NationStates Jolt Archive

Taken from the Oxford concise Dictionary of politics (2nd edition)

Fascism is defined as,

A right wing nationalist ideological or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchial structure fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

As China moves away from Maoist Marxism it still keeps the apparatus of single party totalitarian state. It strikes me now that China noe looks like a scaled up version of Mussonlini's Italy's "corporationist" system. Opinions?

Democracy will come to China eventually. With the rise of Capitalism, it's practically a given.

Yes.

Democracy will come to China eventually. With the rise of Capitalism, it's practically a given.

Possible, but not necessarily inevitable. The power base may simply shift from bureaucrats to landowners.

I don't think it's quite fascist. State intervention in the economy isn't nearly as pervasive as it was in Italy or Germany. More likely, they're merely following Lenin's advice: "It is necessary sometimes to take one step backward, so we may take two steps forward."

Isn't it more of a Communist state shifting to capitalism? Politically at least its still a form of left-wing oligarchy. Capitalism will change that, as South Islands says, though who knows in which direction.

They're less fascist and more state capitalist.

They're less fascist and more state capitalist.

I thought there was no such thing. ;)

not quite, but even so i never quite got why fascism was a right-wing position.

not quite, but even so i never quite got why fascism was a right-wing position.
Communism and fascism are essentially the same thing, except fascism is more based on nationalism, where as communism has different bases. I don't think either is really left or right wing. I think they are merely different names for different types of governments, which essentially have the same effect on human rights.

They're less fascist and more state capitalist.

State capitalist is an oxymoron. Capitalism is a market economy free of government intervention.

State capitalist is an oxymoron. Capitalism is a market economy free of government intervention.
State capitalist could also be construed as meaning the government is totalitarian yet the economy is more capitalist.

State capitalist is an oxymoron. Capitalism is a market economy free of government intervention.
Eh, it's an iffy term that's used to describe a state where the people work for the profit of the state, as opposed to personal profit. Then again that does sounds a little like fascism...

Communism and fascism are essentially the same thing, except fascism is more based on nationalism, where as communism has different bases. I don't think either is really left or right wing. I think they are merely different names for different types of governments, which essentially have the same effect on human rights.
Only authoritarian marxism is essentially the same as fascism. The overwhelming majority of self-identified communists here strongly believe in democracy.

"State Capitalism" is a term made-up by anti-capitalists to refer to communist states.

According to the ever popular wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism):

There are various variants of the theory of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the founding of the USSR, which are embraced by anarchists, left-communists, and council communists, as well as some Trotskyists and Maoists.

In other words these anti-capitalists want to pin the problems of the USSR on capitalism by name association.

The true word should be more like "State Communism." Since the people in power are the Communist Party, not capitalists.

Only authoritarian marxism is essentially the same as fascism. The overwhelming majority of self-identified communists here strongly believe in democracy.
You mean the anarcho-communists? :rolleyes:

i never quite got why fascism was a right-wing position.

because it is. because it defined itself as being against the things the left (both moderate and radical) stands for - democracy, liberty, equality, reason, and the enlightenment more generally, etc. and because it always comes to power through alliances with the mainstream right.

because it is. because it defined itself as being against the things the left (both moderate and radical) stands for - democracy, liberty, equality, reason, and the enlightenment more generally, etc. and because it always comes to power through alliances with the mainstream right.
Then how can Marxist Communism be a left wing movement? :rolleyes:

The true word should be more like "State Communism." Since the people in power are the Communist Party, not capitalists.

that would require that those states were in some sense 'communist'. but even they never claimed that they were - they always maintained that they were in the marxist 'socialist' stage. 'state socialist' is sometimes used to describe them though. depends on the aspects of the system being emphasized.

being a member of a communist party does not necessarily rule out being a capitalist at the same time, nor does de facto ownership of capital by a communist party necessarily mean that those owners don't behave in ways analogous to capitalists.

You mean the anarcho-communists? :rolleyes:

I'll ignore the smiley. Yes, and there are democratic marxists too (while I remain somewhat skeptical of them), as well as council communists, etc.

that would require that those states were in some sense 'communist'.

No it doesn't. And even so, they WERE in "some sense" communist. You know, they espoused the idealogy of Communism, and all belonged to the Communist Party, and were aiming to create a Communist society.

but even they never claimed that they were - they always maintained that they were in the marxist 'socialist' stage.

Yeah, on the road to Communism.


being a member of a communist party does not necessarily rule out being a capitalist at the same time, nor does de facto ownership of capital by a communist party necessarily mean that those owners don't behave in ways analogous to capitalists.

Yeah, except you're attributing the "ways analogous to capitalists" as corruption, greed, hypocrisy, as if anything that is corrupt, greedy or hypocritical is somehow capitalist. In any case 'analogous to capitalists' is NOT capitalism in any way shape or form. They were closer to communism, and so communism aka State Communism is the far more appropriate term than 'state capitalism.'

Then how can Marxist Communism be a left wing movement? :rolleyes:

because their stated aims include equality and reason/science, as well as opposition to traditional authority (the chuch, kings and nobles where applicable) and such.

that they don't hold all of the various aspects that typify groups in the broadly defined 'left' is besides the point. my point was that fascists specifically opposed the principles of the french revolution, the enlightenment, and reason itself. they defined themselves as opposing both socialism and liberalism and as being a rightwing revolutionary movement.

