exchange let me leave you with a quote from Ferris Buehler's Day Off:
"Ferris: I do have a test today, that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car."
I can't help but wonder why someone whose family has been so victimized by the PRC regime is so keen on protecting them from a negative moniker.
Having a father who expound daily the doctrine of Confucius.
Shortly after receiving the tragic news, my dad expounded, "You don't tear down your house because of a bad brick." And, "In time it will be replaced. Perhaps not in mine, but hopefully yours."
Again he was right, as we now see a resurgence and even an acceptance in China today.
... Again he was right, as we now see a resurgence and even an acceptance in China today.
Almost as though the government has purged forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community.
Of course, those who died in Tiananmen Square were perhaps not as sanguine as you.
Comments
That raises an interesting point. Maybe China doesn't currently exhibit that behavior, but the People's Liberation Army certainly did. Remember all the operas in which the female soldier was a heroine? If you include waging war against your own, then there is a core of this in China. But you point is well taken. Perhaps you are reading 'mouse too literally. The classic definition of fascism may be too tightly bound to the Italian and German experience of it. One can still label the PRC fascist relatively.
Maybe, but at that time China was firmly in the Communist camp. The discussion at present is what political label we should put on China as of recent times.
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood". Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
My Cantonese grandfather, a landowner and my uncles, aunts, and cousins doctors, lawyers and one of which, a mayor, were all executed in 1949 to Mao's dictates; my continued interest in political science; my commercial dealings and educational involvement; and personal visits to China, particularly in the past 20 years, and 'Fascism' never a description, heard or ventured.
The father of one of my close friends was also executed. He was a property owner, banker, and finance minister.
Later on the day of the execution they came to the family's home and demanded payment for the bullet used in the execution. Something like 5 cents, just as an insult to injury.
I thought one of the most predominate characteristics of Fascism was the view that war waging was a character building virtue. China has not really exhibited this type of philosophy.
I wouldn't consider that a necessary characteristic, to an extraordinary degree, unless one wishes to define fascism so narrowly that it applies only to historical states. On the other hand, they aren't exactly an entirely pacific regime. The point, though, is that they aren't Communist, they are a brutal, repressive, authoritarian regime that shares more characteristics of Fascism than of anything else.
Perhaps you could lend some support to your position.
My Cantonese grandfather, a landowner and my uncles, aunts, and cousins doctors, lawyers and one of which, a mayor, were all executed in 1949 to Mao's dictates; my continued interest in political science; my commercial dealings and educational involvement; and personal visits to China, particularly in the past 20 years, and 'Fascism' never a description, heard or ventured.
None of the above lends support to your position. It's simply become convention to refer to China as a communist state, even when the actions and policies of the regime no longer bear any resemblance to the same.
Take em to the roof.
Take em to the Aperture science and learning center. Cake will be served.
I wouldn't consider that a necessary characteristic, to an extraordinary degree, unless one wishes to define fascism so narrowly that it applies only to historical states. On the other hand, they aren't exactly an entirely pacific regime. The point, though, is that they aren't Communist, they are a brutal, repressive, authoritarian regime that shares more characteristics of Fascism than of anything else.
Comparatively the most obvious differences between Communism and Fascism as it relates to China is that in China there are some elements of capitalism and private property ownership but aside from that what are the other differences within your description of 'brutal, authoritarian and repressive' that makes them any more or less objectionable than those same characteristics in Communism?
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood". Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Exactly. Compare for example to this entry:
Communism
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate...
Now, which of these sounds more like present day China?
The Axe? No. There's 3 of them right? Apple should just make a HumanCENTiPAD!
LOL. Why won't it read???
LOL. Why won't it read???
"Mom, give me your lipstick. Because I want to look pretty when I get...."
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Let's hear your choice of existing political labels and why you think it's more accurate. To call them "Communist" is simply fantasy today.
That's all well and good, but you avoided a direct answer to his question. I was very curious to hear it. Just what would be your descriptor label for the PRC today?
I had never called them "Communist." Well, not exactly true. I did prior to NIxon's visit in 1972. Up to that time, I had spent most of my leisure time perusing military and socio-political studies outside of China. But after reading most of the books, particularly on the generals of World War II, my interest turned towards Vietnam. It was after reading on Ho Chi Min and how Truman turned him away when he asked for help to repatriate Vietnam from the French. So 7 years of combat and 50,000 American lies later, a conflict that could have been prevented because of a fear of communism that didn't represent China's or Russia's form of government.
Today, I try not to label anybody. But for China, it is 'communist' with a lower case 'c' as the US is a democracy with a lower case 'd'. There is no society true or perfect to either.
And to call China a Fascist state is ludicrous.
Today, I try not to label anybody. But for China, it is 'communist' with a lower case 'c' as the US is a democracy with a lower case 'd'. There is no society true or perfect to either.
