Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


History says otherwise. Nazi Germany was . . . one of the most profitable countries ever . .

Cancer grows fast too. Hitler pulled his country out of the Great Depression by putting them to work rebuilding Germany's war machine. People working means more prosperity, at least initially. --But we all know where Hitler's strategy eventually led.

The most profitable country of all time is the U.S., based upon its small business. Even in a nation filled with huge corporate giants, the U.S's small businesses provide most of the U.S.'s new jobs and almost all of it's innovation (witness the Silicon Valley).

State-sponsored corporations, such as in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or modern-day China can follow in the footsteps of free-enterprise. But such nations can match neither the innovation nor the popular passion for business necessary to succeed over the long term.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


History says otherwise. Nazi Germany was not only one of the most profitable countries ever, it was so profitable German capitalists ran into trouble when they had so much profit they couldn't invest it all. Hence the need to conquer Europe. They need places to invest (which couldn't be done otherwise because of tariffs and similar economic nonesense of the time).

Che, other than the "conquer Europe part" you are making a case here that Fascism is the best form of government.

I agree that today's China is becomng Fascist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No it isn't, Ned. Obviously you don't understand Fascism whatsoever.

China is becoming a totalitarian capitalist system, that is NOT akin to Fascism. Fascism requires an idea of unity of people within the state and a supernationalist belief that all others are lesser people. Primary to this unity belief is that the government basically controls aspects of the economy (the business owners are all members of the party).

While China has some aspects of fascism, they are not supernationalist and the government is having less and less control of the economy.

[Zkribbler]

Imran, you sure? You're the econ major, so you're probably more up to date on this than I, but . . .

It is my understanding that China is experimenting with a "one nation, two economies" system. That is, they are permitting some classic free enterprise (e.g. family farms, mom & pop light manufacturing), while simultaneously launching party-member-owned corporations.

[Drake Tungsten]

Fascism requires an idea of unity of people within the state and a supernationalist belief that all others are lesser people.

Very true and very descriptive of China right now.

they are not supernationalist

Nationalism has replaced communism as the ideological force driving Chinese politics. The Chinese are extremely nationalistic; I don't know what your term "supernationalist" really means, but it must be unimaginably extreme if you wouldn't consider China to fall under it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I wouldn't consider China to fall under it. There are simply too many nations inside China for them to say one nation is the best. The country is so huge that there is no dominant nation.

It's like saying the US is made up of only White Protestants!

It is my understanding that China is experimenting with a "one nation, two economies" system. That is, they are permitting some classic free enterprise (e.g. family farms, mom & pop light manufacturing), while simultaneously launching party-member-owned corporations.

The classic free enterprise usually wouldn't have been thought highly of in Nazi Germany or other fascist regimes. And the Chinese seem to be moving towards more free market.

[Drake Tungsten]

No, I wouldn't consider China to fall under it. There are simply too many nations inside China for them to say one nation is the best. The country is so huge that there is no dominant nation.

It's like saying the US is made up of only White Protestants!

Are you serious? China is 91.9% Han Chinese and the remaining 8.1% is spread between so many minority groups that they are all but meaningless. Combine that with 2000 years of Han dominance and you have small minorities like the Hakka and Yi who have been almost completely assimilated into Han culture. There are distinct minorities like the Tibetans and the Uighurs, but their existence on the periphery of China makes them rather inconsequential. Compared to other states, China is very culturally homogenous.

Also, the Chinese do think that they (Han Chinese) are the best. Like all Confucian societies, the Chinese are very chauvanistic and can be downright racist at times. One of the hallmarks of Chinese thought is the belief that China is the center of the world, superior to all other nations. You are either a part of the Chinese sphere or you are a barbarian. While years of European dominance have tempered this belief somewhat, it is still ingrained in Chinese thought and is making a comeback as Chinese nationalism rises in intensity.

China has all the necessary elements required for the formation of a strong nationalist identity and the party leaders are taking advantage of this to build popular support and hold onto power. If this doesn't strike you as a bit fascistic, then you are blind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

China is said to be 91.9% Han. How much of this Han Chinese is a combination of ethnic groups?

And btw, if China is fascist who is the penultimate leader? Is Jiang the be all and end all? No, he has to answer to the party. Another hallmark of Fascism is a supremely powerful leader who controls the party. Mao could be considered one of those, but China under him was more command communist.

China today is not Fascist, but a Totalitarian state. An easy way to see this is what the leaders where. It isn't scientific (in the political science way), but invariably Fascist leaders where military uniforms. Part of it is because in Fascism, it is a military state.

China has all the necessary elements required for the formation of a strong nationalist identity and the party leaders are taking advantage of this to build popular support and hold onto power. If this doesn't strike you as a bit fascistic, then you are blind.

Does this mean you think the US is a bit fascistic ?

[Drake Tungsten]

And btw, if China is fascist who is the penultimate leader? Is Jiang the be all and end all? No, he has to answer to the party. Another hallmark of Fascism is a supremely powerful leader who controls the party.

It's a hallmark of European fascism, yes. But why would a fascist state arising in East Asia have Western characteristics? You again show your lack of understanding about Confucian-based cultures. East Asians hold the ideals of consensus decision-making and group harmony very dear. Consequently, their government styles tend to emphasis group leadership far more than the individual type found in European history. Just look at WWII Japan for an example of this type of "group-fascism". Hirohito wasn't the all-powerful ruler of a fascistic Japan; a cabal of army officers ran the country.

