Posted on 08/10/2023 8:23:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Labels are useful, though not always totally accurate. The quick, short answer to the question in the title is “no, it’s not,” and I will elucidate further below. The CCP is no more true “communist” than the Democratic Party in America believes in democracy. Calling the CCP “communist” is a misnomer. Just because they have stated a goal—a “communist” society—doesn’t mean they have reached it, or ever want to (and believe me, the CCP doesn’t).
Communism has been attempted often in history but never practiced successfully. As Ronald Regan said, “Communism only works in heaven, where they don’t need it, and in hell, where they already have it.” Indeed, communism is, frankly, impossible because it espouses equality of outcomes, which will never happen.
Despite some conservative claims, neither the CCP or the Democrats are ''communist'' in the true sense of the word. There is no “egalitarianism” in either. The CCP is a totalitarian government with many features of Leftist ideology—control of the economy, censorship and silencing of opposition, dictatorial domination of the people, no respect for human life, etc. These also clearly mark the actions and/or aims of the Democratic Party in America. The CCP and Democrats both believe in Leftist ideology. The Democrats are trying to install it in America but cannot fully do so until they get totalitarian control. But, being Leftists, they WILL do the same things in America that Leftists have done elsewhere, if they ever get the power to do so. If not, why not? A Leftist is a Leftist is a Leftist, no matter what rock he slithers out from under.
Folks, egalitarianism is the great lie of the Left and is one reason it will always fails. People are not “equal.” There should be “equality under the law,” but, otherwise, we all have different abilities, talents, intelligence levels, motivations, etc. Stephen Curry and I are not “equal” on a basketball court and never would be, unless maybe you tied his hands behind his back, broke both his legs, and didn’t let him go across midcourt. Then there might be some sort of “equality of outcome.” But that can only be accomplished by distinctly limiting his freedom. Even Thomas More concluded that “utopia” is impossible without government force. If people are free, they will not be equal. If people are equal, they will not be free. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” had nothing to do with economic outcomes.
Try this thought experiment. Give everybody in America $100,000 to start with. Within a month (if everyone is allowed freedom to use their money as they wish), some people will have doubled their money, and some will have lost it all, with varying degrees in between. Some people (Elon Musk) have a talent for making money. Some people (Mark Lewis) have a talent for losing it. We aren’t equal in all matters. The only way my bank account and Elon’s will ever be equal is by forcibly taking his money away and giving it to me. That’s not freedom.
And communism, in practicality, recognizes this. There is always the “nomenklatura”—the elite—who rule and are rich while the masses struggle to survive—those who aren’t shot. Marxist “freedom” and “equality” are the greatest chimeras ever concocted.
China is a Leftist totalitarian government, not a communist one. “Rightist” totalitarian governments, usually military dictatorships, have existed, but China is a “Leftist” one, not “Rightist.” American Democrats are “Leftists”; some of their more starry-eyed idealists might think they want “communism,” but it will never happen, as they would quickly discover. What Democrats want is what the CCP has—totalitarian control of their country, not “communism.” The CCP may talk “communist” or “Marxist” rhetoric, but they have never had it and never will.
The man I worked for in China who stole thousands of dollars from me was a greedy, selfish, immoral, “bourgeois capitalist” in Marxist terms, the supposed enemy of communism. I was the “proletarian,” the worker, Marxism’s hero, and I was robbed. And even the Chinese government (the court when I sued him) decided for the “rightist, capitalist roader,” not the “proletarian worker.” Don’t tell me that China is “communist” or “Marxist.” The government is totalitarian, and distinctly favors “party members.” The “Chinese Communist Party,” like the “Democratic Party” in America, is only a useful label, not an accurate description.
China fled any supposed “communist” intentions after the disasters of Mao Zedong, who actually didn’t apply “communism” universally either, certainly not to himself. And looking at the 20th century, we discover no Marxist society that succeeded, at least by using Marxism, to materially or spiritually advance their people. Indeed, can anyone name one single benefit any Marxist government has given to the world? Marxism teaches that government is a tool of the rich and powerful (the “bourgeoisie”) to oppress the masses (the “proletariat”). Once the great “socialist” revolution takes place, and “communism” arises and ushers in a Golden Age of equality, freedom, and plenty, government will no longer be necessary and will fade into oblivion. Government will disappear in the perfect Marxist Utopia. Can you imagine the CCP ever giving up power in the name of “communism”? THAT is a hoot.
