Posted on 10/22/2017 12:49:00 AM PDT by RohanKapoor
Xi Jinping is poised to become the most potent Chinese leader since Mao Zedong — and to guide his country’s continued emergence as a fascist global superpower for at least the next decade.
The 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is scheduled to start on October 18, when it will appoint leaders and establish the country’s course for the next five years.
Xi undoubtedly will be re-appointed head of the CCP, followed by re-selection as China’s president and head of state early next year.
But he appears also to have overturned the collegial, limited term system of leadership established after the social ravages and tens of millions of deaths caused by Mao’s maniacal leadership.
The system of circumscribed leadership was reinforced after the nationwide uprising against the CCP in 1989; under that system, Xi would only get another five years at the helm, followed by retirement.
But since his appointment to the leadership as a compromise candidate with no obvious personal ambitions in 2012, Xi has worked assiduously to destroy rivals and potential enemies. He has also overseen the construction of a highly sophisticated authoritarian state unmatched by anything in China’s history.
OTOH Communism, through force, all means of production(wealth creation) is owned by the government. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
China’s economy operates like a pyramid scheme. Their stock market can crash without warning.
Hitler hated the German Communists, who he fought for power. Just one more example in the long history of Marxists killing each other. No one doubts both Russia and China were communists at the time of their war.
About time people state facts; China went from a Communist to a Fascist economy.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."
No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
-- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Red is the new brown.
I was not addressing fascism at all and agree with its origins in the modern era. The reality is that it has been around almost as long as mankind itself. I was addressing the poster saying that Hitler hated communism answering by making the distinction of their being no difference between Marxism and communism that that are both based off the emotional tug that support us and we will solve all of your problems.
Hitler not only used the emotional but also the national lures for his version of totalitarianism that was morphed by using the Mussolini out and out fascism. The trifecta.
Have you seen what the PRC has been up to in Africa...?
It is like saying baseball and football are the same because they are both sports. Fascism and Communism are very different.
Like most totalitarian, the National Socialists hated competition.
WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY?
I am not saying they are the same. What I was addressing that socialism and communism are the same. But truth be told, all three are born of subjecting its serfs for the ultimate control of a few and in that way, all are connected to the same insidious ends.
As American falters under the weight of her decadent enclaves, China's appetite for world domination increases.
If the American people do not wake up and purge the USA of the sickness of Western Decadence (also known as "liberalism", "progressivism", et al.), China will become more and more aggressive.
The ruling Chinese oligarchy dreams of annexing Australia and Canada, and, if present trends continue, Hawaii and California. Why not Mexico too?
The enclaves of Decadence within America are sick. They reek of decay and moral rot. Millions of benevolent Americans have not yet comprehended the problem; they must be made aware.
If America does not wake up--and fast!--she faces a tragedy of catastrophic proportions!
A Xi Jinping purge of the leadership? A possible resurrection of a Red Guard faction? Can’t expect to conquer the world without the engineers and an educational system to supply them.
Calling what China does “fascist” is downright stupid.
It is so overwhelmingly wrong, out of context, and alien that it just boggles the mind.
Thanks for your opinion, comrade.
The “Dawn of a Fascist China” happened back when international companies decided to invest their western profits there, heavily.
It’s been fascist ever since.
How it will turn out... probably like the USSR, after a few more steps.
Fascism is a very specific list of things, all of which have virtually nothing to do with China, even at its worst.
What they do might be similar to some elements of fascism, but they have no relationship at all to fascism.
The first emperor of unified China, Qin Shi Huang, set up the first, almost modern police state, with most of the elements we recognize in police states today. In the 3rd Century BC.
While he ordered that all historians be buried alive, so that Chinese history would begin with his reign, after his time, it did. So they had plenty of similar to fascist examples in their own history without ever verging on anything like European fascism.
Oddly enough, a lot of what they did was far worse than anything European fascists ever did, and many things the European fascists would never dream of doing, and would be horrified if it was even suggested.
Truthfully, it makes as little sense as saying the modern Chinese are acting like “Methodists”. No, they are acting just like Chinese.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s meaningless, really.
Obviously they aren’t acting like Methodists.
How would you describe the PRC?
To explain that, there needs to be some familiarity with the western vs. Asian philosophies, though it is not particularly hard. For example, in the West, the individual is seen as the most important part of society; but in Asia, they rank much lower.
In Asia, a family, then its town and their place in society matter much more. Their extended family comes next. At some point the individual has some value, but only relative to the system in which they belong.
For example, if a fisherman offended a powerful nobleman in the past, the punishment might be to destroy that village and all who lived within, including the fisherman. It wouldn’t particularly matter if the identity of the fisherman was known, or even if he was offered up for punishment.
Only on the surface does this seem like the Lidice massacre and destruction of the town by the Nazis, after some unknown partisans assassinated high ranking Nazi Reinhard Heydrich. Had its citizens offered up the responsible partisans, it is likely that only they would have been murdered.
But the motivation behind it all in the former case is the Asian “way”; but in the latter case, while it can properly be called “fascist”, it was not rule of thumb fascism, but unusual circumstances.
When you look at all the Slavic villages destroyed and their people butchered, solely for being Slavs, that is clearly fascist; but it would typically not be something that Asians would do.
They would much prefer gradualism, such as how the Chinese are trying to demographically dominate the Tibetans or Uighurs. Eventually they will be marginalized into destruction, but there is no ambition to slaughter them outright, though they live under brutal dictatorship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.