They try to out fascist the fascists, by being total monsters but pretending to have “concern” about Israel, or workers rights, or anything. As if everyone really wanted to be exploited by corporations but with gay marriage and token actions taken in their favor while workers are further stripped by the super rich.
The answer is to run a populist alternative, not a fake populism like the Right that scapegoats, one that accurately identifies the villains and the problems they cause, and gives a solution that can actually work.
They are hopeless, and until you realize the “liberals” are controlled opposition of the oligarchy, chosen to be weak, to not upset the license further garnered by rich every term, it doesn’t make sense as to why they would suck so bad.
It’s really true though, chosen to be weak, chosen to cave to the other aggressive party, to not change anything back let alone make it better. Just emptly platitudes, perfunctionary efforts at fulfilling promises, a lack of any real politik, and a reason for being of preventing popular reform while being the party of popular reform.
Since people here have seen all this sinophobic propaganda countless times already and thoroughly debunked it all, you’re going to go ahead and confidently spew tired, gullible U.S. State Department talking points and lies to be debunked yet again for the umpteenth time because you’re either painfully naive and depressingly uneducated or you have an explicit pro-U.S. anti-China agenda you’re desperately trying to spread.
Cult of Personality / Leader. From Mao to Xi Jinping, the allegiance to their leaders is much more strongly enforced when compared to Trump. US has term limits and doesn’t even permit a “leader for life.”
Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.
Radical Nationalism. The “Chinese Dream” and “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation” emphasize righting the wrongs of the “Century of Humiliation.” This is often exclusionary, emphasizing Han Chinese identity over others. US has a broader international identity and is much less isolationist.
Han Chinese are not placed above ethnic minorities in the PRC or non-Chinese externally. The PRC has strong minority representation at the state level, and legal protections for them. The PRC isn’t isolationist either, it trades and partners with practically everyone, especially the global south. The US Empire brutally oppresses ethnic minorities, and is dominated by old, white men at the state level. The US Empire is also imperialist, and interventionist, while being extremely nationalist.
Control of Media. China maintains the world’s most sophisticated digital censorship system (The Great Firewall). All domestic media is state-aligned. Under the principle of Dang Guan Meiti (“The Party controls the media”), all news outlets in China are legally considered the “mouthpiece” of the Communist Party.
The Great Firewall isn’t censorship, it’s to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.
Economic Corporatism. While corporate lobbying is very strong in the US, they still have an adversarial relationship. Corporations will often do stuff like suing the US government. Meanwhile in China, all corporations are required to have CCP cells and align their goals with state national interests. They effectively seized control of corporations for nationalistic purposes (epitome of fascism).
This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.
Suppression of Labor. All labor unions must belong to the state-sanctioned All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Independent strikes and labor organizing are illegal and strictly suppressed. There are strong anti-union sentiments in the US, but independent unionizing is still very much legally permitted.
Labor isn’t suppressed, the PRC restricts independent organizations that can be steered by the west in favor of fully integrating unions into the socialist system itself, in the form of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Unions in the US Empire are extremely weakened and the state sides with capital over them.
You fundamentally do not know what fascism is because you think it’s public ownership.
Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.
First part is true. Though it’s ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.
While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. “Popularity” is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not “radical change” as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.
The Great Firewall isn’t censorship, it’s to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.
The “protectionism” argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.
Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.
This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.
You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself “Communist.”
First part is true. Though it’s ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.
While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. “Popularity” is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not “radical change” as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.
Trump isn’t a fascist for wanting to remove term limits, Trump is a fascist because the US Empire is a genocidal, imperialist settler-colony where private ownership is principle and the state owned by private capital. In the PRC, on the other hand, over 90% of Chinese citizens support the central government, and ranks far higher than western countries on perceptions of democracy:
The “protectionism” argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.
Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.
The firewall is for protectionism. Discussion on June 4th, 1989 happens in China, just not the propagandized version most westerners are taught in school. Instead, political unity in the socialist system is supported. Opposition has historically been supported by western countries to undermine the socialist system, when supposed “leftists” try to separate from the socialist system and agitate against it, these are suppressed just like liberals because they essentially function the same way.
Meanwhile, the US Empire has murdered communists, and funds massive propaganda networks against them. Liberals act far more out in the open in China, for better or worse, than communists in the US.
You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself “Communist.”
No, “plutocracy” and “oligarchy” are not what I’m talking about. In Mussolini’s economy, private ownership was principle, and capitalists in control of the state. Any capitalists that did not toe the line were punished, sure, by the capitalists in charge od the state. If public ownership is principle, and the working classes are in charge of the state, as in China, then it’s socialist.
