Fascism or Communism?

[The Minsky Moment]

The salient characteristics of China's political system under XI are: hierarchical dictatorship under a leader for life controlling a one-party apparatus (consistent with both systems), corporatist economic model with state-capitalist cooperation and where big business is favored provided it accepts its subordination to the state (consistent with fascism but not communism), and hyper-nationalist rhetoric focused on territorial expansionary goals that are rhetorically packaged as "recovery" of lost national territory (more consistent with fascism than communism).  Given a choice between those two options, Xi's China is closer to the fascist side.  Although obviously there are differences with the historic fascist regimes.

[Tamas]

I'd agree that China is definitely moving toward being a very classical fascist state. With a modern cyberpunk dystopia twist.

[viper37]

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

They are both authoritarian regimes, but they are not mutually exclusive.  Stalinism is communism with strong element of fascism.  Saddam's Iraq has been described as a fascist regime.  But there isn't much difference between communist North Korea and that regime.

Fascim implies a strong personality cult, usually, not just reverence the State.  Staline had that.  NK has that.  China also has that.  Italy and Germany had also that. 

Communism implies a strong centrally planned economy.  There is no such thing as creating a product because consumer wants it, you create it because you are ordered to do so.  Nazi Germany during WWII was like that.  USSR was like that from the beginning, with some softening here&there for small time farmers.

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

Is there such a thing as 'true' communism outside of text books? It's a level of utopia that can not be reached, just like libertarianism.  People are unable to govern themselves as a whole and always act in the best interest of everyone.  The pandemic should have taught us that.

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

Xi seems to be waging war on private corporations, bringing them back under the State's fold. I'd say he's leaning toward stalinism, with his personality as strong as China.  It has strong element of fascism, but it's still a communist country at heart, with moderate private property.  Much more private property than there were in any communist regime, much less insistance on expanding the revolution to other countries (save for Taiwan and Tibet), but it's still a communist regime at heart.

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

Yes.  Good intentions alone aren't enough.

[Admiral Yi]

Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.

[Josquius]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.

Its certainly interesting to think about theories that they're communists all along and they're merely trying to follow Marx's "plan" in going through the capitalist stage of development...but I've not seen too much evidence of this. And regardless of any overarching background plan where they've landed at the moment is very definitely heavily in the fascist direction.
The militant nationalist propaganda that is seeping into the population empathizing reclaiming a glorious golden age unfairly stolen from the mighty Chinese people....


If not anything else the terms fascism and communism are philisophical rather than scientific ones. They're both very fluffy and open to change and interpretation.
What can be seen for sure is that Xi's China is very different to Mao's. Quite the opposite in many respects. This does make calling it communist, as if its rolled back the past 40 years, a bit weird. Fascism stands as a clear alternate label to distinguish it as well as describe it.

Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.

Its fascism with Chinese characteristics :p

China has never really got into the whole 'race' thing. But the superiority of Chinese (Han) culture is very much a thing in modern China, dredged up from the old Imperial Chinese world view.

The desire for conquest is definitely there. Remember with Italy and the Nazis it wasn't seen as unjust conquest but rather claiming lands that were naturally theirs. The same as the way China is/has framed its conquests.
There's also a big factor in China at the moment I'm seeing of making sure the conquests stick this time. Even if the current government of China should fall never again will the furthest reaches of the empire break free. Expanding the Chinese heartland internally is top of their agenda.

[Admiral Yi]

The desire for conquest is definitely there. Remember with Italy and the Nazis it wasn't seen as unjust conquest but rather claiming lands that were naturally theirs. The same as the way China is/has framed its conquests.
There's also a big factor in China at the moment I'm seeing of making sure the conquests stick this time. Even if the current government of China should fall never again will the furthest reaches of the empire break free. Expanding the Chinese heartland internally is top of their agenda.

I don't remember this because it's not true.  Everything that was gobbled up after the Sudetenland was "new" conquest, not righting of historical wrongs.  And Italy had no claim whatsover on Ethiopia, Somaliland, Libya, and Albania.

[grumbler]

Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.

And the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to  the interests of the state.

So, the THREE important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority, the desire for conquest, and the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to  the interests of the state.

And the creation of the mythos of the suppression of the master race.

So, the FOUR... wait.  I'll come in again.

[Sheilbh]

Its certainly interesting to think about theories that they're communists all along and they're merely trying to follow Marx's "plan" in going through the capitalist stage of development...but I've not seen too much evidence of this. And regardless of any overarching background plan where they've landed at the moment is very definitely heavily in the fascist direction.

I don't think it matters if that's what they are doing or not - my point is that's how the leadership describe it. And I think that's probably accurate in terms of their perception of the party, state and process they are overseeing (but it may be a massive con). What people think they're doing is really, because that shapes their decisions and actions.

Again I would point out that there's nothing in the history of communist states that is inherently pacific about their borders (there's nothing in the history of the PRC alone that indicates that) or somehow tolerant of minorities. And I think relevant to this is that the current leadership were sort of coming of age and taking up their first leadership roles as the USSR collapsed. I think that probably had a profound effect on their attitudes.