If you want to be a pedant and claim that "group-fascism" isn't really fascism, then go right ahead. I don't think that the lack of a penultimate leader prevents a government from being considered fascist, but it all comes down to semantics. At any rate, China is developing a government that is very similar to fascist governments, whether you want to call it that or not.

Here's a good article I found on Google about China's transformation from communism to fascism. It focuses more on the economic aspect, which provides some information I can't give you. I'm not a political-econ man...

http://www.aei.org/ra/ralede020222.htm

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a hallmark of European fascism, yes. But why would a fascist state arising in East Asia have Western characteristics?

European Fascism IS fascism!! Jesus Christ! There is no other form of fascism because it was invented in Europe and that is the way the system works!

The one leader is key for fascism, because everything comes down to the leader. The leader becomes almost God-like in that he goes down to the people. The people are made to feel alienated and the only thing that reaches out to them is the leader. He is the only one that can free them from their lonliness and draw them together.

THAT is fascism.

[Drake Tungsten]

I see you choose the pedantic route. You also conveniently ignored this...

At any rate, China is developing a government that is very similar to fascist governments, whether you want to call it that or not.

Are you going to refute my point that China's government is extremely similar to a fascist government? Or are you just going to engage in semantic gymnastics all night? Please let me know, so I can spend my time on more useful pursuits if need be...

European Fascism IS fascism!! Jesus Christ! There is no other form of fascism because it was invented in Europe and that is the way the system works!

I suppose China was never really communist either, since Mao's form of Marxism differed markedley from the kind invented, espoused, and practiced in Europe.

Your Euro-centric view leaves much to be desired...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you going to refute my point that China's government is extremely similar to a fascist government

Then you can say ever military junta government is extremely similar to a fascist government. That simply isn't the case... there are specific things inherant in fascist that make it fascism.

I suppose China was never really communist either, since Mao's form of Marxism differed markedley from the kind invented, espoused, and practiced in Europe.

No it wasn't, and neither was the USSR. Both forms were Command Communism, which is very different from regular communism. Mao's communism was decidedly different from any other that came before it. It was a peasant communism based on Marxism-Leninism. But no, it never really was Communist.

Your Euro-centric view leaves much to be desired...

If the term originates in Europe and was defined in Europe, I'm going to use the European meaning of it.

You'll never find me saying Phil Jackson is 'Zen', because I'm sure Asian practicioners of Zen would not call him such. They, who have invented it, have the right to define their term.

I bet you are one of those annoying people that consider France and Sweden to be 'socialist' countries .

[Drake Tungsten]

Then you can say ever military junta government is extremely similar to a fascist government. That simply isn't the case... there are specific things inherant in fascist that make it fascism.

Specific things like ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and a controlled economy, all of which China has. The only way that China differs from a textbook fascist country is the lack of a single leader, which can easily be explained by cultural differences. It is far different from some military junta...

No it wasn't, and neither was the USSR. Both forms were Command Communism, which is very different from regular communism. Mao's communism was decidedly different from any other that came before it. It was a peasant communism based on Marxism-Leninism. But no, it never really was Communist.

****ing law students. So damn obsessed with the minutiae of a topic that they never address the substantive issues...

I bet you are one of those annoying people that consider France and Sweden to be 'socialist' countries.

You're damn right. Excuse me for using the term "socialist" in a commonly accepted manner...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Specific things like ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and a controlled economy, all of which China has. The only way that China differs from a textbook fascist country is the lack of a single leader, which can easily be explained by cultural differences. It is far different from some military junta...

So was the Soviet Union fascist? They were ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, and controlled economy.

Why then is China fascist and the USSR not?

The single IS an imporant issue. Read the writings of Barres and Mussolini. The leader is integral. Better yet ask a fascist if he thinks China is a good example of his ideals. I bet he'll say no. In fact the best example of fascist countries today are probably Saddam's Iraq and Quaddafi's Libya, both known for their strong leaders.

****ing law students. So damn obsessed with the minutiae of a topic that they never address the substantive issues...

The substantive issue is the minutiae. The issue is that you are using the word wrong.

You're damn right. Excuse me for using the term "socialist" in a commonly accepted manner...

Oh God. You are one of those... In that case I'll just end this now, realizing you have little understanding of political science. Do you even know the difference between social democrats and socialists?

[Drake Tungsten]

So was the Soviet Union fascist? They were ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, and controlled economy.

Why then is China fascist and the USSR not?

No private sector in the USSR, making it communist. China has a mixture of state-owned and private industries, making it similar to the controlled economies of fascist states.

The substantive issue is the minutiae. The issue is that you are using the word wrong.

I already said that we don't have to call China "fascist" if your anal ass can't handle it. I gave in so you might actually address the issue of whether or not China is extremely similar to fascist countries, but you've decided to keep fighting a battle I already conceded. So how exactly are you dealing with the substantive issue?

Oh God. You are one of those... In that case I'll just end this now, realizing you have little understanding of political science.

Yeah, I'd back out now if I were you, too. With your knowledge of China, you really can't bring anything to the conversation. Maybe someone who actually knows what he's talking about will come along to take your place...

Good riddance!