What's new

Is China a Fascist State?

Internationalism is NOT imperialism. Imperialism is when you exploit a nation through colonization or occupation by force and impose your own system on the populace for the purpose of subjugating them.

Communism's internationalism strives to break the chains of slavery of the worldwide proletariat.

That is the difference:

While Capitalism and Fascism enslave either through military occupation or economic exploitation those whom they deem "inferior" or "lower class", Communism aims to break the shackles of slavery through providing the proletariat with the tools for breaking their shackles.

That is why Comrade Stalin did most to provide the world Communist revolution with the tools for liberation from Fascism and Capitalism whether it was from Germany to the Koreas, from China to Vietnam.
So what if i don't want to be a part of your worldwide "socialist" paradise? Then what?? Will you IMPOSE your ideology on me?? That is imperialism.

Typical Marxist/communist hypocrisy.
 
.
I agree that China doesn't fit a neat definition of capitalist or communist, but then again, I don't think any country does. China's modern development very closely tracks that of other states that have used "state capitalism" to rapidly industrialize, so I don't see a problem with calling China's method "state capitalism" (or as the Chinese like to say, capitalism with Chinese characteristics).




With all due respect, that's the CCP line, but it's not the reality. There are too many very wealthy CCP members, too many very wealthy CCP princelings, and too many very wealthy businessmen with close connections to the CCP to make this true. The CCP and business are in bed together, and that's precisely what the CCP decided that it needed after Tiananmen in order to focus on economic development and avoid calls for greater political liberalization.



The crackdown would not have happened if the political class hadn't effectively merged with the business class. What you describe is the ideal that the CCP desires, but it's not the reality. Perhaps it might be the reality if the CCP succeeds in its anti-corruption drive, but human nature argues against it.



I'm not sure I understand this. The political class has the laws and guns, so they extort the businesspeople to also get the wealth. Any discontent by the masses can be mitigated with bread and circus, buy-offs, or distractions (e.g. SCS maneuvering to appeal to nationalist instincts), and those who remain can be crushed using the laws and guns. Quantity has never mattered to the CCP--if it did, the party would need to be a lot larger, and thus harder to control.



I will agree with you if we ever see a severe decline in the number of mysteriously wealthy CCP members. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.



It's strange and interesting to hear these outside perspectives on America (although if I recall correctly, didn't you live for many years in Canada? I expect these misunderstandings from Europeans and Asians, not so much from Canadians).

From our perspective, the media has always had a bias in favor of the left, and the media has worked assiduously to preserve a dominant voice for the left. Our broadcast networks, ABC/CBS/NBC are run by avowed leftists, our major newspapers, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc. are run by avowed leftist editorial boards. On the right, we have only Fox and the WSJ, and even then, Fox is right wing populist, not right wing libertarian.

The only reason why the rest of the world sees the US as dominated by conservatives is because the rest of the world is semi-socialist. Everything is relative.

I read most of your replies but I'm on my phone so it is hard to reply to everything point by point. I think it is good that you are sincerely thinking so let me toss out a few ideas.

I quoted ALOT of classical Chinese and referenced history on this thread to show that Chinese have always had a very strong sense of fairness and equality, from Mencius to the policies of the Tang and even traitors like Wang Mang. Mao himself was much more versed in classical Chinese literature than any contemporary writings, while Chiang Kai Shek was not classically educated.

This shows that Chinese have a natural affinity for a collective, non aristocratic, egalitarian system if given the option. socialism fits the bill while fascism does not, seeing that China has always been very multicultural, so it was easy to accept. there were alot of 20th century failed policies that Chinese did NOT accept, btw.

alot of people point to the success of Cantonese businessmen as proof that Chinese "like " capitalism. but have you considered that immigrants everywhere are more entrepreneurial, by necessity?
 
.
Sorry for the late reply bro. Was a bit busy the previous week to make posts.
Not a problem at all.

What I was refering to was the few days that this thread was locked, but its not a problem anymore I think.
Yeah, i know what you mean but i didn't encounter that problem for some reason.



Oh so we don’t really disagree much. I was assuming you were a capitalist arguing against everything socialist/leftist in general, my mistake.
No, not at all. In fact i don't really take part in this whole "right left" paradigm. I don't subscribe to any specific ideology.

To me, whatever works, as long as its resulting effects are beneficial to the nation as a whole, that is all that matters. I don't believe in any utopian aspirations, at least not for this world.




Yes, I agree most marxists try to claim a monopoly over the “socialist” ideology. Even, within modern marxists movement, marxists fight over who are the “real” marxist. But you can probably tell by the fascist discussion, I’m not too particular about names. So I did used the name marxism/socialism/communism too ambiguously. Let’s just say, I’m a “socialist”.

I like this phrase from Che Guevara:

“If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.”

So even Socialists should not even claim a monopoly over justice, altruism, care, etc. I just use “socialism” as a label for these characteristics (which were manifested in various societies even before the word “socialism” was coined, as you’ve mentioned).




OK fair enough. There are indeed marxists who have that kind of sectarian mentality (i.e. our ideology is the only true marxist ideology, the rest are reactionaries, etc.)

