Would you care to elaborate on the part you disagree with?
I know this question is directed at
@jamahir, but I`ll join in as well.
First of all, most people actually disagree on what constitute various political ideologies. Even the leftists within academia often disagree on what exactly constitute socialism/communism. Most have their own definition. In my previous posts, I made it clear that my decription of it is my on personal view. This also applies to fascism, most academics disagree on what constitue fascism. There are no definitive consensual agreement on what fascism is. The author in the OP article also made it clear that he will be giving his own definition of what fascism is.
But this lack of agreement is cool because it leaves it open for us to debate/discuss what really defines these political ideologies. And some of your descriptions I can agree with, while some I dont agree with. So lets discuss:
What makes a fascism state is powerful expansionist policy which the decision lays in the hands of a single individual.
I agree that a fascist state will end up carrying out an expansionist policy. Not sure what you mean by “powerful” though. But I do believe that China is still in the process of transitioning from its traditional isolationist policy. In certain places, it is still a bit confused about its foreign policy. So China is currently not undertaking any full-fledged expansionist policy, but I do see indications that China is heading towards this path. I.e. its heavy investment into Africa, coupled with its disregard for the fairness, equality and dignity of the local Africans. Implementing actions in the SCS to claim sovereignty over the 9 dash lines that never existed before 1944.
And I disagree on that “decision lays in the hands of a single individual” bit. I think this one-man-show description is a false caricurature and unnecessary for any political discussion. Decisions has never been in the hands of
a single individual alone for any modern state. Hitler has his own officials and advisors. I dont even agree that NK is a one man show, Kim has his own senior officials and advisors who play important roles in decision makings. So this one-man-dictatorship is a myth that doesnt really exist anywhere in recent history. You may have states where one individual has more power/priviledge than the rest, but most states are like that, regardless if they are left, right or even a democracy (Obama has unique power/priviledge that the rest don`t have). So let`s forget about this one-man-dictatorship definition, it is misleading.
First of all, we need to understand a simple fact: Powerful nations WILL expand their influence regardless of their system.
I agree that when a nation becomes strong/wealthy/powerful, its influence will usually expand. But the devil is in the details. What do you mean by “influence”? Are you referring to cultural influence like K-pop or hollywood? Then there is nothing with that kind of expansion and certainly doesn`t mean one is fascist. However, if expanding influence means to extent your reach to other parts of the world for your own self-interest and monopoly as suggested earlier by
@jamahir, and especially if it is accompanied with a disregard for the dignity and respect for the locals, then I would say that type of expansionism does belong to the fascist type.
Again, the devil is in the details, like what a smart Chinese member here always say.
Just because your neighbor is more powerful than you and encroaching on your piece of pie does not mean they are fascist.
Wow, this statement sounds alarming. This alone is not sufficient to make one a fascist, but it is certainly a common trait of a fascist state. But again, the devil is in the details. “Encroaching” and “piece of pie” are ambiguous words.
To understand what makes Fascism, you need to understand the political environment which produces it. Fascism is born in late 19th century where the colonial era is near its end. Much of the available colonies has already been divided up and powerful colonial powers are heading for an inevitable collision. To put this simply, too few pies are left (or more specifically, too few pies are still hold by the weak and easy-preys) and the predators are looking at each other.
I mostly agree with your historic assessment, but there is one important thing that you have left out. Germany and Italy`s existence as a sovereign nation was not threatened before it became fascist. Germany`s “core necessities” was not threatened. It just didn`t have enough necessities and resources to become a great and powerful nation like some other European countries have become, because all the colonial “pies” was already taken by these European power. So your historic narrative about the colonial pies is only partly correct. Germany became fascist and carry out their expansionist ideology not out of its necessities for survival, but out of the necessities to become a strong and powerful country. In other words, they would not settle for mediocrities, they want to be great, that was the main motive.
And I begin to see some resemblence in where China is heading to, from my perspective. China`s existence is not endangered, as you have rightly claim. But China too won`t settle for mediocrity, it want to be great. Chinese nationalist often say they want to become greater than the US. And it is also for this reason that China is now undertaking an expansionist policy reaching the region of Africa and South America. Is its action bad like Nazi Germany? No definitely not on that level. But I can already see some indications that resemble the fascist type of expansion (per the examples I used earlier). Put it simply, China is expanding because it wants to become great and powerful, while disregarding the dignity and well being of the locals. This too was the character of Nazi Germany`s foreign policy. And it is certainly NOT in line with my definition of the core element of socialism: the love and empathy for all humans.
Fascism is an ultra-right wing group, this means they are an ultra-conservative group. (中国的读者记住，中国的左右派定义和西方的不一样。西方定义中右派是保守派。) This means they put their own nations interest above everything else, meaning if you are not one of us, your interest means nothing to us.
Agree. And I do see China putting their interst above everyone else`s. Even with recent initiatives like the AIIB, eventhough there are mutual benefits, China`s primary motive is for its self-interest.
In Fascism's case, it eventually mutated into a casual disregard to the point that other culture groups are not even viewed as human beings.
It may or it may not. What is essential for the fascist characteristic is the disregard for the well-being and interest of the “other” groups. This is opposite to socialism, where its core element is the love and empathy for the “other”, for all mankind.
What makes Fascism dangerous is that it has a hair trigger to total war. Due to its ultra conservative tendencies, it is much easier for fascist states to perceive that they have been wronged. The high power concentration into a dictator also means that the entire nation can jump into a total war even if it means total destruction on both sides. In comparison, modern states like China or US, even though they are also very interest in expanding their interest, is sane enough to prefer uneasy co-existence over mutual destruction. This is why while US started a lot of wars since Korean war, none of them is actual wars with a major power. The Korean war itself can actually be attribute to the fact that US doesn't recognize PRC as a major power at that point.