It may well be that they behind the walls of the leadership compound they acknowledge that it's all for show and they're actually setting up a hyper-capitalist nationalist big Singapore - but I don't think that's what's going. I don't think that's what's shaping their decision-making or thinking, I think it's what they say is shaping their decision-making and thinking.

If not anything else the terms fascism and communism are philisophical rather than scientific ones. They're both very fluffy and open to change and interpretation.
What can be seen for sure is that Xi's China is very different to Mao's. Quite the opposite in many respects. This does make calling it communist, as if its rolled back the past 40 years, a bit weird. Fascism stands as a clear alternate label to distinguish it as well as describe it.

But I think this is a really important difference between fascism and communism. There is a philosophy (in their view a scientific one ) of communism. There is a manifesto. There is theory of what communism looks like - and as I say I wouldn't go to Beijing for interesting theory or Marxist perspectives, because they are in the deadening tradition of Marxist-Leninism and the theory of what these communist states are doing and looking like. I think core parts of that philosophy in practice are still in place (a vanguard party, mass mobilisation to meet pre-defined aims/plans, the concept of a transitional dictatorship and the importance of ideology to their vanguard). I don't think there's an unbroken leap from Mao to Xi, but that the West has misinterpreted the bit in between and Deng, especially - ironically by taking a sort of Marxist approach that market structures and material reality were what would shape the CCP.

But I think they are engaged in that tradition of Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Deng. As mentioned I think as a political structure - it is communist. A 1960s Kremlinologist would recognise the role of the party, they'd recognise Xi's current drive for disciplining cadres, they'd recognise setting goals/campaigns and then using the party to drive capital and labour to deliver them - and they'd recognise the permanently "tranistional" dictatorship phase.

I think fascism is different. There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework. And that might actually be impossible because fascism is nationalist and defined by the unique features of each nation and, to my mind, to the extent there's a theory it is a philosophy of action and vigour which will look different in different locations. I think that's why you kind of have to sort of make a taxonomy of fascist characteristics to try and understand it. It's also why I think it is - hopefully - probably a historical event rather than a really living ideology.

I think we have other words for authoritarian, nationalist governments and I don't think we necessarily need to keep using fascist.

[Maladict]

Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.

And the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to  the interests of the state.

So, the THREE important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority, the desire for conquest, and the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to  the interests of the state.

And the creation of the mythos of the suppression of the master race.

So, the FOUR... wait.  I'll come in again.

I didn't expect that.

[chipwich]

There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework.

Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".

[grumbler]

There is a thin theoretical and philosophical underpinning to fascism, I believe, though Fascism is mostly an appeal to emotions rather than to the intellect.  Those underpinnings, though, rely on discredited ideas like social Darwinism and national rejuvenation through strife, and so probably aren't worth even repeating.

[Tamas]

I think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.

[Sheilbh]

Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".

Yeah - but that's not what shaped the Nazi movement or the Falange or the Iron Guard etc. But you're right I should have qualified with "universal" or "universally accepted" philosophy or manifesto. By the time that was written there were already lots of other fascist movements in Europe who couldn't have been inspired by or following that essay, but were instead inspired by Mussolini's movement and state.

It doesn't have the same role for fascism as the Communist Manifesto (plus the rest) has for communism. That's why I think you need to look at the characteristics, style, features etc of fascist movements - and the conditions for their success - to work out what it is.

There is a thin theoretical and philosophical underpinning to fascism, I believe, though Fascism is mostly an appeal to emotions rather than to the intellect.  Those underpinnings, though, rely on discredited ideas like social Darwinism and national rejuvenation through strife, and so probably aren't worth even repeating.

Yeah this is another reason I think it might be historically tied/unique to that period is as you say there's the social darwinism but also the emergence of germ theory which I think has an impact on shaping fascism. You remove the context of those ideas being new and innovative and I don't know if there's much left.

Similarly I think fascism needs mass media - and possibly the first generation consumption of mass media. There might be a parallel there with social media (I think especially with Trump - I don't know enough about Xi to comment) where there is this new media environment, but we aren't yet sophisticated consumers who've always lived in that environment.

I think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.

Yeah I agree. I think if you boil it down I think the core "ideology" is basically a mix of will to power and the cult of action. Because of that it's difficult to frame ideologically because it is just the exercise of power and the vigorous active leader/party/state.

In most of the rest of politics ideology shapes the way you act and the purposes you use power - which could be liberal, socialist, conservative whatever - I think for fascism it is the power and the action itself that matters so that can go in any kind of direction.

[grumbler]

There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework.

Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".

Yes, and his (well, Gentile's) writings showed the intellectual bankruptcy of fascism.  Indeed, all of Gentile's writings essentially just made claim to being intellectual with no evidence of intellectualism present.  He is 100% arguing by assertion.

[grumbler]

I think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.

Yes, fascism is based on "might is right" but also "right is might."  The way a people (nation, race, however you define it) are able to exert power is through the rightness of their actions.   Fascists argued that action itself was good; change was itself good; that conflict was itself good.  There was no end-state to Fascism because Fascism was a process, not a product.

In theory, I suppose the Nazis proposed an end-state in which the world was empty of everyone except the master race, and that master race would then evolve into the next stage of human evolution (immortal, disease-free, clear-thinking, etc) but i don't know that the rank-and-file were aware of Hitler's more grandiose ideas.