Speaking of Trotskyism, in another old thread I mentioned that the Vietnamese socialist I admired the most was “Ta Thu Thau”, a Vietnamese Trotskyist. Some say he was the most successful Trotskyist since he actually wins regional elections. Like Trotsky himself, Ta Thu Thau was assassinated at the command of the stalinist Comintern, hence, my disdain for Stalinism. (So it was absolutely bizzare for another member to try to paint all socialists under the same brush when I don’t even think he knows the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism, let alone other non-marxist socialist ideology :cheesy:).

Yeah so we pretty much agree here. Also, wasn't Trotsky the co-conspirator of the October Revolution as well as founder of the Red Army? The Poles don't have much fond memories of Trotsky when he attempted to invade Poland in 1919-1920 and butchered Polish aristocrats in the frontier regions of Poland.

To be fair to Marx/marxists, they are not saying that ALL form of foreign interventions/coercions/wars are imperialistic. It would depends on the reasons and motives for that intervention/coercion/war.

Here’s what lenin wrote:

“We Marxists differ from pacifists...in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) and separately. There have been in the past numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind.
Okay, so again as i said before, the problem with this belief of "just war" is that it is relative. And, if one were to go by Lenin's statement which you quoted, then every war is "progressive", even the "imperialist" wars because they ultimately led to our progression where we are now as a civilization. So war is good, no matter who's doing it.

So yes, that is a contradiction and hypocrisy of Communists: Oppose someone else' war because its "imperialistic" but find justifications for your own. But everyone justifies their own war.

All nation/peoples/ideologies fight for their interests.

Although I’m sure you can find examples of their hypocrisy. But I’m not here to defend stalinism/marxist-lenism.
And neither am i saying you are here to defend stalinism/marxist-lenism.



I’m going to defend Marx a bit and say that he only wrote that due to his social-historical context. E.g. the only plausible means for the working class to overthrow their oppressors was a “violent” revolution. And in other specific context for other marxists, to mobilize the mass for guerrilla warfare. If Marx was writing today in the west, I don’t think he would promote “violent” revolutions to propagate communism in western countries, although I could be wrong.

Okay, fair enough. You make a fair point about the historical context of Marx's theory of violent revolution.



Yep, and they were wrong.
Well, i'll allow the "Stalinists" to make their case here since i notice we have one on this thread @Comrade Ivan . Also, is @jamahir also a Stalin sympathizer??



I did mentioned religion in post #25 on the second page. Sorry I thought you have read those earlier posts.
Sorry, i was referring to the discussion you and i were having wherein from my first post i have only discussed Marxist Socialism and believe you too were discussing Marxist Socialism. I'm not too certain what you and the other members were discussing as i didn't/don't really have the time to go through all of the posts on this thread from beginning to end as they are very long posts, though im sure informative nonetheless. But due to time constraints i am unable to read them all (also why my delayed responses).




Well like I said, I’m not too particular about names. If people don’t consider my ideology as communism/marxism, then I don’t really mind. Many people do take up new/different names like neo-marxism, orthodox marxism, trotskyism, libertarian-communism, etc. to differentiate themselves. But I wouId personally still call them “leftist” or “socialist” even if I may not agree with their methodology (I would just say they are perverted/corrupted).

Okay, fair enough. Also, could you explain the current Chinese system and why the Chinese are in the process of abandoning Communism?

In this thread, I just want to discuss and learn what are the “essence” or core elements of “socialism” just like how I attempted to define the core elements of “fascism” (yes, you can consider “socialism” and “fascism” as just arbitrary names that I have given them).

At this point, I’m not too concerned about the “method” of achieving the utopia, etc. It is crucial, but needs to define the core elements first.

Okay, so what are these core elements of Socialism as you view it??




I agree with the first part.

OK lets ignore Marxism for now. Let’s agree that Marxism, as traditionally interpreted, is not practical or viable.
Okay.




I’ll make a comment that “socialism” is in fact not in line with human “nature”. By nature I mean our natural instincts, character trait, etc.

We, the average people, are selfish, greedy, violent, hedonistic, sectarian, etc. Just think of a gorilla troop. So that’s why I said we have a flawed human nature. As far as my understanding of Christianity and Buddhism goes, they say the same thing about humans. I think Islam says the same thing to?
Well, aren't love, compassion, mercy, honesty, etc. also a part of human nature? They have to come from somewhere if they exist? (which they do).

I'm not too knowledgeable about what Christianity and Buddhism say in this regard but Islam's stance on this is that humans have the tendency to do corrupt and violent things (bad qualities), but we also have the ability to do good things (good qualities). However, our urge to do bad is stronger than our urge to do good (though this varies individual to individual as no two people are the same) because it is a test from God to see if we are worthy of His blessings in this life and His rewards in the hereafter. This internal struggle is called Jihad al-Nafs (Nafs), or the the struggle against the self and this is considered as the greatest form of Jihad.

The difference between these religions/socialism and other ideology such as capitalism is that the mentioned religions and socialism says that our “flawed” human nature needs to be corrected. They are “sins”. We need to change ourselves to become the better and proper human. Capitalism don’t want to endorse this, as they want to justify greed/selfishness, etc. (But this is not to say that humans are 100% flawed. There are still some good or a “divine spark” in us.)