Yeah, except you're attributing the "ways analogous to capitalists" as corruption, greed, hypocrisy, as if anything that is corrupt, greedy or hypocritical is somehow capitalist.

actually, its actually about the power relations between owners of capital and workers, and the system of labor in place.

because their stated aims include equality and reason/science, as well as opposition to traditional authority (the chuch, kings and nobles where applicable) and such.

that they don't hold all of the various aspects that typify groups in the broadly defined 'left' is besides the point. my point was that fascists specifically opposed the principles of the french revolution, the enlightenment, and reason itself. they defined themselves as opposing both socialism and liberalism and as being a rightwing revolutionary movement.
Yep, replacing it with their own brand of authority...that of the party bureaucreats. As for equality, the bureaucrats were still more or less above a normal citizen in status. Not too different from the Right.

China is fascist because it restrics the free flow of information. This restriction has nothing to do with communism, and is only a fascist concept. China has made Google censor "human rights" "Liberty" "Democracy" and "Tiennamen Square" out of it's search engine. Things in china are not owned by the people (as they would be in true communism) they are owned by the party. Political dissidents are jailed and executed, protests are brought down with military action. China is like the USSR, calling itself communist to get the backing of the people, and yet being incredibly fascist.

China is fascist because it restrics the free flow of information. This restriction has nothing to do with communism, and is only a fascist concept. China has made Google censor "human rights" "Liberty" "Democracy" and "Tiennamen Square" out of it's search engine. Things in china are not owned by the people (as they would be in true communism) they are owned by the party. Political dissidents are jailed and executed, protests are brought down with military action. China is like the USSR, calling itself communist to get the backing of the people, and yet being incredibly fascist.
Then what is true communism?

Fascist is right wing because it takes what conservatives believe in to the extreme. Military power, Power of the upper classes, removal of all industrial and business control, Economic survival of the fittest, extreme patriotism and nationalism, extreme religion. Pick out a conservative belief and take it to the ultimate extreme.

Communism is just the opposite. It takes the beliefs of liberals to the extreme. Complete control of industry, complete leveling of wealth, survival of everyone regardless of position, a system where the government provides for all needs, a system of complete legal control, no religion. Pick a liberal belief and take it to the ultimate extreme.

The problem is Left-Right are not on a line, they are on a circle. At the top of the circle is moderation. If you go down the right side of the circle and reach the bottom, you are a fascist. If you go down the left side of the circle and reach the bottom you are a communist. But the points at the bottom of the circle end up very close.

Fascist is right wing because it takes what conservatives believe in to the extreme. Military power, Power of the upper classes, removal of all industrial and business control, Economic survival of the fittest, extreme patriotism and nationalism, extreme religion. Pick out a conservative belief and take it to the ultimate extreme.

Communism is just the opposite. It takes the beliefs of liberals to the extreme. Complete control of industry, complete leveling of wealth, survival of everyone regardless of position, a system where the government provides for all needs, a system of complete legal control, no religion. Pick a liberal belief and take it to the ultimate extreme.

The problem is Left-Right are not on a line, they are on a circle. At the top of the circle is moderation. If you go down the right side of the circle and reach the bottom, you are a fascist. If you go down the left side of the circle and reach the bottom you are a communist. But the points at the bottom of the circle end up very close.
Best post so far on the matter. :) Cheers.

Yep, replacing it with their own brand of authority...that of the party bureaucreats. As for equality, the bureaucrats were still more or less above a normal citizen in status. Not too different from the Right.

i don't disagree. but the reason they are placed on the left has more to do with the overall stated aims of the various marxist movements than the specific policies followed by the leninists, stalinists, maoists, etc - which i think can be described fairly well as a rightward trend towards authority for authority's sake and an abandonment of equality in everything but name.

i don't disagree. but the reason they are placed on the left has more to do with the overall stated aims of the various marxist movements than the specific policies followed by the leninists, stalinists, maoists, etc - which i think can be described fairly well as a rightward trend.
I guess its where theory diverges from practice...

I guess its where theory diverges from practice...

no more than the rise of napoleon meant that the world was doomed to be ruled by monarchs, even in the face of republican revolutions.

that certain specific practices are couterproductive to stated aims (if we want to be unduly charitable about it) says nothing about other ways of achieving those aims, or whether those who supported the practices in question were necessarily surrendering their claim on them.

no more than the rise of napoleon meant that the world was doomed to be ruled by monarchs, even in the face of republican revolutions.
Basically because anything can look good on paper or in words...the real world isn't so fanciful.

Basically because anything can look good on paper or in words...the real world isn't so fanciful.

nah, parts of marx never looked all that good on paper - we called the marxists on their eventual failings decades before they got to try them out.

nah, parts of marx never looked all that good on paper - we called the marxists on their eventual failings decades before they got to try them out.
The thing is he wrote so much that went without opposition, that you'd think at least some of it would be practically applicable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455136
Maybe people like this thread I started a while back.

To be honest, that question has bugged me before. In a way, the pragmatism that was started by Deng Xiaoping really has some very fascist tendencies.

But at this point I wouldn't call China fascist just yet - primarily because the government hasn't taken aboard some of the vital aggressive tendencies of Fascism as Mussolini described it. It may use similar methods, but I think the Chinese' goals are very different from the Italians of the thirties.

Possible, but not necessarily inevitable. The power base may simply shift from bureaucrats to landowners.
Indeed. Look at Russia. I wouldn't call that a democracy.

Democracy will come to China eventually. With the rise of Capitalism, it's practically a given.True, China is slowly (I mean very slow) becoming a democratic state. I probably say it would happen between 10 to 40 years.

Indeed. Look at Russia. I wouldn't call that a democracy.

Bingo.