The idea that socialism is when corporations are independent of and can control the state, your definition, is absurd and stems purely from your incorrect understanding of fascism.
All labor unions must belong to the state-sanctioned All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Independent strikes and labor organizing are illegal and strictly suppressed. There are strong anti-union sentiments in the US, but independent unionizing is still very much legally permitted.
Westerners can stay mad forever that China won’t allow CIA and NED to set up “independent” “labor unions”.
Everything I said is true and you didn’t refute any of it.
When you order beef and the waiter brings chicken, you point out the mistake. When the waiter bites your nose, what do you do?
This is a leftist space. Debunking is something done in general forums, when you’re trying to inform the audience. No one here is gonna waste their precious time debunking any of that for the 100th time lol
To be fair, this isn’t an explicitly leftist space, just a space with a lot of leftists and moderated by them. Clear debunking of anti-communist mythos does have value, as many anti-communists and other liberals do come here.
You imply that it is good to have term limits, despite the fact that it is clearly un-democractic to limit who the people can vote for. If the people like someone and think they should continue their work, they should be allowed to do so. [EDIT:] And if China did have term limits… what would it change? Xi ends his terms and then what? Someone else will simply step up.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said it would be better if it was.
No. I implied that it’s not fascistic to have term limits (or less fascistic). I don’t think I said anything was good or bad.
You’re implying that being un-democratic is a bad thing. The US Constitution is also un-democratic, as it doesn’t permit the voting majority to violate the rights of the minority. And I doubt you would consider such mob rule of the majority to be a good thing. Or do you?
No? China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Fascism is the diametric opposite, it’s private ownership as principle and capitalists in charge of the state, ie capitalism, when it needs to violently break up labor organizing and force austerity due to capitalist decay.
Fascist economies seize control of property for nationalistic purposes. Only difference between communism is that they still defer to private property owners while the regime ultimately controls it, as opposed to “the people” owning it.
This is China. They control all their industry for nationalistic purposes. They have a cult of personality leader. Literally every textbook indicator of fascism.
All modern economies have some degree of a public/private split, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason. The difference between capitalism (which fascism is a derivative of) and socialism is which aspect of the economy is principle, private or public, and which class is in control of the state, capitalists or workers. In China, public ownership is principle and the state is under the control of the working classes.
The PRC does use nationalized industry and resources for their own benefit, as does every single country, with the partial exception of colonized and imperialized countries that are exploited by the west. Xi Jinping is popular, but doesn’t have a cult of personality. I don’t know what textbook you’re reading, but if it’s telling you that public ownership is fascist you should probably discard it.
I’m saying “if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.” You’re saying “if it says it’s not a duck, it’s not.”
How is the Chinese economy not fascist corporatism? Because they call it “public ownership”? The CCP mandates all corporations have CCP cells that align with their national interests. They still defer to private property owners who often become very wealthy. (see: Jack Ma). How does a socialist country have people worth almost $30 billion? This is no more socialism than Nazi’s Nat Socs (or rather, it’s equally socialism).
No, I’m saying that tigers are not ducks, and I explained clearly why. No matter how much you point to ducks and tigers both having feet, they aren’t the same in any capacity. The PRC has a publicly driven economy, with the working classes in control of the state. It’s funny that you bring up Jack Ma, because he was punished by the state for acting against socialism. Nazi Germany was driven by private ownership as principle, and a strong state, the fundamental differences lie in whether public ownership or private ownership is principle and which class is in control.
Jack Ma was punished for speaking out against the government’s bank lending policy which prevented people without capital from getting it. Almost the exact opposite of “acting against socialism”. And again, he’s still worth almost $30 billion. Yet you maintain this is somehow socialism, which would require rejecting the private property and capitalism which cornerstones China today.
His punishment further highlights the other tenet of fascism which permits such authoritarian control. If Trump admnistration seized all corporate control (citing their usage for “national interests” or for “the people”), then punished corporate leaders for disagreeing with public policy, would you also say this is somehow not fascism? I imagine you would say he’s very much more fascistic than he is today.
Jack Ma was punished for suggesting that the CPC needed to relinquish control, and privatize more. He wasn’t a billionaire fighting for the working classes, but instead a billionaire fighting for the free movement of capital and liberalization. The fact that the CPC humiliated and punished Jack Ma for trying to undermine the publicly driven economy is precisely evidence of the weakness of private capital within the PRC.
As for Trump, he’s nakedly fascist already. Private ownership is what drives the US economy. Nationalization in such a context strengthens the bourgeois state and facilitates the control of private capital.
