Is China a Fascist State?

[Aepsilons]

What is my view of race and whether I believe race exist?

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

What a revolutionary concept. So do you believe in the eventuality of human singularity?

 

[jamahir]

What a revolutionary concept. So do you believe in the eventuality of human singularity?

what is that??

 

[Aepsilons]

what is that??

A single, unified human government.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Very interesting thread ^

 

[Lure]

I'm sorry for my time that I've even read such an absurd article from John Weeks. First of all he has made the first and greatest mistake that does not even qualify him as a scientist. Scientist observe the nature and try to model it with a thesis. Not the other way around. This guy is like "I wanna prove that China is a fascist state and I'm sure I'm gonna do it". No you don't make social science like that. You first observe and than you conclude.

His "invented" definition of fascism actually proves what I've just said. He just counted the facts that can be attributed to China and then said "this is my definition of fascism".

His definition : Fascism is a Capitalist dictatorship, Chauvanist, Expansionist (why didn't he use the word imperialist if he's even a socialist like he claims to. You don't need to invade somewhere to rule there. Actually history showed us that you don't "invade" somewhere with military if you really wanna control there), Corporatist and supports counter enlightenment thesis.

The definition is so problemmatic that if you just take out the word : "dictatorship" from that definition you would be actually defining the Republican party of the US or any right wing nut-job party in Europe.

Any form of dictatorship including fascism does not promote capitalism or any form of free economy. Capitalism creates a social class : bourgeoisie that has enormous power. If you consider this power relation in Weberian manner the central power, which is being the party or leader, and the power of the public sphere (or civil society) which is being the bourgeoisie tend to clash. The only form of dictatorship that allows an actual free economy is called bourgeoisie dictatorship which is a pejorative term used by Marx to actually define Capitalist democracies. No other form of dictatorship can allow bourgeoisie because a bourgeoisie that is strong and makes trade with the entire world will eventually challenge and influence the central ideology.

Fascist states are both anti-capitalist and anti-communist corporatist economies. A pseudo-bourgeoisie class who mimics the bourgeoisie in capitalist economy but "Chauvanistically" devoted his/her entire business and loyalty to the party is permitted to make business. The business that the pseudo-bourgeoisie runs is mostly organised by the party/state.

In capitalist economy it's the other way around. Party/state is influenced by the bourgeoisie. In China bourgeoisie controls a good portion of CPC not the other way around.

I also want to dispute his views about expansionism. German invasion of USSR in WW2 was because of Realpolitik. Not because of ideology of Nazism. Germany wanted to be the ultimate power in Europe and the only thing that is left that can challenge Nazi Germany was USSR. That's why Germany invaded USSR.

Ideological expansionism in fascist states exists because of racial motivations. For example Germany uniting with Austria before WW2 is an example of ideological expansionism of a fascist political agenda. Expansion driven by the ideology of Pan-Germanism is an expansionism that can be associated with fascism.

Chinese agenda in South China Sea has nothing to do with a racial agenda. It's Realpolitik.

Classifying fascism as a counter-enlightenment either makes fascism a pre-modern or a post-modern ideology. But fascism is a strictly modern ideology. This blunder of the author actually finishes the author's entire credebility in my eyes. Enlightenment is the abstract model that has created the social sciences and all the "modern" political ideologies that we talk about today. Capitalism, Liberal Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Nazism are all the children of Enlightenment and none of them actually oppose enlightenment.

Fascism has a worldly agenda (I don't know any spiritual agenda that fascism promotes ) , it's racial theories are distroted versions of Darwinian evolution and it's actually one of the results of the obsession and super ego that man kind is the ruler of the nature which is a pretty pro-enlightenment.

@LeveragedBuyout that's a nice discussion. I'd very much like to know about your opinions as well.

 

[mpk1988]

China is actually a confuciano-bureaucratic-dictationship, a slight difference from the previous confuciano-hereditary-dictatorship.

A fascist state is base on racist/sectarian principle that the non core race/sect got to be shit upon. For example Islamo state is a fascist state, and whoever quit Islam must be put to sleep.