That is why I think @LeveragedBuyout argued with me in another thread that human nature cannot be changed, and perhaps we should just learn to live with it (correct me if I’m wrong sir). But this way of thinking is not compatible with religions like Islam, Christianity and Buddhism (not sure about the rest). Ironically, this capitalist way of thinking is more in line with the nihilistic marxist worldview where there are no divine entity or divine moral order in this universe and that we are just a product of chances.

Well, i partly agree and partly disagree with you here (i agree with the first part, and partly disagree with the second). Here's why i disagree:

I don't believe human nature can be changed because it is intrinsic. From the Islamic perspective, humans were created imperfect in the sense that we are prone to making mistakes, we commit sins knowingly and unknowingly, we give in to our carnal desires at times or very often depending on the spiritual state of the person (his/her faith, etc). But what matters is the effort on the part of the individual to struggle to control his negative urges/tendencies and Islam places tremendous importance on this internal struggle against the self (Jihad al-Nafs). It doesn't matter if you commit sins very often or very little as long as you repent and make sincere effort to do righteous acts to replace your sins and avoid your previous sinful actions.

"Verily We have created man into toil and struggle." (Al-Balad 90:4)

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “I swear by Him in whose hand is my soul, if you were a people who did not commit sin, Allah would take you away and replace you with a people who would sin and then seek Allah’s forgiveness so He could forgive them.” [Sahīh Muslim (2687)]

Yes, and I sometime think that we are only living in a “simulation”, a matrix of sort, to test us. I made hints about this in another thread but I’ll get back at it later.
Lol, i hope not. I'd rather be a soul being tested than a brain experiencing simulation.



Yes agree, that’s why I previously said capitalism is ironically more in line with marxism in this aspect. If you debate with a capitalists, especially when it is about wealth inequality, a common phrase to come out of them is “why should I have to share my wealth with othwrs?”. I.e. there are no moral ground to say people ought to share their wealth.

Although I’m not saying there are no moral ground for secular socialism...Kant’s Categorical imperative is an example. But those are hard to live by compared to religiously motivated morality.
You're right. I agree.


Well, nearly all contemporary marxists do not think that there have ever been a perfect marxist country. But to be fair to them, this does not imply that it is not “practical”. Well if by “not practical” you mean that there is 0.01 chance of achieving it, then yes, its not “practical” but they can still strive for it.

Sure, they can continue to strive for it even if the chances are very nil, just as they have been doing for the past 90+ years or so. I don't think it'll get them anywhere though considering all past attempts.

Can a muslim ever become a sort of excellent person that Allah wants him to be? Can a Buddhist likely reach nirvana in one lifetime, or can a Christian become someone like Mother Theresa or a saint? Yes, but extremely hard. But this does not mean that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism is not “practical”.

No, a Muslim cannot ever become an excellent person as Muslims are human beings, and human beings, no matter how much they try to, will always have imperfections. This is the Islamic view and this is very realistic. And secondly, Muslims can on a personal level strive to become the best human being/Muslim they can be, however this cannot be applied on a social level because here too Islamic perspective of society is that its imperfect thus the harsh Shariah laws like chopping off hands, public lashings, beheadings. These laws act as deterrents to crime because Islam recognizes that crimes will exist in society no matter how close to perfect it strives to become.

Can all 1.5 billion Muslims become perfect/excellent Muslims right now or in the near future?? Can all 2 billion Christians at this very moment or any other moment in the future become like Mother Theresa?? No they cannot and ill'l explain why:

Sure, there is a very slight chance that all 2+ billion Christians could become like Mother Theresa IF they wanted to, BUT realistically its not possible because what are the chances that all 2+ billion Christians will wake up one day and say "hey, i will become just like Mother Theresa for the rest of my life from now onwards", unless like you said a divine intervention from God himself makes it possible. But then again, this is not a convincing argument because most people will view the individual espousing such a theory as a religious looney. People want logic and realistic solutions, not utopian theories.

Remember these kind of religions and socialism/marxism are based on Virtue ethics, where the journey is just as important as the destination. So even if the destination looks hard to get to, we must still stick to the journey. And if you add on top of this that life is just temporary and a test, then the “journey” is even more important than the “destination”, so to speak.
Yes, i agree. But from a Islamic perspective the ultimate destination is in the hereafter, not in this world. This world is just a temporary phase. Islam doesn't hold the view that there will ever be a perfect utopian Islamic society on earth. In fact Islamic view is that the world will end when there is not a single believer/worshiper left on the face of the earth and what remains of humanity is corrupt.




Actually, even Stalinism thinks that bourgeoisie can and should be rehabilitated. Even their gulags were considered as “corrective facilities”. But this is in theory. I’m aware that in reality, they used it to torture, murder people for unjustified reasons. But in theory, they would want to rehabilitate them so that there will be a classless society. The stalinist wanted to remove the sectarianism (the class) while the fascist wants to enforce their sectarianism (race, nationality, etc.). They both don’t fall under the same criteria that I described. I have absolutely no idea why you still don’t get this...Remove, Enforce....big differences. The stalinist does not want to divide society (except for the “ruling” class) while the fascist wants to divide society (and the world) into diferent race or nationality, etc.

Of course, the Stalinists’ method of “removing” the sectarian divide ended up looking like fascist concentration camps, but in theory, those camps were supposed to be rehabilitation or re-education camp. Even then, they are “removing” (in a twisted and perverted method) the sectarian divide instead of enforcing and maintaining the sectarian divide like how I characterize fascism.
Okay, i see your point. Also, im not suggesting that you are a Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, or that all Communists are Stalinists or that all Communists want to kill. But why is it that every Communist regime in history, Stalinist or not Stalinist, killed millions of its own people??