I believe you are making a category mistake here. We must make an important distinction between the “intentions/beliefs” and the “actions” of countries. A neo-nazi racist may have a certain “intentions and beliefs” yet may not have the capacity or will to “act” on those “intentions and beliefs”, for example, he might think all black churches should not be tolerated and must be destroyed. But that neo-nazi might be a coward or disabled so he could not carry out any actions for his beliefs/intentions. So should we then say he is not a true neo-nazi racist? No, we should still regard him as one even though he haven`t managed to carry out any actions. So it is important to make a distinction between “intentions/beliefs” and “actions”.
So when we are discussing about political ideologies, such as fascism, it is important to note that the “intentions and beliefs” is what really defines it. “Actions” are important too, but they are just mere manifestations of of those intentions nd beliefs.
Thats why I said wealth distribution, gender equality, workers right, etc. are not what is central to socialism. They just mere manifestations of what is central: the love and empathy for the “others”. And indeed, a few manifestations might resemble each other eventhough they may come from different intentions and beliefs. For example, some country may endorse state-coordination as a means to make sure everyone`s interest is represented and protected while another country may endorse state-coordination as a means to subjugate a population. Two completely different intentions and beliefs.
So here is your category mistake, you are here making a comparisons between countries based on their actions and outwards manifestations and have also defined their political ideologies based on that instead of basing it on their beliefs and intentions. This is a big mistake because the actions of a extremely cowardice and disabled neo-nazi racist may look extactly the same as the actions of a lazy left-wing pacifist.
So China may not have carried out any total war or anything similar but that does not directly make it not facist. They may lack a political will or the capacity to do so. I can even concede that China does not want a total war period. But what is more important and what partly defines fascism is its intentions and beliefs, that there is a distinction between “us” and the “other” (whether it is based on ethnicity, nationality, etc.). Furthermore, there is a desire for greater glory and power over the “others”, accompanied with the beliefs that the dignity, value and well-being of the “others” has absolutely no priority over that said desire.
I believe this is the core intentions and beliefs of Nazi Germany and of fascism in general. And it is clearly in opposition to my own definition of Socialism.
I don`t think China is a full-fledged fascist state. But I see characteristics and indications that makes China resemble my defintion of fascism more than socialism.
Here is also another element that differentiate socialism from fascism. True socialism see every humans in their dignity, worth and values in themselves as a human being. Fascism tend to see humans as a mere tools or instruments as means to carry out their intentions and beliefs. I`m not just talkimg about humans outside their “group” but also humans “inside” their group. For example, IJA brain washing their pilots to become kamakazi fighters. Nazi sending their young soldiers into the slaughter house in the eastern front. It is also from the same reason I`m not fond of some stalinists.
This also relates to what was said in the OP article. China has poor workers right. The central govt had previously suppressed the workers wage and work condition in order to feed it economic growth machine. Meaning, the workers were seen as machines, tools and means for economic growth and not seen as a true human with dignity and self-worth.
The thing to remember is that. It is much easier to turn into Fascism when you were the loser previously. This is because losing states is much more likely to perceive that they has been "wronged" by others. Like a wounded animal, it will turn to ultra-right wing systems to protect the little things it has left. This is why Germany turned to Fascism after WWI.
In today's East/Southeast Asia, Cambodia is more likely to turn to Fascism than China, Japan or even Vietnam.
I don`t think so, because I don`t Cambodia satisfying my condition of wanting greater glory and power over the rest of her neighbour. As some members here has already said, most South East Asian countries are naturally less ambitious than the NEA. But I do see China being very very ambitious. Nothing wromg with that but the devil is in the details.
While China does perceive itself to be wronged in the past, it is distant enough that it is unlikely to turn to ultra-conservative simply because its base necessities has not been gravely threatened in recent time.
This is bull man. China`s memory and perception of itself being wronged in the past still dictate its political relationship with Japan, it is not distant at all. A lot of scholars even argued that the Chinese century of humiliation still influenced its beliefs and intentions today.
In Viet Nam, the common perception and stereotype of the Chinese people is that the Chinese has long memory, hold grudges and can`t let go of the past and will always seek revenge. If you don`t believe me then ask the other Viet members.
Will these memory of being wronged in the past lead to ultra-conservatism that leads to a major war? I dont know and I don`t think there would be any major war anymore....but we have seen that these “memory” has lead to ultra-nationalism in some segment of Chinese society and thats not a good sign.
Similarly, while Japan is losing influence to China, the fact is that Japanese mainland itself is never actually in any sort of danger. Vietnam is in more danger to turn to fascism than Japan, because it has more to lose in the coming days in SCS. It also already has a socialist system in place, which makes jump into another socialist system easier. However, it is still far from becoming Fascist, because like Japan, Vietnam only stands to lose interests in the sea, its core necessities is not in danger. I said it in a previous post, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but not bitter enough that it can't be stomached.
Here`s your mistake and the same mistake happened in the last paragraph. The “core” or “base” necessities of pre-nazi Germany was not threatened either. The “core” necessities of these country (including JP/VN/China/pre-Nazi Germany) are always secured if they are willing to settle as being a average or a minor (VN) power. It is the desire to become great that causes a fascist country to expand in order to secure the “necessities” to become great. And I see China possessing a strong desire to become great, moreso than Cambodia, Viet Nam and Japan.