At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.
At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.
This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I’ll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:
A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).
Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn’t mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.
China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.
Removed by mod
Neoliberals so far gone, they attack fascism from the right! “fascism is when foreigners”
They try to out fascist the fascists, by being total monsters but pretending to have “concern” about Israel, or workers rights, or anything. As if everyone really wanted to be exploited by corporations but with gay marriage and token actions taken in their favor while workers are further stripped by the super rich.
The answer is to run a populist alternative, not a fake populism like the Right that scapegoats, one that accurately identifies the villains and the problems they cause, and gives a solution that can actually work.
They are hopeless, and until you realize the “liberals” are controlled opposition of the oligarchy, chosen to be weak, to not upset the license further garnered by rich every term, it doesn’t make sense as to why they would suck so bad.
It’s really true though, chosen to be weak, chosen to cave to the other aggressive party, to not change anything back let alone make it better. Just emptly platitudes, perfunctionary efforts at fulfilling promises, a lack of any real politik, and a reason for being of preventing popular reform while being the party of popular reform.
-Guy who totally knows what fascism is
today’s largest fascistic governance comes from the US and spans almost the entire globe.
leftists shouldn’t spread FUD
Removed by mod
Since people here have seen all this sinophobic propaganda countless times already and thoroughly debunked it all, you’re going to go ahead and confidently spew tired, gullible U.S. State Department talking points and lies to be debunked yet again for the umpteenth time because you’re either painfully naive and depressingly uneducated or you have an explicit pro-U.S. anti-China agenda you’re desperately trying to spread.
Yeah, we know, dronie.
Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.
Han Chinese are not placed above ethnic minorities in the PRC or non-Chinese externally. The PRC has strong minority representation at the state level, and legal protections for them. The PRC isn’t isolationist either, it trades and partners with practically everyone, especially the global south. The US Empire brutally oppresses ethnic minorities, and is dominated by old, white men at the state level. The US Empire is also imperialist, and interventionist, while being extremely nationalist.
The Great Firewall isn’t censorship, it’s to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.
This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.
Labor isn’t suppressed, the PRC restricts independent organizations that can be steered by the west in favor of fully integrating unions into the socialist system itself, in the form of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Unions in the US Empire are extremely weakened and the state sides with capital over them.
You fundamentally do not know what fascism is because you think it’s public ownership.
First part is true. Though it’s ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.
While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. “Popularity” is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not “radical change” as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.
The “protectionism” argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.
Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.
You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself “Communist.”
Trump isn’t a fascist for wanting to remove term limits, Trump is a fascist because the US Empire is a genocidal, imperialist settler-colony where private ownership is principle and the state owned by private capital. In the PRC, on the other hand, over 90% of Chinese citizens support the central government, and ranks far higher than western countries on perceptions of democracy:
The firewall is for protectionism. Discussion on June 4th, 1989 happens in China, just not the propagandized version most westerners are taught in school. Instead, political unity in the socialist system is supported. Opposition has historically been supported by western countries to undermine the socialist system, when supposed “leftists” try to separate from the socialist system and agitate against it, these are suppressed just like liberals because they essentially function the same way.
Meanwhile, the US Empire has murdered communists, and funds massive propaganda networks against them. Liberals act far more out in the open in China, for better or worse, than communists in the US.
No, “plutocracy” and “oligarchy” are not what I’m talking about. In Mussolini’s economy, private ownership was principle, and capitalists in control of the state. Any capitalists that did not toe the line were punished, sure, by the capitalists in charge od the state. If public ownership is principle, and the working classes are in charge of the state, as in China, then it’s socialist.
The idea that socialism is when corporations are independent of and can control the state, your definition, is absurd and stems purely from your incorrect understanding of fascism.
Westerners can stay mad forever that China won’t allow CIA and NED to set up “independent” “labor unions”.
the fuck you are talking about.
state directed != fascism, you know that, right?
state directed + corporatism + extreme nationalism + state control of press and labor + lifetime leader
Name a single thing about the US that is more fascistic than China. I’m willing to concede that such a thing might exist.
here’s more than a single: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
the fascistic us empire has been raining death suffering and poverty all over the planet for decades. china hasn’t been in an active war for decades.
again, the fact that these things are state directed doesn’t make it fascist. that’s not even what fascism is.
Lol. Lmao even.
I would say “lol, lmao even,” but the horrors inflicted on all the non-whites in the US is not a laughing matter.
Sure would be better if it was.