It's one thing when Fascists kill people in war (WW2, before that Nazis weren't killing anyone), but its a whole other thing when a nation's leadership that claims to be establishing a Socialist paradise ends up massacring its own people en mass in times of relative peace, whether its Soviet Union or Pol Pot, North Korea, etc...

Fascists might have done some very terrible things in WW2, which i don't deny, because in war time every side kills and murders en mass, but only victors write the history. But Communists all throughout history were always at war internally and each thought they were doing a better job than the past Communist regimes. Each thought their way was more "humane" towards achieving utopian society.

Secondly, concerning "rehabilitation", where does Marx, upon who's theory Communism is based, ever alluded to such a "rehabilitation" process?? I've never come across such a thing from what i have read on Marx's theories.

Also, ponder upon this for a second: If you were to violently overthrow a group of people and usurp power from them, do you think they will be rehabilitated and integrate into society and will never conspire to remove you from power using the same methods by which you usurped power from them??

In history, and im not referring to Communist states only but ALL throughout human history, whenever a King, Prince, Dictator, Monarch, etc. was overthrown he was either killed or exiled. There was no in between because sparing your powerful/influential enemy and allowing him back into society would guarantee your own end.
And this is where Just war theory comes into play. Violently overthrowing a power or killing someone is not in itself bad (assuming we are not pacifists), it can be justified depending on the context.

So in Just war theory, a marxist killing someone can be justified depending on the context. I’m not trying to defend the Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists as I’ve already mentioned my disdain for them, but them endorsing a violent overthrow or killing of a group of people does not imply that their ideology is unjustified or fascist. Killing a certain group of “others” can be justified if they have the right context. Just like killing the leaders of the ISIS is justified and not regarded as “sectarianism”.

But, as i said, every group thinks they have the "right" context when it comes to killing others. Just war is relative. ISIS believes their war is a "just war". Hitler believed his war was a "just war", and i can go on. Stalinists think they were doing a "just war" by eliminating their opponents with the ultimate goal of establishing Communist Utopian society. You might think they were corrupted but that is your view just as a Stalinists would consider your methods deviating/corrupted from Marx's original theory.

The Stalinists obviously had no justifications in a lot of their killings and treatment of the “others”. But this does not imply that they were enforcing sectarianism. They were just murdering and torturing people, targetting a certain group. Sectarianism does not even need to involve murder or torture at all (e.g. you can just impose a law where whites and blacks sit in different section of public buses).
True, you are right.





I do believe that various people groups have different genetics make, and thats it.
Having different genetic make up may give people slightly different characteristics, but for socialists, this doesn’t really mean much. Even within a “race”, individuals will have different characteristics. Socialism sees everyone as having the same worth and value. It’s pretty simple.

Okay fair enough, i see what your saying.
 
Last edited:
.
Not a problem at all.


Yeah, i know what you mean but i didn't encounter that problem for some reason.




No, not at all. In fact i don't really take part in this whole "right left" paradigm. I don't subscribe to any specific ideology.

To me, whatever works, as long as its resulting effects are beneficial to the nation as a whole, that is all that matters. I don't believe in any utopian aspirations, at least not for this world.






Yeah so we pretty much agree here. Also, wasn't Trotsky the co-conspirator of the October Revolution as well as founder of the Red Army? The Poles don't have much fond memories of Trotsky when he attempted to invade Poland in 1919-1920 and butchered Polish aristocrats in the frontier regions of Poland.


Okay, so again as i said before, the problem with this belief of "just war" is that it is relative. And, if one were to go by Lenin's statement which you quoted, then every war is "progressive", even the "imperialist" wars because they ultimately led to our progression where we are now as a civilization. So war is good, no matter who's doing it.

So yes, that is a contradiction and hypocrisy of Communists: Oppose someone else' war because its "imperialistic" but find justifications for your own. But everyone justifies their own war.

All nation/peoples/ideologies fight for their interests.


And neither am i saying you are here to defend stalinism/marxist-lenism.





Okay, fair enough. You make a fair point about the historical context of Marx's theory of violent revolution.




Well, i'll allow the "Stalinists" to make their case here since i notice we have one on this thread @Comrade Ivan . Also, is @jamahir also a Stalin sympathizer??




Sorry, i was referring to the discussion you and i were having wherein from my first post i have only discussed Marxist Socialism and believe you too were discussing Marxist Socialism. I'm not too certain what you and the other members were discussing as i didn't/don't really have the time to go through all of the posts on this thread from beginning to end as they are very long posts, though im sure informative nonetheless. But due to time constraints i am unable to read them all (also why my delayed responses).






Okay, fair enough. Also, could you explain the current Chinese system and why the Chinese are in the process of abandoning Communism?



Okay, so what are these core elements of Socialism as you view it??





Okay.





Well, aren't love, compassion, mercy, honesty, etc. also a part of human nature? They have to come from somewhere if they exist? (which they do).