And to call China a Fascist state is ludicrous.
It makes more sense than calling them anything else. Why is it even, "'communist' with a lower case 'c'?" They have absolutely no characteristics that would make them a communist state. Just because the ruling party is named the "Communist Party"? That's ludicrous.
I don't wish to answer for him, but after checking the Wikipedia citation for fascism I cannot help but see support:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and
[Fascists ]produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."
Seems to me that quite a bit of this would seem to apply. Based on your experience perhaps you could offer some reasons as to how these elements don't apply to the PRC?
Do you know what eugenics means. Certainly a policy that China has not proposed or the "…rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Sounds like 'Fascism' could well be a label for many of the 'white' supremacy groups in America.
FYI: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm
Do you know what eugenics means. Certainly a policy that China has not proposed or the "?rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".
Sounds like 'Fascism' could well be a label for many of the 'white' supremacy groups in America.
FYI: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm
No need to be insulting, I really was curious to hear what you had to say, not being snarky.
Sorry my basic intelligence was not evident in my previous posts. Yes, eugenics was practiced by those of my racial background (German) in WWII. I don't think it is too big a stretch to include the Chinese policy of limiting the number of children, and the common practice of limiting female births within the rubric of eugenics. Anyway, that's what passed through my mind as I read the fascism definition I posted. Also resonating from your quote above is the fact that China is a pretty homogeneous society, and that members of minority groups (Uighurs for instance) are routinely looked upon as outsiders. Certainly China is much less diverse than the U.S. And let's not even get into how mixed "blood" Chinese are received at home.
As for Fascism being a label for American white supremacists--no argument from me there.
But all this is really irrelevant to main points of the definition of fascism--read the first (and primary) parts of the definition and tell me how they don't apply. You keep avoiding the main points of our (Anonymouse and me) argument.
But all this is really irrelevant to main points of the definition of fascism--read the first (and primary) parts of the definition and tell me how they don't apply. You keep avoiding the main points of our (Anonymouse and me) argument.
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
Something I would equally oppose on your categorization of China.
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-no...ional-republic
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
The U.S. may be in grave danger of slipping into fascism, but that has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether China is. You've dodged questions, selectively picked your own "parts", tried to distract from the issue. Your assertion that China is communist is patently absurd. China is now, in all meaningful ways a fascist state.
Well said. The net result is an oligarchy in both countries.
In the US, 97 families made over $500 million last year. 31 of them paid zero tax. The average was 17% tax.
GE made $14 billion last year and paid zero tax. The average for US Corporations was 6%.
Something is amiss, afoot, alas!
They paid zero tax because of tax loopholes on subsidiary or overseas operations.
Any money generated from a companies external or overseas operations are not taxed by US law. Even if they are US headquartered companies.
There are billions upon billions of dollars just sitting in foreign bank accounts under US companies ownership. Nobody wants to brings these cash into the US for fear of them getting taxed.
There are talks in congress of plugging this loophole for good. But there is heavy opposition, as expected, from the business community.
By selectively picking just the parts you want to apply, your definition could hold true for many governments of the world.
Worse, such a loose meaning could equally help to justify Carl Herman's discern that, "American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic worthy of consideration.
Something I would equally oppose on your categorization of China.
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-no...ional-republic
Carl Herman is a fringe-oid and his argument embodies a common fallacy: being wrong by degrees of magnitude. I like black music and soul food, by Carl's line of reasoning that would make me African-American.
I haven't been selective, I've supplied Chinese examples for every part of the definition that you've questioned. It's you who persists in failing to address those parts of the definition that are mentioned first in the list and I would argue are there because they are the primary ones.
Yes, my "loose" definition could allow the label of fascism to be applied to other governments, if they were as good a fit. But I don't think many are.
I can't help but wonder why someone whose family has been so victimized by the PRC regime is so keen on protecting them from a negative moniker. Or is your argument purely academic--what you see as the misapplication of a term?
For what it's worth, I don't think China is necessarily going to remain fascistic forever. I am an optimist. And to put an appropriately ludicrous closing punctuation on this pleasant exchange let me leave you with a quote from Ferris Buehler's Day Off:
"Ferris: I do have a test today, that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car."
Peace out.
I can't help but wonder why someone whose family has been so victimized by the PRC regime is so keen on protecting them from a negative moniker.
Having a father who expound daily the doctrine of Confucius.
Shortly after receiving the tragic news, my dad expounded, "You don't tear down your house because of a bad brick." And, "In time it will be replaced. Perhaps not in mine, but hopefully yours."
Again he was right, as we now see a resurgence and even an acceptance in China today.
Confucius: Peace?
... Again he was right, as we now see a resurgence and even an acceptance in China today.
Almost as though the government has purged forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community.
Of course, those who died in Tiananmen Square were perhaps not as sanguine as you.