In China no one force you to accept confucianism and you can believe in anything, so long you do not threaten the security of state.

China, Singapore and Taiwan are the 3 states in this planet that treats.minority better than core race.

I agree with this mostly. I would also like to add that there is a limited form of democracy also that's being practised in China.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I'm sorry for my time that I've even read such an absurd article from John Weeks. First of all he has made the first and greatest mistake that does not even qualify him as a scientist. Scientist observe the nature and try to model it with a thesis. Not the other way around. This guy is like "I wanna prove that China is a fascist state and I'm sure I'm gonna do it". No you don't make social science like that. You first observe and than you conclude.

@Lure

Great response. I've also been following this thread, and have struggled with the discussion because of the same definitional issues that you highlighted. If the author (or any of the thread participants here) are able to create their own definitions of fascist, socialist, capitalist, etc., then how are we to come to a well-supported conclusion? If we disagree, we can simply change the definition.

I don't have enough time to write a considered response at the moment, but I'll think about how to articulate my position, which is that China is not a "fascist" state, even by the author's definition, but a discussion of fascist or not fascist isn't particularly helpful in helping us understand China or what's good for China. Fortunately, I agree with most of what you wrote, so I won't have to rehash those issues. I'll try to get back to this thread later, when I can elaborate.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@Lure

OK, here we go. Here is the author's definition of fascism:

The first step is to define ‘fascism’ in an operational manner that distinguishes it from other types of authoritarian ideologies and regimes. The standard, dictionary definition, "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization", is too vague to be useful. In its place I characterize a fascist regime first and foremost as capitalist and anti-labour. The two are related because suppression of the working class holds wages low, which facilitates the faster growth of profit. Suppression of the standard of living also allows for export-oriented capitalism, though historical evidence shows that wages can rise in fascist societies.

Almost all capitalist dictatorships are aggressively anti-labour, but not all are fascist--the Pinochet regime was authoritarian, anti-labour but not fascist. To qualify as fascist an anti-labour capitalist dictatorship must boast (the appropriate word) other characteristics. As Hitler and Mussolini demonstrated, fascist regimes are more than nationalist, they are expansionist.

The author's absurd conflation of fascism with capitalism would qualify nearly every country in the world as fascist to some degree, as capitalism by definition is not democratic and is anti-labor. Is China capitalist? On the spectrum of pure capitalist---pure communist, I find it hard to argue that China can be conclusively labeled capitalist. With an invasive government, a subservient judiciary, and a state-controlled financial system, can we say that private contracts will be honored, that property rights will be respected, and that private entities are free to own the means of production and distribution? The author conveniently and implicitly assumes that this point need not be argued (with his flippant " if China is not capitalist, the Pope is not a Catholic" comment), but it's an open question.

If Europe is still coming to grips with what it means to be a "social democracy" that is set apart from the vicious Anglo-Saxon market economies, then why should it be obvious that China does not fall closer to the communist end of the spectrum? John Weeks himself has called for public ownership of the financial sector in order to create a social democracy. China fulfills this definition. So much for the easy definition of China as capitalist, unless John Weeks wants to invoke the tiresome "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Let's now turn to the author's invention of the additional criteria that that distinguishes "fascist authoritarianism" from run-of-the-mill authoritarianism:

1) expansionist, or "chauvinistic expansion" (whatever that means)
2) denying the values of the Enlightenment and individual liberties, including open inquiry
3) corporatist social organization

The inclusion of capitalism as a defining characteristic of fascism was a clever device by the author to exclude his beloved USSR from the definition of fascism, as the USSR otherwise meets all of the author's invented criteria (expansionist, denied the values of the Enlightenment and individual liberties, and a party-based, corporatist social organization).

But even as the author acknowledges, it is not clear that China can be defined as expansionist, as its expansionism is magically forgiven as long as it takes place under an explicitly Communist regime. Since expansion took place under Communism, but not under the pseudo-capitalist state in which China now finds itself, the author is forced to admit that China fails this definition.