I'm not too knowledgeable about what Christianity and Buddhism say in this regard but Islam's stance on this is that humans have the tendency to do corrupt and violent things (bad qualities), but we also have the ability to do good things (good qualities). However, our urge to do bad is stronger than our urge to do good (though this varies individual to individual as no two people are the same) because it is a test from God to see if we are worthy of His blessings in this life and His rewards in the hereafter. This internal struggle is called Jihad al-Nafs (Nafs), or the the struggle against the self and this is considered as the greatest form of Jihad.



Well, i partly agree and partly disagree with you here (i agree with the first part, and partly disagree with the second). Here's why i disagree:

I don't believe human nature can be changed because it is intrinsic. From the Islamic perspective, humans were created imperfect in the sense that we are prone to making mistakes, we commit sins knowingly and unknowingly, we give in to our carnal desires at times or very often depending on the spiritual state of the person (his/her faith, etc). But what matters is the effort on the part of the individual to struggle to control his negative urges/tendencies and Islam places tremendous importance on this internal struggle against the self (Jihad al-Nafs). It doesn't matter if you commit sins very often or very little as long as you repent and make sincere effort to do righteous acts to replace your sins and avoid your previous sinful actions.

"Verily We have created man into toil and struggle." (Al-Balad 90:4)

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “I swear by Him in whose hand is my soul, if you were a people who did not commit sin, Allah would take you away and replace you with a people who would sin and then seek Allah’s forgiveness so He could forgive them.” [Sahīh Muslim (2687)]


Lol, i hope not. I'd rather be a soul being tested than a brain experiencing simulation.




You're right. I agree.




Sure, they can continue to strive for it even if the chances are very nil, just as they have been doing for the past 90+ years or so. I don't think it'll get them anywhere though considering all past attempts.



No, a Muslim cannot ever become an excellent person as Muslims are human beings, and human beings, no matter how much they try to, will always have imperfections. This is the Islamic view and this is very realistic. And secondly, Muslims can on a personal level strive to become the best human being/Muslim they can be, however this cannot be applied on a social level because here too Islamic perspective of society is that its imperfect thus the harsh Shariah laws like chopping off hands, public lashings, beheadings. These laws act as deterrents to crime because Islam recognizes that crimes will exist in society no matter how close to perfect it strives to become.

Can all 1.5 billion Muslims become perfect/excellent Muslims right now or in the near future?? Can all 2 billion Christians at this very moment or any other moment in the future become like Mother Theresa?? No they cannot and ill'l explain why:

Sure, there is a very slight chance that all 2+ billion Christians could become like Mother Theresa IF they wanted to, BUT realistically its not possible because what are the chances that all 2+ billion Christians will wake up one day and say "hey, i will become just like Mother Theresa for the rest of my life from now onwards", unless like you said a divine intervention from God himself makes it possible. But then again, this is not a convincing argument because most people will view the individual espousing such a theory as a religious looney. People want logic and realistic solutions, not utopian theories.


Yes, i agree. But from a Islamic perspective the ultimate destination is in the hereafter, not in this world. This world is just a temporary phase. Islam doesn't hold the view that there will ever be a perfect utopian Islamic society on earth. In fact Islamic view is that the world will end when there is not a single believer/worshiper left on the face of the earth and what remains of humanity is corrupt.





Okay, i see your point. Also, im not suggesting that you are a Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, or that all Communists are Stalinists or that all Communists want to kill. But why is it that every Communist regime in history, Stalinist or not Stalinist, killed millions of its own people??

It's one thing when Fascists kill people in war (WW2, before that Nazis weren't killing anyone), but its a whole other thing when a nation's leadership that claims to be establishing a Socialist paradise ends up massacring its own people en mass in times of relative peace, whether its Soviet Union or Pol Pot, North Korea, etc...

Fascists might have done some very terrible things in WW2, which i don't deny, because in war time every side kills and murders en mass, but only victors write the history. But Communists all throughout history were always at war internally and each thought they were doing a better job than the past Communist regimes. Each thought their way was more "humane" towards achieving utopian society.

Secondly, concerning "rehabilitation", where does Marx, upon who's theory Communism is based, ever alluded to such a "rehabilitation" process?? I've never come across such a thing from what i have read on Marx's theories.

Also, ponder upon this for a second: If you were to violently overthrow a group of people and usurp power from them, do you think they will be rehabilitated and integrate into society and will never conspire to remove you from power using the same methods by which you usurped power from them??

In history, and im not referring to Communist states only but ALL throughout human history, whenever a King, Prince, Dictator, Monarch, etc. was overthrown he was either killed or exiled. There was no in between because sparing your powerful/influential enemy and allowing him back into society would guarantee your own end.


But, as i said, every group thinks they have the "right" context when it comes to killing others. Just war is relative. ISIS believes their war is a "just war". Hitler believed his war was a "just war", and i can go on. Stalinists think they were doing a "just war" by eliminating their opponents with the ultimate goal of establishing Communist Utopian society. You might think they were corrupted but that is your view just as a Stalinists would consider your methods deviating/corrupted from Marx's original theory.


True, you are right.







Okay fair enough, i see what your saying.

would just like to point out that China, as in the ROC and PRC government, did not kill the Qing Dynasty Manchu royal family. one of them became a librarian and gardener. some of them are still living in Beijing today with no restrictions, working ordinary jobs. seems that these former imperial royalty gave up power completely and have no more ambition.

