The Chat Thread (Read OP)

[Morifea]

Stupido Touristo

[mishkin]

In Spain we let them be robbed by waiters. Said with a smile: "30 euros for that coke. Muchas gracias"

[Akar]

If you can't even vaguely convert dollars to euros in your head on the fly you deserve to pay 30 euros for a coke.

[Diamat]

Corrupt Italians? Impossible.

[Flinn]

hey street thieves are not corrupted, they are honest dudes!! How you dared..

[Bo1Bo1Sha3]

Guys, where on the political spectrum is modern day China?

[Akar]

At the top, obviously. The Chinese have put all their points into strength and used charisma as their dump stat

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

In terms of foreign policy and domestic politics? China is like a roided up version of the Ming Dynasty right now.

[Akar]

double post

[Akar]

I prefer the term "Fascist ethno-state"

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Communist? Though I don't see how China is an ethno-state either, since they are not even a homogenous group of people.

[Akar]

Honestly if you think China is even remotely Communist these days you really don't know what Communism is supposed to look like. They are a nationalistic capitalist country with state controlled business and a dictator. That's pretty much the definition of fascist right there. As for the ethno-state, they may not be made up of one people but they sure as are trying to turn everyone there into identical Atheist Han Chinese.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It is Dengism, I mean it isn't real Communism but it is still a Communist system. You just mean it isn't Communist economics. Because it uses "State Capitalism" then that doesn't make it not Communist, since Lenin, Stalin and Deng did the same thing. It hasn't changed very much since Deng other than a bit of a Xi update and that is for Chinese characteristics. Based on that last point, China has had a national outlook since Mao, not world globalism.

That isn't Fascist at all tbh. What you are describing is Authoritarianism. China is barely "Nationalist", it would be civic nationalist at best. But usually not at all.

There are multiple ethnic groups in China, the Chinese are just the most numerous. In fact the Chinese government has given minority incentives and attempts to protect minority languages and culture like Manchu, Mongolian etc and they don't even have to. You're referring to Tibet and that is for completely different reasons. In so far as I'm aware there is no attempt to erase Tibetans, just crush the power of the Tibetan clergy and secure Tibet with Han settlers. I don't think it is really an issue with Tibetan people but rather an issue with securing Tibet.

[Akar]

I was referring to not only the Tibetans but the Uyghurs and the Falun Gong (not an ethnicity but still a huge persecuted group). Xinjiang province is basically just one giant prison camp now these days and it's only a matter of time before the Chinese start to "integrate" more and more cultures that the government deems harmful, I mean just look at Hong Kong right now. I would argue that Stalin, Deng and to a certain extent even Lenin weren't true communists. State capitalism is the opposite of what Communism is supposed to stand for. I don't think it matters whether you call it Dengism or Marxist-Leninism or Stalinism but authoritarian nationalist state capitalism is Fascism. The Chinese people do not have freedom of speech or expression or pretty much any of the basic human rights that should make up the very core tenants of Communism.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I was referring to not only the Tibetans but the Uyghurs and the Falun Gong (not an ethnicity but still a huge persecuted group). Xinjiang province is basically just one giant prison camp now these days and it's only a matter of time before the Chinese start to "integrate" more and more cultures that the government deems harmful, I mean just look at Hong Kong right now.

The Chinese are only cracking down on Tibetans and Uyghurs because they are the two centers of resistance. The reason for that being their independent mindedness brought about from their respective cultures. The Chinese aren't really trying to assimilate them into Chinese culture, but rather assimilate them into Chinese society, if you understand my meaning. Anyway both were policies started under Mao. With regards to Hong Kong that was also a policy started by actual Communists in the time of Jiang Zemin. Mao wouldn't have even agreed to the Hong Kong and Macao agreements, he probably would have just annexed them completely and crushed all dissent.