How about the second definition, concerning Enlightenment values? The author offers this "evidence":

In my experience the Chinese regime and the Communist Party ideology satisfy the anti-Enlightenment test.

Really. That's it. While we can all agree that China has an extreme censorship regime in place to suppress free expression and chill open debate, the other values of the Enlightenment (scientific inquiry, divorce from religion/religious tolerance, skepticism, etc.) are not incompatible with the modern Chinese state. Until and unless the author provides an argument, let alone a convincing argument, I see no need to address this point further.

Finally, the corporatist social organization. Here's the author's explanation:

Under fascism, the regime seeks to destroy and replace civil society with corporatist structures, the most important of which is a mass political party subservient to the regime and its faux participatory organizations, for youth (the Hitler Youth), the working class (the German Labour Front), and even exercise and fitness groups (Nationalsozialistischer Reichsbund für Leibesübungen).

The USSR fit this definition quite well, and it's clear that the CCP, as a monopoly party, has total political control. It is undeniable that the state is subservient to the CCP, and even the PLA is an arm of the CCP and not the Chinese state. The CCP has also worked to suppress or destroy an independent civil society, seeing independent groups like NGOs, think tanks, publications, and religions/sects as a threat to CCP rule. Acknowledged and accepted. However, I have not seen evidence that the CCP seeks this control in order to brainwash the population to the same degree that the Nazis did, and indeed, I would be hard pressed to even define Xi's "Chinese Dream" except in vaguely defined concepts like "national glory." In short, the CCP has destroyed civil society to retain power, not to drive an ideology. If anything, the CCP displays a remarkable level of pragmatism--didn't the author previously argue that the "Chinese Communist Party" was in fact capitalist?

The CCP has approximately 90 million members, in a country with a population of approximately 1.4bn. By what definition can we call that a "mass political party"?

-----

I'm done with John Weeks, we can throw this article in the trash bin. I wanted to address a few of the points you made, though.

In capitalist economy it's the other way around. Party/state is influenced by the bourgeoisie. In China bourgeoisie controls a good portion of CPC not the other way around.

An insightful observation. I've said repeatedly that the future of China is Singapore, but perhaps Hong Kong will be an interim step. In HK, the business community ("functional constituencies") is granted an explicit quota within the legislative council. I believe China is experimenting in HK to create a transitional form of democracy that can be replicated in the mainland without depriving the CCP of control, so we should closely watch what happens there. It won't be a surprise if your observation of bourgeoisie control of the CCP is formalized at some point, a la Hong Kong.

I also want to dispute his views about expansionism. German invasion of USSR in WW2 was because of Realpolitik. Not because of ideology of Nazism. Germany wanted to be the ultimate power in Europe and the only thing that is left that can challenge Nazi Germany was USSR. That's why Germany invaded USSR.

Sorry, not true. Have you heard of lebensraum?

The definition is so problemmatic that if you just take out the word : "dictatorship" from that definition you would be actually defining the Republican party of the US or any right wing nut-job party in Europe.

I wanted to dismiss this as a gratuitous swipe, but my curiosity forces me to ask why you think the Republican Party meets the author's definition of fascism once "dictatorship" is removed.

 

[William Hung]

@Lure
...but a discussion of fascist or not fascist isn't particularly helpful in helping us understand China or what's good for China.

@Lure @LeveragedBuyout

Both of you may find the discussion in this thread puzzling as it looks to be diverging from the original article. As I’ve told some members earlier, the first article by John Weeks is just a starting point for our discussion about fascism/socialism...thats why in the last few pages, I did not even bring China into the discussion and focussed more on the theoretical/idealistic stuff.

But people are probably tired of hearing my socialist proselytism so it is very refreshing to read both of your analysis about the opening article and about China. I won’t be defending John Weeks (I have my own definition of fascism) but there are one or two points in your analysis that I probably dont agree with ( dichotomy of State influencing bourgiosie or bourgiosie influencing state and the dichotomy between realpolitik and ideologically motivated policies). When I have a bit more free time later, I will come back to write my opinions on this.