PRC also did not kill ROC government officials or even ban the KMT in mainland China.
 
.
The thing about these others is that they could only complain and whine while men like Comrade Lenin and Comrade Stalin actually did the hard work. It was Lenin who successfully established the worlds first Socialist state and it was Comrade Stalin who crushed Fascism and carried on the banner of Socialism and passed it on to China, Vietnam, Korea, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

What did Mr. Kautsky do except criticize the Bolsheviks and later Stalin?? Do you really think that a successful Socialist state would have ever formed had we adhered to Kautsky's methods?? He would have ended up like Rosa Luxemburg.

And regarding Trotsky, i don't even want to begin to talk about him. Him and Tukachevsky were the reason why we lost Poland in 1920. Trotsky lost his prestige amongst the leading Bolsheviks due to his lack of leadership, thus only naturally Stalin took over the seat of power. Only Trotsky himself can be blamed for his own failure.

Coming up with fancy theories whilst sitting behind a comfortable desk and establishing and protecting a socialist state are two very different things. The difference is similar to that of night and day my friend.

I will reply to your post a bit later, along with others that I haven’t replied to. Been busy the last few days.
 
. . .
would just like to point out that China, as in the ROC and PRC government, did not kill the Qing Dynasty Manchu royal family. one of them became a librarian and gardener. some of them are still living in Beijing today with no restrictions, working ordinary jobs. seems that these former imperial royalty gave up power completely and have no more ambition.

PRC also did not kill ROC government officials or even ban the KMT in mainland China.
Well, i'm sure there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part in history no powerful enemy was spared once overthrown.
 
.
China is actually a confuciano-bureaucratic-dictationship, a slight difference from the previous confuciano-hereditary-dictatorship....

A friend of mine just sent me this link. Although I’m not too concerned about the confucian identity claim, it reminded me of your comment. It is an interview with a Chinese scholar and he basically argued that Chinese “communism” is not confucianism (I could be wrong though, Ive only skimmed through the long interview):

The Chinese Communists are Not Confucianists

Question: Senior Chinese Communist leaders havevisited the Confucian Temple in Qufu [In November 2013]. Also, recently-held national meetings in China have praised the Confucian values of traditional culture, urged a return to these values, and stressed the significance of developing these values in the future. In our recent conversation, I have admired your continuation of the “New Asia spirit” of Prof. Qian Mu (錢穆,1895-1990)[1], and your attitude of reclaiming Chinese culture for the world. Looking at Hong Kong’s development, the influence of China on Hong Kong is after all quite strong, so how do you see China’s senior leaders presently promoting a return to China’s traditional culture affecting what you have referred to as “cultural ecology?” What do you think we can expect from this generation of China’s leaders for the ten or so years that they will be in power? How will Chinese leadership developments affect Hong Kong and in what way? I’d like to hear your opinions on these matters.

Yu Ying-shih: Let me first discuss the issue of Confucianism. I’ve already talked about this on previous occasions but this is the first opportunity I’ve had to discuss the matter in Hong Kong in front of a large audience and I’d like to talk a bit about this issue.

Confucianism can be taken advantage of [by people with ulterior motives]. The traditional Confucianists, namely those whom the emperors honored, the Confucianists of the three rules and the five virtues[2], the Confucianists who forbade any form of criticism of one’s superiors — this is the Confucianism much beloved by feudal kings and dynasties. Those of us who have done scholarly research on Confucianism in the West often refer to this kind of Confucianism as “institutional Confucianism” (制度性的儒家). This kind of institutional Confucianism, however, is completely different from the highly critical Confucianism I spoke about earlier.

Historically speaking, China has all along had two schools of Confucianism: the Confucianists who were oppressed, and the Confucianists who oppressed others. So from my perspective, for a certain organization (the Chinese Communist Party) on the China mainland to honor Confucianism has similarities to those Confucianists who oppressed others. Previously, this organization (the CCP) harshly criticized Confucianism, and referred to Confucius as “Old Kong Number Two” (孔老二).[3] This organization stated that Confucius never really made anything of himself. The criticism grew so sharp that some CCP members asked, (not realizing that the criticism was of the historical Confucius): “Who let this fellow Kong into the communist party anyway?” Indeed, the name of Confucius was at that time subjected to all sorts of indignities.

But then in the blink of an eye, Confucius suddenly became popular again and now there are several hundred Confucius Institutes throughout the world. The communist mainland is advocating Confucianism and many mainland scholars are claiming to be “New Confucianists.” As I said just a short while ago, Prof. Tang Junyi (唐君毅,1909-1978), and his friends such as Mou Zongsan (牟宗三, 1909-1995), Xu Fuguan (徐复觀, 1904-1982), Zhang Junmai (張君劢, 1887-1969), and others really did establish a new Confucianism. The Confucianism that they advocated was a Confucianism of truly learned individuals, a highly critical Confucianism, but absolutely not a Confucianism that forbids criticism of one’s social superiors.

For this reason I have often said that the communist mainland’s support for Confucianism at a minimum causes me as an individual a great deal of difficulty. Nowadays I find myself avoiding the term Confucianism for fear that as soon as I say Confucianism, others will think that my attitude toward Confucianism is that same as that of the communist officials on mainland China. And that is why I say that, for a certain organization [the CCP] on the mainland to support Confucianism amounts to the kiss of death for Confucianism.