Here is why Marxism fails: when I was teaching history, I would always tell my students that “the greatest resource in the world is not oil, or water, or some natural element. The greatest resource in the world is the human mind set free—to create, explore, innovate.” Set free from economic (not moral) restraints, for there will be no economic freedom for all if there are no moral restraints on human behavior. Capitalism, not socialism, provides—has provided—the economic freedoms that have created human prosperity the past 200+ years. The CCP knows that, and that’s why it is not a “communist” system.
Totalitarian, yes. Communist, no. Don’t confuse labels and rhetoric with reality.
No it’s fascist.
Just like the United States’ government.
Bingo. Beat me to it. Economically speaking, fascist.
Small elite making all the big decisions.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Remember when they needed to spur their economic growth and went whole-hog to somewhat free markets? Gingrich was saying we should emulate them. Fascism and communism are kissing cousins.
Even Lenin had the New Economic Program (NEP) that instituted some free markets in the Soviet Union. Stalin eventually nixed it.
No it’s fascist.
~~~
Just like Stalin, for Mao the quest for Marxism was a vehicle for power. Ultimate power. Both these men were brutal brutal dictators.
But from what I’ve seen, both of them were believers in Marxism. Particularly Mao. So don’t get me wrong about that. But power was the real and pure driving force.
The USSR was more communist than China is. IE: The state (”the people”) own everything. Individuals technically own nothing. But Scott from the left coast is correct. They may not be fascists in the Mussolini sense, but totalitarian top-down control is immense
Mao wasn’t a true believer in Marxism. He thought it was great for China because he could use it to replace the thousand various religions that dominated the country...and thereby give his dictatorship greater control.
But Marxism said that the State would wither away, and basically the workers would run their factories.
The Soviet Union and China certainly didn’t run that way.
Just like the United States’ government.
If by fascism, you mean a mixed economy in which the state partners with favored corporations and unions, that would also include Western and Easter Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, and most of the world.
Think of the Chinese government as a criminal organization ran by a “godfather”. Corruption is not a vice, but a virtue.
It is a top down organization where the orders flow from the top to the bottom and the wealth flows from the bottom to the top.
Almost every business in China is owned by a party member who collects the graft and passes on a percentage to the big guy at top.
Mao was basically “shock therapy” for China.
Most modern Chinese are glad for what Mao did, but equally glad they weren’t the ones who had to live through it.
It’s the same with Stalin. Most Russians would say Stalin was necessary to bring Russia from feudalism to a Superpower, but again, they were just glad they weren’t the ones who had to live through those times.
The dumbest thing we ever do is all the navel gazing about what kind of totalitarian they are. Nazi, communist, theocracy, monarchy, fascist, whatever the hell Singapore is, whatever you want to call DC today… all the same in the end.
There is freedom on one end…and all those above on the other end.
Why, isn’t that interesting…
Communism is just the same game that’s been played time and time again.
Promise the “have nots”, that they will be given to, in exchange for power.
When the quickest, surest and most certain path to extreme riches lies in being a member of the political class and working in government, you know that you do not live in a Republic. You dont even live in a democracy, for that matter. You live under fascism.
The distinctions over verbiage demonstrate why the taxonomy of various political stances is mostly BS. And people adore having BS to say for -- or against -- other BS.
We try to see things without using the Left-Right model, which has failed about as often as centralized economic planning has failed. It's difficult because so many conversations devolve into the simple use of Left and Right, as if they have any meaning excepting "that one's not me."
If one takes all the various government systems and political stances which lead to big, powerful and invasive control and places them together, then they separate quite easily from a stance which advocates for smaller, less powerful and far less invasive control. The distinctions become clear and do not rely on political terms.
Liberty versus authoritarian control.
It makes sense, because the two "famous" and supposedly "Right" governments of the National Socialists and Italian Fascists both advocated for big, powerful and invasive control, just as have the Soviet Socialists and Sino-socialists (Chinese Communists) advocated for that same "big, powerful and invasive control."
Together at last, so to speak. Moreover, Hitler specifically delineated his party from the Marxist socialists because that was "Jewish" socialism while his was "Aryan socialism." This is lost in the tiny sea of "Left and Right" malarkey.
Advocate for smaller, less powerful and less invasive government, and the only response from your opposition is ad hominem and bogus terminology.
Small is good. It annoys the big government advocates something fierce.
This is how they keep making the argument the true communism has never been tried. Another example is North Korea. It’s not communist according to Marx. They claim their leaders are literally divine, actual gods. Go down the list of other communist countries, every one in its own unique way is not “truly communist.”
It’s an interesting parlor game, but in reality, you either cherish and champion freedom, or you hate it. To me this kind of thing is discussing the relative merits among different Mexican drug cartels, or different street gangs in Los Angeles.
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.