What a revolutionary concept. So do you believe in the eventuality of human singularity?

This is actually a very complicated question as you might probably know by now my beliefs are influenced by many factors (politics, empirical science/observation, spirituality, religion, philosophy, etc.).

I will come back and answer this question. But do you mean “human singularity” idealistically or in reality in my life time? in this world or also possibly in some other world? (ok some secular people will find my views on this part a bit cookcoo , e.g., human singularity or a utopia may never materialize in this world, i will explain this view later).

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@Lure @LeveragedBuyout

Both of you may find the discussion in this thread puzzling as it looks to be diverging from the original article. As I’ve told some members earlier, the first article by John Weeks is just a starting point for our discussion about fascism/socialism...thats why in the last few pages, I did not even bring China into the discussion and focussed more on the theoretical/idealistic stuff.

Understood. I addressed the question the way I did because that's how Lure directed it, and the finer philosophical details of the nature of socialism are beyond my competence; and I cannot tolerate neo-Nazism, so whole swathes of the conversation are hidden by my ignore list. Otherwise, I have enjoyed reading the discussion as a lurker, though I cannot participate in that aspect of the discussion.

But people are probably tired of hearing my socialist proselytism so it is very refreshing to read both of your analysis about the opening article and about China. I won’t be defending John Weeks (I have my own definition of fascism) but there are one or two points in your analysis that I probably dont agree with ( dichotomy of State influencing bourgiosie or bourgiosie influencing state and the dichotomy between realpolitik and ideologically motivated policies). When I have a bit more free time later, I will come back to write my opinions on this.

I look forward to reading your views on the matter when it's convenient for you, but please carry on with your intended theme.

 

[William Hung]

Comrade i believe you are misinformed. If it weren't for Stalin the world revolution would have been crushed by the capitalists and the Fascists. Stalin was right. He built the world's only successful and prosperous official Communist state. If it weren't for Stalin China, North Korea, Vietnam, South America and God knows how many more countries would have been colonized by the Capitalists and Fascists imperialists for exploitation.

I understand what you’re saying about the need to appreciate/recognize some of the outcome that was only made possible by Stalin (intentionally or not), this is especially true for Vietnamese communists. But I still disagree with Stalinism and cannot ignore some of the bad consequences caused by his regime/ideology. If you haven’t noticed already, I side with Karl Kautsky in his squabble against Lenin, so that should give you some idea of my views regarding Stalinsim.

And I also have the intuition that Vietnamese communism will slowly move towards something like Trotskyism, at least ideologically. Marxism-Leninsim and Stalinism is slowly dying ideologically, some Vietnamese communists (the legit card carrying ones) are already losing their faith in it. Vietnam once had a very strong Trotskist movement and I predict contemporary Vietnamese communists will slowly move towards that direction.

I will get back at this later when I have more time to write a proper reply.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

@jamahir, you have a new friend here.

Understood. I addressed the question the way I did because that's how Lure directed it, and the finer philosophical details of the nature of socialism are beyond my competence; and I cannot tolerate neo-Nazism, so whole swathes of the conversation are hidden by my ignore list. Otherwise, I have enjoyed reading the discussion as a lurker, though I cannot participate in that aspect of the discussion.



I look forward to reading your views on the matter when it's convenient for you, but please carry on with your intended theme.

You and Lure are very welcome to discuss about the original article/fascism/China. I am actually interested to read perspectives of people right from center (I’m assuming both of you lean politically and economically towards the right).

 

[Aepsilons]

Look forward to reading more of your views @Yorozuya

 

[Genesis]

The author's absurd conflation of fascism with capitalism would qualify nearly every country in the world as fascist to some degree, as capitalism by definition is not democratic and is anti-labor. Is China capitalist? On the spectrum of pure capitalist---pure communist, I find it hard to argue that China can be conclusively labeled capitalist. With an invasive government, a subservient judiciary, and a state-controlled financial system, can we say that private contracts will be honored, that property rights will be respected, and that private entities are free to own the means of production and distribution? The author conveniently and implicitly assumes that this point need not be argued (with his flippant " if China is not capitalist, the Pope is not a Catholic" comment), but it's an open question.