We need to be very clear about those who are real Confucianists and those who borrow the term Confucianist in order to obtain political benefits from so-called Confucian thought. If we are clear about these distinctions, then we need not hesitate to discuss Confucianism, and we can continue to advocate the Confucianist view of culture and the Confucianist critiques of society. We can also continue to discuss how Confucianism combines with Western concepts of human rights, democracy, and freedom.

There is one thing I want to raise here in passing. How were Western concepts such as freedom, democracy, human rights, equality that make up the West’s universal values transmitted to China? If you are doing historical research and tracing back to the period just after the mid-19th century, you would find that these Western concepts were brought to China by Confucianists.

Actually, at the outset the most fervent admirers of the West’s rule of law and democracy were in fact Confucianists. Take for example Xue Fucheng[4] (薛福成, 1838-1894). Xue considered Great Britain and the United States to be the best societies since China’s “Three Dynasties’ Period.”[5] Likewise, Kang Youwei (康有為,1858-1927,the Qing Confucianist and reformer) also believed that during the Three Dynasties’ Period China had a democratic system. Kang added the term ‘democratic’ to the reigns of legendary emperors Yao (尧, circa 2333-2234 BC) and Shun (舜, circa 2233-2184 BC) before the Three Dynasties’ Period. During that period, succession to the throne was not hereditary but rather based on merit: whoever performed his duties the best was selected by the Chinese to be their leader. So we want to be clear about this: the real Confucianists from the outset expressed a great deal of admiration for the modern West’s universal values. For example, [the Qing Confucianist] Wang Tao[6] (王韜, 1828-1897) held that the fact that British courts were forbidden to use torture to extort a confession or obtain testimony was a political ideal not seen in the world since the Three Dynasties’ Period.

In other words, those of us who have a Confucian background, warmly welcome the West’s universal values. Take for example Chen Duxiu (陳獨秀, 1879-1942). Chen was the founder of communism in China, but when he was in prison in Nanjing, he often said that he admired Confucius’ principle that there should be no class distinctions in education (有教无类). At the same time, Chen also admired Mencius’ remark[7] that he Mencius “knew of Wu’s execution of the tyrant Zhou, but did not consider that action equivalent to a subordinate assassinating his sovereign.” In other words, executing a tyrant is not the same as assassinating a sovereign; it is rather the execution of an extremely cruel tyrant, and not an assassination. In these remarks of Chen’s, he is telling us that in the works of Confucius and Mencius there is much worthy of our respect. Chen said this in prison and there is a record of his remarks.

There is still another person who strenuously promoted democracy — Hu Shi (胡适, 1891-1962). Actually, Hu Shi himself was a Confucianist and Hu greatly admired Confucius. These days everybody puts the blame for the slogan “down with Confucius and sons” [popularized during the May Fourth Movement of 1919] on Hu Shi, but in fact Hu did not formulate that slogan. That slogan was the creation of Wu Yu (吴虞, 1872-1949), and Hu merely echoed it. Hu was of course extremely critical of some traditional statements, but if you look carefully at the actions of Hu Shi the person, you will see he was a classic Confucianist. So in that regard we can acknowledge that Confucian values are completely consistent with the universal values observed in the modern West, and Confucian values are most definitely not completely opposed to these western values.

Another aspect we need to look at is that originally Christian and Catholic opposition to democracy had strong roots, but this opposition was gradually overcome and, after it was overcome, Christianity actually assisted in the development of democracy and did not adversely affect it.

For this reason, I feel that the issues Confucianism faces on the Chinese mainland are in fact simple, crude issues. Just because Confucianism has a good reputation, people want to exploit it. Once they exploit Confucianism, it seems that Confucianism belongs only to them. In fact, we need to look at the actions of these self-proclaimed Confucianists. This is exactly what Confucius said: look at the person, look at their behavior, and then you will see whether or not they are Confucianists.

Confucianists are considerate of others, and the Confucian Way consists of these two words: honesty (忠) and consideration (恕). Honesty is simply doing one’s best, while consideration means treating others with a considerate attitude; as Confucius said, “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.” This is the basic teaching of Confucianism. If a political party or a government sends to jail anyone who dares to utter even a minor criticism of their policies, can they be Confucianists? That’s why I think it is very simple to identify real Confucianists. We definitely do not want to be deceived by terminology, and become the slaves to linguistic labels.



[1] Qian Mu, 1895-1990, a scholar and founder of the New Asia College.

[2] The three rules and the five virtues: rulers rule subjects, fathers rule sons, husbands rule wives; benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and loyalty.

[3] Confucius, whose surname was Kong, had an older brother, and the term “old number two” (老二) is a folksy way of referring to a younger brother. Traditionally, however, Confucius’ name has been revered and Confucius referred to, not directly by name, but indirectly by titles such as “Great Sage,” “First Teacher,” and so on.

[4] Xue Fucheng, (also spelled as Hsueh Fu-cheng, 1838-1894) was a Chinese diplomat who served as the Qing government’s ambassador to Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Italy.

[5] The Three Dynasties are the Xia (circa 2070-160 BCE), Shang (circa 1600-1046 BCE), and Zhou (circa circa 1046-256 BCE) dynasties.

