Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Amorphous wrote

Reply to comment by kin in Real socialism! by ziq

I'd need to see some damn good evidence of that. Even the US, a country built on genocide, which is currently engaging in genocide, is hardly fascist. There's an increasingly strong fascist wing in American politics, certainly, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say it has yet got there.

How has China excelled at fascism so much as to overtake the US in this regard? What definition of fascism are you using that China could meet it?

−3

kin wrote

How fascist is fascist enough? So to be able to get your fascist state award plaque do you need to exceed your excelency in totalitarian practices? Maybe raise your death toll? Maybe six million is enough? It is like a competition between States, and the ones who break the Axis record will be recognized as fascist. Look around, China, USA, Russia, India all the Big players are playin by the book, hypercapitalism is already Fascism.

Go ask any Cantonese, Tibetan, Uyghur, or any real Marxist in CCP China. Sorry but defending China make you an allie to Capitalism.

6

Amorphous wrote

I see, we're at the stage where we post "list of massacres in china" on wikipedia, a list which starts in the year 760, instead of actually answering any questions. Disappointing. I'll still be here if you want to take a real shot at responding to my comment.

−4

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

There are many massacres on that list you could read about from the 20th century too, which are obviously relevant to this discussion. it is an encyclopedia so it has a lot of information grouped together, so this reply is both condescending and a clear deflection from discussing it.

what this signals to me is that you are not desiring to do so, which means that if you were to engage you are aware that you might feel obliged to defend or justify some of these actions, and so you wish to retain deniability about this by not directly talking about it.

If I am just way off mark here, by all means, let's discuss some of specifics. Here are some which seem particularly upsetting from that list, but i am curious your point of view. CW genocide, of course:

6

ziq OP wrote

Words don't maintain the same meaning for 100 years. The material conditions on the ground change and fascism changes with them.

2

Amorphous wrote

Okay, so explain what definition of fascism you're using.

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

The only thing that's changed is fascism has adapted to no longer require one-party rule, instead turning the two-parties of liberal democracies into separate wings of the same (fascist) party. Everything else is the same:

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy

All of this continues to be true, except the dictatorial part where the power has shifted slightly. 2 party rule is still a dictatorship, but with rotating reps who all represent the same political class. The ruling class as a whole is the new dictator, while the presidents are just there to create spectacle and keep people convinced they have a say in the political process when they vote for one of the dictator class's two pre-approved showmen.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

and btw, china still meets the original definition since it's far-right (i.e. extreme nationalist, nativist and authoritarian) and has a direct dictator, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation.

But even China pretends to be democratic much like the USA does, so the distinction is barely there.

4

Amorphous wrote

How in the world am I supposed to engage you in a serious discussion when you say absolute nonsense like "China has a direct dictator" lmao

Have you ever in your life read a book

−1

ziq OP wrote

fuck of you giant bootlick

1

Amorphous wrote

If you're not getting paid by the CIA to spread nonsense about its enemies, you're really fucking stupid.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

what would you critique about the claims and assertions made in the meme?

4

Amorphous wrote

I have no interest in discussing the meme, that's not what any of this conversation has been about.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

That's quite strange, because this comment thread started with you complaining about the meme as synecdoche for what you described as

radlibs owning the place

So, what was your problem with the meme?

I also noticed you do not think China has a dictator. Fair enough, dictator is a western Roman-imperial term, I can see how you would find that culturally tone deaf to apply cross culturally. however it is self-represented by the Communist Party itself that Xi is the Paramount Leader of China, who simultaneously holds both head of state, head of government, civil and military offices of the highest order within the party (which holds these powers privately, outside of the purview of general elections), in much a similar manner as the unitary and unaccountable executive of the United States...except that the means of choosing this leader is somehow even more abstracted and removed from the average person's control than in a hellhole like USA. While in USA there is an illusion of choice, this does not really exist under the Communist Party's statecraft.

So, there is an unaccountable unitary executive who directs simultaneously economic, civil, political, and cultural force within the country. Can you forgive someone who is unfriendly to such a centralized system, for calling it a dictatorship? Even if you support the government, it seems difficult to argue that it is not a centrally organized and hierarchical system with a single Paramount Leader.

6

Amorphous wrote

this comment thread started with you complaining about the meme

You're an entire week out of date.

As for the rest of the comment, it simply does not seem to me that Xi is a man with total and unquestionable power over his country. I'd need to see some good evidence that this is, in fact, the case before I would believe it.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Ok, I mean that seems like you walked it back later though, but this is irrelevant and I'm not going to hassle you about it.

He's literally called the Paramount Leader, he has all the most major positions and titles of governance in the government of mainland China, simultaneously holding all of them. So what evidence would you want, specifically, before you would accept my assertion as true?

5

Amorphous wrote

Well, first of all I'd need to see evidence that he holds "all the most major positions and titles of governance" because this sounds a lot like what you often hear about the DPRK, and I know quite well that it isn't true in the case of that country. Unfortunately, it's difficult to be well-versed in the democratic and political systems of every single enemy of the US, so some of them I've still not got to.

Anyway, after that, I'd need to see good evidence that there is no accountability. No way for him to be removed from his position if he should start taking actions that the majority of people don't approve of.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

This seems pedantic and evasive, Xi is the Paramount Leader of mainland China, it is a position of incredible centralized power. He has, as Paramount Leader, engaged in purges of corruption in order to consolidate the power of his position within the party. I doubt anyone in China would really dispute this.

4

Amorphous wrote

You can repeat that all day long but I'd still need to actually see evidence of it.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

Okay, I'll do the work of providing you the evidence, but you'll need to first define what exactly you're looking for ahead of time

4

Amorphous wrote

I ... already did?

This is a strange line of discussion.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

i re-read the whole thread, all 102 comments, there is nothing that i understand as a direct response to my request in the entire thread.

Please re-state, or at least link to, your qualified requirements for an answer. I've done research papers for online tankies before, and they've come back with "well acktually i wanted X" and i'm not doing that this week. State clearly what you want, or your order will not be filled.

Regards,

a worker

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

...this is what we call, vagueposting. it is easy for you to move the goalposts, be specific or your order will not be filled.

3

Amorphous wrote

I don't understand. I don't understand how I could be more specific than that. I want you to identify what you think are the "highest positions of power" or whatever and demonstrate that Xi holds all of them and cannot be removed from them.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

i'm asking you to define what evidence you want. What sources count. Do you understand now?

3

Amorphous wrote

I mean I think it should be obvious that anything directly owned or funded by the government of the US, UK, Germany, etc is unreliable. Other than that I don't really care.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

so...private publications from various countries, these are ok? Or no? Because you were saying you wouldn't take any of that seriously either. So I'm just trying to establish what exactly your goalpost is, for "prove it". I don't know why you're being obtuse still.

3

Amorphous wrote

And I don't understand why you're being so hostile lol I'm not being obtuse. I just don't understand what you want from me.

Private publications, sure, but they'll of course be subject to scrutiny. I'm not gonna believe anything I read from anyone associated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation obviously, or any open neo-nazis. Again, I feel all of that should be obvious.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

all of that is obvious. i'm asking you to be more specific, which publications are what you want?

i'm hostile because i'm offering to do work for you, and you're making it difficult.

4