Everything I said is true and you didn’t refute any of it. You do realize that, if you have nothing to say, you don’t have to post, right?
Trump has been leader for 5 years, and will cease leadership in 3 years. Xi has been in power since 2012 and can be leader for the rest of his life.
Now please explain how US is NOT less isolationist than China. This should be good. 🤣
When you order beef and the waiter brings chicken, you point out the mistake. When the waiter bites your nose, what do you do?
This is a leftist space. Debunking is something done in general forums, when you’re trying to inform the audience. No one here is gonna waste their precious time debunking any of that for the 100th time lol
To be fair, this isn’t an explicitly leftist space, just a space with a lot of leftists and moderated by them. Clear debunking of anti-communist mythos does have value, as many anti-communists and other liberals do come here.
You imply that it is good to have term limits, despite the fact that it is clearly un-democractic to limit who the people can vote for. If the people like someone and think they should continue their work, they should be allowed to do so. [EDIT:] And if China did have term limits… what would it change? Xi ends his terms and then what? Someone else will simply step up.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said it would be better if it was.
No. I implied that it’s not fascistic to have term limits (or less fascistic). I don’t think I said anything was good or bad.
You’re implying that being un-democratic is a bad thing. The US Constitution is also un-democratic, as it doesn’t permit the voting majority to violate the rights of the minority. And I doubt you would consider such mob rule of the majority to be a good thing. Or do you?
Do you think so?
So not allowing the majority to enslave the minority is bad? It’s clearly un-democratic.
No? China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Fascism is the diametric opposite, it’s private ownership as principle and capitalists in charge of the state, ie capitalism, when it needs to violently break up labor organizing and force austerity due to capitalist decay.
Fascist economies seize control of property for nationalistic purposes. Only difference between communism is that they still defer to private property owners while the regime ultimately controls it, as opposed to “the people” owning it.
This is China. They control all their industry for nationalistic purposes. They have a cult of personality leader. Literally every textbook indicator of fascism.
All modern economies have some degree of a public/private split, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason. The difference between capitalism (which fascism is a derivative of) and socialism is which aspect of the economy is principle, private or public, and which class is in control of the state, capitalists or workers. In China, public ownership is principle and the state is under the control of the working classes.
The PRC does use nationalized industry and resources for their own benefit, as does every single country, with the partial exception of colonized and imperialized countries that are exploited by the west. Xi Jinping is popular, but doesn’t have a cult of personality. I don’t know what textbook you’re reading, but if it’s telling you that public ownership is fascist you should probably discard it.
I’m saying “if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.” You’re saying “if it says it’s not a duck, it’s not.”
How is the Chinese economy not fascist corporatism? Because they call it “public ownership”? The CCP mandates all corporations have CCP cells that align with their national interests. They still defer to private property owners who often become very wealthy. (see: Jack Ma). How does a socialist country have people worth almost $30 billion? This is no more socialism than Nazi’s Nat Socs (or rather, it’s equally socialism).
No, I’m saying that tigers are not ducks, and I explained clearly why. No matter how much you point to ducks and tigers both having feet, they aren’t the same in any capacity. The PRC has a publicly driven economy, with the working classes in control of the state. It’s funny that you bring up Jack Ma, because he was punished by the state for acting against socialism. Nazi Germany was driven by private ownership as principle, and a strong state, the fundamental differences lie in whether public ownership or private ownership is principle and which class is in control.
Jack Ma was punished for speaking out against the government’s bank lending policy which prevented people without capital from getting it. Almost the exact opposite of “acting against socialism”. And again, he’s still worth almost $30 billion. Yet you maintain this is somehow socialism, which would require rejecting the private property and capitalism which cornerstones China today.
His punishment further highlights the other tenet of fascism which permits such authoritarian control. If Trump admnistration seized all corporate control (citing their usage for “national interests” or for “the people”), then punished corporate leaders for disagreeing with public policy, would you also say this is somehow not fascism? I imagine you would say he’s very much more fascistic than he is today.
Jack Ma was punished for suggesting that the CPC needed to relinquish control, and privatize more. He wasn’t a billionaire fighting for the working classes, but instead a billionaire fighting for the free movement of capital and liberalization. The fact that the CPC humiliated and punished Jack Ma for trying to undermine the publicly driven economy is precisely evidence of the weakness of private capital within the PRC.
As for Trump, he’s nakedly fascist already. Private ownership is what drives the US economy. Nationalization in such a context strengthens the bourgeois state and facilitates the control of private capital.
At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.
This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I’ll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:
A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).
Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn’t mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.
China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.
Because you definitely knows what fascism is