If Europe is still coming to grips with what it means to be a "social democracy" that is set apart from the vicious Anglo-Saxon market economies, then why should it be obvious that China does not fall closer to the communist end of the spectrum? John Weeks himself has called for public ownership of the financial sector in order to create a social democracy. China fulfills this definition. So much for the easy definition of China as capitalist, unless John Weeks wants to invoke the tiresome "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

This is the point I find the most interesting, and it's something I feel isn't being discussed enough, and that is China is a major civilization that has functioned without and even surpassing Western civilization for the majority of history, yet everything we do today is defined in a Western perspective. I see no problem with that in the sense the West has catapulted itself today and it is the foundation of Modern society, but China is still unique in many ways, at least it doesn't fit into the cookie cutter definition of the political scale.

Mao had no idea what communism even is until he reached Yanan, sometime in the 40s. It's communism with Chinese characteristics because it was too late to change the name of the party.

Is China Capitalist? No. Is China Communist? Socialist? I would argue no to those too. At the very least not completely.

Long before the Columbus expeditions into the Americas, Chinese empires were already involved in a primitive form of investment ventures, long before the invention of the paper currency in the West China had the world's first, in hind sight, not a great idea. Many of the world's policies were enacted in China first, but it doesn't fit into many of the categories because they are not exactly what the definition for those are, since it was created to define those exact acts and the fact modern society is a Western based one.

Another example, the socialist idea of dividing the land isn't even new, CaoCao of three kingdoms, romance of three kingdoms fame, had that idea, and he wasn't even the first one in China.

Is China Fascist? How can China be Fascist, China is Fascist the same way my puppy is a cat because it's got four legs and a mouth.

I think we need to invent a new term for current China, if all one is going to say that it's part of this and part of that, than it's neither this nor that, but something new.

An insightful observation. I've said repeatedly that the future of China is Singapore, but perhaps Hong Kong will be an interim step. In HK, the business community ("functional constituencies") is granted an explicit quota within the legislative council. I believe China is experimenting in HK to create a transitional form of democracy that can be replicated in the mainland without depriving the CCP of control, so we should closely watch what happens there. It won't be a surprise if your observation of bourgeoisie control of the CCP is formalized at some point, a la Hong Kong.

I see China doing exactly not that. The opposite in fact. In a democracy it's easier for a rich person to influence politics as his/her decisions impact jobs, campaign funds, or even a politician's image. In fact, that person can even choose to be a politician themselves.

I see China moving to a more division of labor type of deal. The political body leads while the Business class follows, with the people benefiting or suffering due to the effectiveness of those leaders. With the recent crackdowns political businessmen have drastically decreased, with the increasing sophistication and barrier of entry, I see Business essentially close itself off to all that doesn't specialize in this.

The political class would obviously not give up their power to the business people, and seeing as how they are the ones with the laws and guns, it's hard to argue. However the business class in itself is not a separate class from the everyday Joe and thus what they lack in "quality" they more than make up for in "quantity". While the political class cannot survive without quantity, because then they are just crazy old men yelling orders at the air.

I see this playing out as neither can live without the other, but nor will either become the other.

Granted I have not given this particular thing a lot of thought, it just became some what of a theory after reading your post, some 5 minutes ago.

I wanted to dismiss this as a gratuitous swipe, but my curiosity forces me to ask ask why you think the Republican Party meets the author's definition of fascism once "dictatorship" is removed.

It shocked me when I learnt that Democrats had more members. The once "marginalized" Liberal media is not so much anymore. I guess when you hear something enough times, it does become true. If there's one thing I learnt on these forums it's that.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I think we need to invent a new term for current China, if all one is going to say that it's part of this and part of that, than it's neither this nor that, but something new.

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).

I see China doing exactly not that. The opposite in fact. In a democracy it's easier for a rich person to influence politics as his/her decisions impact jobs, campaign funds, or even a politician's image. In fact, that person can even choose to be a politician themselves.

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.

I see China moving to a more division of labor type of deal. The political body leads while the Business class follows, with the people benefiting or suffering due to the effectiveness of those leaders. With the recent crackdowns political businessmen have drastically decreased, with the increasing sophistication and barrier of entry, I see Business essentially close itself off to all that doesn't specialize in this.

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.

The political class would obviously not give up their power to the business people, and seeing as how they are the ones with the laws and guns, it's hard to argue. However the business class in itself is not a separate class from the everyday Joe and thus what they lack in "quality" they more than make up for in "quantity". While the political class cannot survive without quantity, because then they are just crazy old men yelling orders at the air.

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 see this playing out as neither can live without the other, but nor will either become the other.

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 shocked me when I learnt that Democrats had more members. The once "marginalized" Liberal media is not so much anymore. I guess when you hear something enough times, it does become true. If there's one thing I learnt on these forums it's that.

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.

 

[Genesis]

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).

That's also true, in 2015, who can truly say who's who.

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.

Is being in bed really that bad? A married couple have division of labor, the mom takes care of the home, while the dad makes the bank. I'm fine with the reverse in case there are too many liberals on here. If they are not in bed, than it's a divorce, and in terms of a state, is that really a good thing.

Political liberalization works more for the West due to the starting point, and for China due to Qing dynasty, though to a much lesser extent. The Qing and the West had in common that the common man had no role in government, while all Han Chinese dynasties had even the highest seats available to all comers. A lot of Chinese prime ministers are from low birth, but that is almost none existent in the West. Obviously except the emperor.

If the CCP is closed off to all those that are not born CCP than yea, we need liberalization, but right now it's a simple division over how much involvement for those that didn't choose a government career need to have.

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.

China only needs to create an environment in where the business class can fight back, like now one photo posted on Weibo and that official is done. One official chose to have a expensive meal, I'm not sure where he is now, ubt he's not eating more than 2 dollars a meal I can tell you that.

Is it going to be perfect no? Reasonable is all we can hope for, but instead of hope, in my belief if you give the other party enough power, it doesn't matter what the original party does, since economic advancement is a must for the CCP, it's simply the natural progression of things.

Balance.

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.

The political class has laws and guns, but they don't dare use them anymore. Hong Kong and other protests in China are very different than what happened in 89, they will be different still to what will happen in 2029.

Again everything is balance, no one should step out of line, be it political or business or the people, when one party becomes too powerful, it's never a good thing, even when that party is the people.

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.

Why would that happen? Business needs the right political environment, while politics needs to be advanced by business, this is more and more true for China. A complete separate system is a Western thought, one that isn't really adapting that fast in the minds of Chinese. Balance has always been key, Yin Yang isn't just a racist fortune cookie, it's also a real belief.

If the day Chinese government officials are clean as a whistle, and poorer than a hobo, than the end of China would have happened, where are you going to find 90 million morally sound AND capable men and women to handle the affairs of the state.

The key isn't clean, the key is reasonable, it's just hard to gauge and achieve that desired level.

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.

With Social media, our attention span is increasingly short, for example, I feel Zayne has left one direction for ages, don't laugh, he's only gone since March.

Everyone remembers the Bush years, good or bad, that's what the liberal media has been saying, they say it's bad. Obama's color has made attacks bounce off him like Floyd Mayweather. Nobody even knows who Clinton is.

Hence the perception.

You yourself has said more media is owned by the Liberals and yet you are shocked by the perception?

BTW, if you go on the street 7/10 Canadians have no idea who the VP is of the US, almost nobody would know how many members are in congress or Senate or their roles. Though the same can be said of our own Canadian government.

I follow American policy, my media exposure to America is essentially all Liberal based media, hence I support Gay marriage, though I have no idea why as it doesn't impact me or anyone I know.