I would argue that Stalin, Deng and to a certain extent even Lenin weren't true communists. State capitalism is the opposite of what Communism is supposed to stand for. I don't think it matters whether you call it Dengism or Marxist-Leninism or Stalinism but authoritarian nationalist state capitalism is Fascism. The Chinese people do not have freedom of speech or expression or pretty much any of the basic human rights that should make up the very core tenants of Communism.

The issue is that people regard this as being in a vacuum. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng etc aren't true Communists. And then end it at that, but the real question is if they believed in Communism then why didn't they adhere fully to Marxist principles? That is because, for starters, Marx did not outline a Marxist plan but carried out economic and social critique. So the real plans were first outlined by Engels and then later theorists. Leninist principles may appear illegitimate to some, but that is only a semantic argument about methodology, the end goal is still True Socialism.

In regards to Mao, there was never going to be a Marxist mega state where China wasn't the one in charge, the Chinese won't accept it (nor is it feasible due to geo-political realities and population distribution). Where as Lenin and Stalin had to make do with what they had, since the Socialist world revolution never materialized. Economic reforms and toleration of State Capitalism is more a pragmatic measure. Although I agree that China's current economic policy is fairly removed from the Marxist concept, the CCP end goal is still Socialism. They justify it on three arguments: 1 that Capitalism is a necessary stage for implementing Socialism, 2 that pragmatic methods and flexibility are a requirement in allowing the Socialist state to succeed in order to create Socialism, 3 that Mao's policies were economically disastrous and caused millions of deaths, while also being the quickest way to getting the entire Politburo in coffins and an anti-Socialist reactionary regime in power. Almost the same argument for why free speech and Human Rights aren't adhered to, but the inverse.

Also I would add that Anarcho-Communism has never once worked. Every time they tried it, everyone got killed by a statist regime. Plus it just sounds like a bad idea in general.

[Akar]

I mean, anything is going to be a "center of resistance" if you annex it and start persecuting its people and outlawing their cultural practices. Chinese culture and Chinese society are pretty synonymous these days. The Chinese government isn't and hasn't allowed any room for dissidence since Tienanmen square and I can't see them starting any time soon. Xi has recently solidified his control over the Chinese government in ways that previous leaders haven't been able to do before.

You make a good point about Marx not laying out a plan, so much as a critic of the current method and an outline for what he thought would be better. The issue is that none of these so called Communist regimes have built their governments on the foundations that Marx laid out. State Capitalism and a lack of freedom of speech is antithetical to Marxism, and is only a stepping stone in the opposite direction. Redistribution of the means of production isn't about government ownership, but rather ownership by the actual workers rather than a separate ruling and governing class, a class which is currently in charge in China and Russia today. You say that the CCP's end goal is still socialism, but I find that hard to believe. The CCP has enough control of the state and people to enact what ever reforms it wishes without interference from their populace or the outside world. If they truly wanted to convert to a socialist nation they wouldn't keep moving towards state capitalism and imperialism.

Semantic arguments about methodology are still important though, because I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Even if the end goal is still the same, Stalinism and so forth are certainly not the paths to reach it. Leninist ideals feel illegitimate because they result in a monarchy vested in bureaucracy rather than in an individual.

[Diamat]

Within the Marxist-Leninist framework, it is easily acceptable to say that China is Communist. The problem is that the Marxist-Leninist framework can rationalize almost anything, including capitalism within socialism. As for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc., they were true Communists and devoted Marxists. Whether or not their interpretations of Marx were correct, however, is a separate question. What is certain, though, is that their worldviews were mainly colored by the writings of Marx.

[Akar]

Great point Diamat, I completely agree with you. The first smart words I've heard from a birds craw

[Bo1Bo1Sha3]

Then I'd say China is fascist in the late 19th century meaning of the word, the original one before it became a slur for anyone you don't like.
Socially though, I can't phrase it.

[Akar]

Then I'd say China is fascist in the late 19th century meaning of the word, the original one before it became a slur for anyone you don't like.
Socially though, I can't phrase it.

Don't be such a fascist.