Hu a big disappointment

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Winston
Funny how communists suddenly get re-labeled to fascists once enough focus is directed at their true nature.

When they were brutal murderous party dictatorship that controlled nearly the entire economy through a system of collectivisation and communes, it's fine to call them communists. Now that they're a brutal murderious party dictatorship that owns substantially less of the economy and allows a system of private enterprise and a form of capitalism, maybe it's time to re-evaluate the labels.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Chegitz: I wouldn't trust the CCP on making real socialism. They are becoming an increasingly fascist nationalist party, and I bet they'll use their wealth for international power, instead of for catering to the needs of the population.

They're not fascist nor are they in danger of becoming fascist. Fascism requires an outraged middle classes, a capitalist class in political control but in economic trouble, and a combative working class. None of these elements exist in China.

[Az]

But if you look at China's history...do you really think China will ever become a Western-ized democracy? I don't think so. They've always had a centralized government. If they develop an Easternized form of democracy, then I think it would probably be more successful.

What the hell is "easternized democracy"?

Centralization of government isn't the key here, though one may say that one creates the other. The issue here is the exploitation of millions of people, lack of public feedback and discussion, restrictions on public discussion, the creation of enormous living standard gaps, runaway nationalism. It's like everything anyone ever threw at the west from the left side of the map, but on an overdose of uppers.

[Az]

They're not fascist nor are they in danger of becoming fascist. Fascism requires an outraged middle classes, a capitalist class in political control but in economic trouble, and a combative working class. None of these elements exist in China.

This is all very fine and well on paper. In reality, new fascism can grow quite well in other ways. It's not your regular dictatorship we're talking about, either.

[chequita guevara]

That fact that it shares superfical features with aspects of fascism doesn't make China fascist.

Fascism is a specific class-based movement, not simply a nasty dictatorship. Since that movement never existed in China, it can't have taken power.

It's also unlikely that facsism will arise in China. The capitalists are booming, so they don't need fascism. The workers are already repressed, so there's no need to crush them. Furthermore, the capitalists don't have political power, so they can't hand it over to the fascists to make things right for them.

[Az]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am not a big fan of classifying regimes by how they came into being. I prefer to see their structure.

I know that fascism isn't a great term, But I can't find a term that fits it more. It's not a generic dictatorship. It's something completely new, I think.

[chequita guevara]

It's a bureaucratic proletarian dictatorship on top of a peasant-capitalist economy. It's Stalinism. It's not new, it's old. The new aspect is that they've opened CP membership to capitalists, which may become a problem for them in the future.

[Winston]

Most importantly, switching labels around once the dirty laundry starts showing enables the majority of leftists to distance themselves from each and every communist regime in history - and yet still keep the dream alive.

You wonder how they keep their blinkers from watering, just by the sheer beauty of such perpetual self deception.

[Sprayber]

Why was it that India could become a democracy (or at least semi function as one) while China can't seem to get over the hill. Is it just a matter of history and no real experience at all in those areas. Was British rule enough in India to plant the seed or was it just luck. What does this say for Russia. Will they fully escape their past or slide back into despotism.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Winston
Funny how communists suddenly get re-labeled to fascists once enough focus is directed at their true nature.

The problem is the "communist party of China" hasn't been communist for the last 30 years. They're just another single party dictatorship who repressess minorities and feeds its people a steady diet of nationalist garbage. They not only allow private ownership but they encourage it and attempt to foster more as long as it works to the benifet of the state.

What do you call the form of government which is hyper nationalistic, represses minorities, beats up bad memories of supposed past humiliations, represses libeity & rights, and demands that all industry be organized for the benifet of the "national good"? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quakes like a duck then don't you think it is likely a duck?

[Dinner]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's also unlikely that facsism will arise in China. The capitalists are booming, so they don't need fascism. /QUOTE]

One of the fundimental tenets of facism is that industry should be privately owned but regulated so that it benifets the state. Laws which promote Chinese instead of foreign ownership, which block imports, which demand local production be started for companies wishing to sell in China, and that repress worker rights all sound like regulations designed to serve the needs of the state.

Facism is a one party state where private ownership is encouraged but where everything is designed to promote and support the needs of the state. That's different from regulat capitalism or the statism of communism.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Az

But if you look at China's history...do you really think China will ever become a Western-ized democracy? I don't think so. They've always had a centralized government. If they develop an Easternized form of democracy, then I think it would probably be more successful.

What the hell is "easternized democracy"?

Centralization of government isn't the key here, though one may say that one creates the other. The issue here is the exploitation of millions of people, lack of public feedback and discussion, restrictions on public discussion, the creation of enormous living standard gaps, runaway nationalism. It's like everything anyone ever threw at the west from the left side of the map, but on an overdose of uppers.

Modified democracy. I think China was going down that path before I heard about all these crackdowns. To myself and a couple of my sociology profs, China WAS, was but apparently isn't now, evolving into a different type of government...wasn't quite Western democracy, but it wasn't quite Communism as well.

But I think policy makers have to look at China's history before making prejudgments. Any nations history can be used as insight into their policies and thinking. I think if American policymakers studied China's history a little better, we (America) could come out faaar better and look impressive to the rest of the world.

But that would take a lot of effort I don't think we want to expend.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That fact that it shares superfical features with aspects of fascism doesn't make China fascist.

Fascism is a specific class-based movement, not simply a nasty dictatorship. Since that movement never existed in China, it can't have taken power.

It's also unlikely that facsism will arise in China. The capitalists are booming, so they don't need fascism. The workers are already repressed, so there's no need to crush them. Furthermore, the capitalists don't have political power, so they can't hand it over to the fascists to make things right for them.

Exactly. What I think we fail to understand is that we (Americans) tend to say that "if it ain't Democracy, it's evil". A debate I had with one of my good friends studying polysci might give some insight.

My friend said that if you look at America's birth, we were fighting a Monarchy. He said that at America's founding, it was either "Democracy" which was the founding states, or "everything else". If you didn't support democracy, you were classified as a royalist. While I'm not putting it into his exact words, I do believe our nation still has this belief.

Furthermore, he stated that Europe has a better grasp of different political and social movements because they've always been exposed to it. Fascist Germany, Stalinist Russia, Monarchies, etc etc. Basically, America has had exposure to Monarchies. Again, I'm not exactly saying this right. But he said it's always been Democracy or bust for America.

The conversation I had with my friend was very insightful into politics and social movements. But just food for thought.

[Ned]

It looks like Hu is a hard liner who is bound to piss of a lot of people who are now enjoying some freedom. The harder he pushes, the sooner the collapse of the CCP.

[Urban Ranger]

...and launched a violent campaign to crush the popular Falun Gong spiritual movement.

I stopped reading there. It's like saying Aum Shinri Kyo is a popular spiritual movement.