[6] Wang Tao, who died in [sic] 1897, was the famous Chinese thinker who translated China’s ancient Thirteen Classics into English together with the Scottish sinologist James Legge. In an annotation to the written version of the interview, several quotes are given that support Wang Tao’s observations that British courts could not obtain confessions or testimony by duress or torture. These quotes are taken from volume 4, “A Record of the British Government,” from Wang Tao’s The Outer Chapters of the Tao Garden Literary Records (《弢園文錄外編》), Hong Kong, 1882.

[7] In reply to King Xuan of Qi’s question about the propriety of Emperor Zhou’s subordinate, King Wu, assassinating Zhou, his sovereign.



Ying-shih Yu (余英時), Princeton’s Gordon Wu ’58 Professor Emeritus of Chinese Studies, joined the Princeton faculty in 1987 and retired in 2001. In 2006, Yu was co-winner of the third John W. Kluge Prize for lifetime achievement in the study of humanity. Yu was recognized for playing a pioneering role in bringing previously neglected, major aspects of Chinese history into the mainstream of the scholarship and public consciousness. One of the world’s authorities on the Tang Dynasty, he has researched and written extensively on every period of Chinese history, from ancient to modern. He is the author of some 30 books that span more than 2,000 years of history. (from the Emeritus Faculty page of Eastern Asian Studies of Princeton University)

The Chinese Communists Are Not Confucianists « China Change

@Nihonjin1051 @Desert Fox @LeveragedBuyout , etc. This might be of interest to you.

Sorry friends for not replying to the discussion in this thread. Im very hard pressed for time now to gather my thoughts and write long posts. I will have free time again very soon to write again.
 
.
A friend of mine just sent me this link. Although I’m not too concerned about the confucian identity claim, it reminded me of your comment. It is an interview with a Chinese scholar and he basically argued that Chinese “communism” is not confucianism (I could be wrong though, Ive only skimmed through the long interview):



@Nihonjin1051 @Desert Fox @LeveragedBuyout , etc. This might be of interest to you.

Sorry friends for not replying to the discussion in this thread. Im very hard pressed for time now to gather my thoughts and write long posts. I will have free time again very soon to write again.

Very interesting analysis, but I can't help but feel it's a futile way of attacking the problem. To wit:

We need to be very clear about those who are real Confucianists and those who borrow the term Confucianist in order to obtain political benefits from so-called Confucian thought.

This is an arbitrary determination--why can't the other school of Confucianist thought make the same claim about the interviewee's school?

Framing the values of China around the interpretation of Confucius is the wrong approach, since Communism itself is alien to China, and that fact has not prevented the CCP from ruling for decades. What proponents of "universal values" need to focus on are the gains in qualify of life that such values can provide, since that is precisely the argument the CCP uses to justify its own rule (submit, and be prosperous). The counter-argument has not yet been made, thus the status quo endures.
 
.
A friend of mine just sent me this link. Although I’m not too concerned about the confucian identity claim, it reminded me of your comment. It is an interview with a Chinese scholar and he basically argued that Chinese “communism” is not confucianism (I could be wrong though, Ive only skimmed through the long interview):



@Nihonjin1051 @Desert Fox @LeveragedBuyout , etc. This might be of interest to you.

Sorry friends for not replying to the discussion in this thread. Im very hard pressed for time now to gather my thoughts and write long posts. I will have free time again very soon to write again.

Confucianism and Marxism is not mutually exclusive and they have a lot of interlapping especially in economics idea.
 
. .
A friend of mine just sent me this link. Although I’m not too concerned about the confucian identity claim, it reminded me of your comment. It is an interview with a Chinese scholar and he basically argued that Chinese “communism” is not confucianism (I could be wrong though, Ive only skimmed through the long interview):



@Nihonjin1051 @Desert Fox @LeveragedBuyout , etc. This might be of interest to you.

Sorry friends for not replying to the discussion in this thread. Im very hard pressed for time now to gather my thoughts and write long posts. I will have free time again very soon to write again.


Interesting write up, my feelings regarding this subject is summarized in one particular song:

 
.
@Lux de Veritas @LeveragedBuyout

Ive just quickly skimmed through the article again and I was wrong. The author did not agued that Chinese “communists” are not confucianists per se, but that there were historically 2 types of confucianism (one bad and the other good). And basically the professor is arguing that the Chinese communists are taking advantage of and promoting the “bad” kind of confucianism while the him and his academic colleagues were/are promoting the “good” type of confucianism.

So @LeveragedBuyout is correct in questioning who has the right to call their group the “good” or “real” confucianists? I think he is trying to address this arbitrariness by appealing to the audiences’ emotions by saying that “true” confucianism is not oppressive, respects all mankind, etc.

BTW, his reference to the “New Confucianism” are often called Neo-confucianism and this ideology is also based on virtue ethics. Reading this interview, I do think this type of confucianism (not the institutional confucianism endorsed by feudal china and CCP) seems compatible with Socialism. Your thoughts on this @FairAndUnbiased ?

Btw Leveragedbuyout, I think there are counter arguments against what you have just described, it just gets suppressed or the bearer of those counter arguments gets thrown into prison by the power that be :police: (and thus the “status quo” endures).

OK gotta log out.
 
Last edited:
.
I'll address concerns soon, I'm on phone.

interesting question though: is fascism or capitalism more opposed to socialism?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom