The China Thread

[crazy canuck]

Suppression of/conflict with internal ethnic minorities is not something totally alien to rock solid communist regimes.

Sure.
But making it a central policy pillar and being obsessed with the greatness and purity (cultural rather than ethnic in the Chinese case) of your one people?

We called it "The Soviet Union" back in the day.

They didn't do this.
At all.

Russians didn't suppress non Russian populations within the Soviet Union?

[Threviel]

I think Tyr has a point.  It's hard to see the PRC as communist more than in name,  The NEP is not a good comparison - that was a more about a tactical withdrawal from attempts to exert power over the countryside, freeing up small scale trading, and ceding power back to labor union organizations in the cities; that has not been the policy in China which has moved in the other direction.  Instead we have a nationalist one party dictatorship with an modernizing agenda and a corporatist, state capitalist economic model.  If it's not fascist it certainly seems to rhyme.

The thing is that a lot of leftists often argue that every failed communist experiment wasn't communist, it was fascist. Oh no, the Soviet Union wasn't communist, they didn't do communism correct, when we do it we will do it correct.

So yeah, what China does can be seen as a lot of the same corporativism that the fascists did, but the fascists were very much inspired by socialist ideas when they did their stuff in the 30's. Mussolini being an old socialist and NSDAP having that S in the name and so on. So the ChiComs going full circle does not stop them from being commies, even if it rhymes with the fascists.

[Josquius]

The thing is that a lot of leftists often argue that every failed communist experiment wasn't communist, it was fascist. Oh no, the Soviet Union wasn't communist, they didn't do communism correct, when we do it we will do it correct.

So yeah, what China does can be seen as a lot of the same corporativism that the fascists did, but the fascists were very much inspired by socialist ideas when they did their stuff in the 30's. Mussolini being an old socialist and NSDAP having that S in the name and so on. So the ChiComs going full circle does not stop them from being commies, even if it rhymes with the fascists.

Technically it's a fact that there has never been an actual communist government. Even the Soviet union never actually claimed to be communist. Their whole thing was claiming to be socialist and working towards communism as a future ideal. One of Khruschevs most famous quotes was his promise of "communism in 20 years".

Though this "leftists claim any failed socialist isn't a real socialist" thing is quite a myth, spread by Conservatives to smear socialists in the west.  Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about recognises the ussr was socialist... But we think it's missing the point to be upset about this and painting it as a reason socialism is bad. The ussrs socialism was imperfect and made mistakes but it wasn't particularly evil. The whole authoritarian dictatorship thing they had going on we find far more objectionable than how they ran their economy, women's and minority rights, etc....

Fascists took some cues from socialism, though usually in the sense of flying off in completely the opposite direction. The key differentiator between those Marxist leaders who were fascists with a lick of red paint and full on fascists lies in economics. And the way China is setup very closely resembles fascism, the old Marxist setup shows no sign of coming back.

Russians didn't suppress non Russian populations within the Soviet Union?

Not as part of a co-ordinated national effort to enforce a nationally uniform Russian culture heavily based on ancient beliefs of Russian supremacy.
With some notable exceptions the Soviet union, and communist China, were generally pretty ok when it came to treatment of minorities. On paper they were outright excellent with helping minorities being a central point of propeganda.
No, what China is doing really isn't standard communist behaviour at all. Even the propeganda about what they're doing, providing education camps et al, is very thin. Its clearly pointed in quite a different direction to liberation of the oppressed. The way they're being directed towards slaving for big connected corporations looking to grow even richer...far more parallels with nazi concentration camps than Soviet  gulags. Very far from maoist re-education.

China today  is built on victimhood and a great past golden age that was unfairly stolen and can only be reclaimed through unity and purity.
As much as Mao caused massive damage you can at least see Marxist thinking behind what was being done - down with tradition, let's build a better tomorrow. That's not what is happening in China today. They want to fight past injustices and restore the natural order of a past golden age.

[Tamas]

The ussrs socialism was imperfect and made mistakes but it wasn't particularly evil. The whole authoritarian dictatorship thing they had going on we find far more objectionable than how they ran their economy, women's and minority rights, etc..

I am inclined to give you a fuck you over that one. I am glad the whole soviet socialist approach didn't inconvenience you but it did ruin my country, thank you very much.

And it is incredibly dishonest to neatly create an "everything that's bad" basket, then point at the acceptable and only mildly bad things which remain, and declare the overall summary to be fine.

Yes, some things improved under the communist regimes. But they improved compared to the medieval conditions that persisted on those countries prior to them. Like education. Except of course that you could not get past a certain point into higher education unless your family was politically reliable. The list could go on.

All of those things improved similarly and better in the West and you didn't need fucking Russian boots on your faces to achieve them.

[Agelastus]

Not as part of a co-ordinated national effort to enforce a nationally uniform Russian culture heavily based on ancient beliefs of Russian supremacy.

Just because the Soviet Union was too ramshackle a state with too large a proportion of minorities to risk moving remotely as rapidly or forcefully as China has done does not mean that the end goal was not a new "Soviet People" (speaking Russian) and that measures were not taken to accomplish this. For example, the number of schools teaching in minority languages was in continual decline for the last decades of Soviet rule as part of deliberate policy.

The minorities in the Soviet Union got a good deal in the Twenties and Thirties as they were almost universally opposed to the Communists and were too numerous not to be appeased. Ending "Russification" and reversing some aspects of it was necessary for the security of the new Communist rulers. This changed with Stalin and the War; postwar the goal was the creation of a new "Soviet people".

In many ways this was a return to Tsarist policies concerning minorities; a good Soviet Communist couldn't admit that, of course.

[Sheilbh]

Technically it's a fact that there has never been an actual communist government. Even the Soviet union never actually claimed to be communist. Their whole thing was claiming to be socialist and working towards communism as a future ideal. One of Khruschevs most famous quotes was his promise of "communism in 20 years".

Yeah but that is also what the CCP would say. Their take - since Deng at least - on a level of theory is that Marx is right and you do need to go through the historical stages to reach Communism and that the party state is, in theory, retaining control while taking China through those stages (at pace). Now, as with the USSR, the theory is often justification and rationalisation of policy decisions just like Khrushchev's line.

Fascists took some cues from socialism, though usually in the sense of flying off in completely the opposite direction. The key differentiator between those Marxist leaders who were fascists with a lick of red paint and full on fascists lies in economics. And the way China is setup very closely resembles fascism, the old Marxist setup shows no sign of coming back.

I don't see any link between the content or circumstances of fascism and China.

Not as part of a co-ordinated national effort to enforce a nationally uniform Russian culture heavily based on ancient beliefs of Russian supremacy.
With some notable exceptions the Soviet union, and communist China, were generally pretty ok when it came to treatment of minorities. On paper they were outright excellent with helping minorities being a central point of propeganda.
No, what China is doing really isn't standard communist behaviour at all. Even the propeganda about what they're doing, providing education camps et al, is very thin. Its clearly pointed in quite a different direction to liberation of the oppressed. The way they're being directed towards slaving for big connected corporations looking to grow even richer...far more parallels with nazi concentration camps than Soviet  gulags. Very far from maoist re-education.

[/quote]
Those policies are still in place in China - I think they are ultimately derived and adapted from the nationality policy of the USSR. In China it's moved from nationality policy to ethnic minority from nationality to avoid the risk of disintegration. But the whole idea of having these official ethnic minorities, with certain separate institutions and with a sort of affirmative action or collective punishment is what the PRC has always had. I think there is more continuity from that approach to what China is doing now than you're suggesting. I don't think there is a wild break from Soviet or Chinese policies to minorities and Xinjiang - the example from the USSR is not the gulag but re-settlements and collective punishment for "disloyal" or dangerous minorities.

I think Xi is different but it's more scale or success than type. I think there's far more continuity than not with the past of the PRC.

Yes, some things improved under the communist regimes. But they improved compared to the medieval conditions that persisted on those countries prior to them. Like education. Except of course that you could not get past a certain point into higher education unless your family was politically reliable. The list could go on.

Yes - I often think about Diane Abbott's line that Mao did more good than bad pointing at education and foot-binding in particular. Which is a take.

Although Adam Tooze recently had an interesting piece on the World Bank's 1983 report on China - which is really interesting because it sort of looks at where China is, where it was at and where it could go. And it is really interesting that the World Bank is kind of glowing about where China has been (and aspects of the Maoist legacy) given the different perspective of the World Bank v China. No doubt they didn't want to offend a new member, but it is striking.

[Josquius]

I am inclined to give you a fuck you over that one. I am glad the whole soviet socialist approach didn't inconvenience you but it did ruin my country, thank you very much.

Much like the liberal Thatcherite approach in my country :p

I'm not a communist. I don't think they had the right idea with how to run their country at all. But at the same time I think its really missing the point to say they were bad because they were socialist. This was pretty incidental to the main reasons they were so awful.

And it is incredibly dishonest to neatly create an "everything that's bad" basket, then point at the acceptable and only mildly bad things which remain, and declare the overall summary to be fine.

Yes, some things improved under the communist regimes. But they improved compared to the medieval conditions that persisted on those countries prior to them. Like education. Except of course that you could not get past a certain point into higher education unless your family was politically reliable. The list could go on.

All of those things improved similarly and better in the West and you didn't need fucking Russian boots on your faces to achieve them.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I never said the eastern block was fine. I simply favour a more nuanced look than the evil empire of doom and it is worth reading up beyond the well known stuff where they were awful and seeing the areas where they got some things right.
Overall the big complaint is the way some spin the cold war as between "democracy" and "communism". Often using this to smear socialists in democratic countries for irrelevant reasons.

Just because the Soviet Union was too ramshackle a state with too large a proportion of minorities to risk moving remotely as rapidly or forcefully as China has done does not mean that the end goal was not a new "Soviet People" (speaking Russian) and that measures were not taken to accomplish this. For example, the number of schools teaching in minority languages was in continual decline for the last decades of Soviet rule as part of deliberate policy.

The minorities in the Soviet Union got a good deal in the Twenties and Thirties as they were almost universally opposed to the Communists and were too numerous not to be appeased. Ending "Russification" and reversing some aspects of it was necessary for the security of the new Communist rulers. This changed with Stalin and the War; postwar the goal was the creation of a new "Soviet people".

In many ways this was a return to Tsarist policies concerning minorities; a good Soviet Communist couldn't admit that, of course.

Sure. Soviet People. The wonderful communist people of the future, uniting all the world in a glorious stateless society.
Not the ancient and masterful rightful Chinese rulers of the world where the people of the middle kingdom rule supreme and all others know their place bowing before China.
If you find your group in the cross hairs then it makes little practical difference but we're talking about the ideology behind it all here and its pretty clear modern China has flipped to completely the other side of extremism.
It's missing how much there was genuine belief in marxism at the start to paint it all as just appeasing unruly minorities. Constitutionally there were genuine efforts to help minorities- as time went on of course real politic considerations began to enter into things. With the Soviets this was about the state and the survival of socialism until its inevitable future victory. With China its about Chinese civilization retaining its past glory.

[Tamas]

FFS Tyr.  I started typing but I better calm down first.

Them being socialist (as you say, I believe they called themselves communist) had everything to do with the way they acted. That was the ideology they used as an excuse to rob, coerce, oppress, and destroy people. Sure, people hated them for WHAT they did and not WHY they did it, but the two cannot be separated from each other.

[The Brain]

Thinking that the intentional murder of millions of innocent civilians "isn't particularly evil" seems a bit weird.

[DGuller]

Thinking that the intentional murder of millions of innocent civilians "isn't particularly evil" seems a bit weird.

They all would've died anyway at some point.

[Valmy]

Thinking that the intentional murder of millions of innocent civilians "isn't particularly evil" seems a bit weird.

And they killed even more unintentionally as a result of them trying to help them. It was best for the USSR just not to notice you either way.

[Razgovory]

In the Soviet Union Russification was a big deal...

[The Minsky Moment]

The thing is that a lot of leftists often argue that every failed communist experiment wasn't communist, it was fascist. Oh no, the Soviet Union wasn't communist, they didn't do communism correct, when we do it we will do it correct.

I agree with that, but we aren't talking about 1970s China, which was clearly still "Left" and a lot worse then today's China.  The issue isn't about making everything good "Left" and everything bad "Right"  It's about the absurdity of labelling as "Communist" a competitive market economy with international stock and commodity exchanges, where the private sector generates 60% of the national GDP.

The Stalinist regime may not what Marx had in mind but it was clearly still a Communist regime and a lot more than lip service was paid to Marxist-Leninist doctrine.  The present day Chinese system is very different. 

[Josquius]

Thinking that the intentional murder of millions of innocent civilians "isn't particularly evil" seems a bit weird.

And why do you think murdering innocent civilians isn't evil?

FFS Tyr.  I started typing but I better calm down first.

Them being socialist (as you say, I believe they called themselves communist) had everything to do with the way they acted. That was the ideology they used as an excuse to rob, coerce, oppress, and destroy people. Sure, people hated them for WHAT they did and not WHY they did it, but the two cannot be separated from each other.

I don't agree there.
When someone has evil goals then you can pretty certain they're going to be evil fuckers.
When someone has positive goals.... Then they can still be perverted and used as an excuse for all manner of nasty stuff. But they can also be pursued in a harmless fashion.
As bad as the eastern block regimes were you do get plenty of decent socialist governments in democratic countries.
No such thing with fascists.

Even within the eastern block its also very debatable that everything they did was in the pursuit of socialism rather than simply their own selfish desire for power and the benefits that come with that. Doubtless there were plenty of examples where with a noble intention they fucked up massively with horrid results (e.g. the cultural revolution) but it is more common that most of the worst acts of marxist regimes were down dictator's attempts to maintain control.

Yeah but that is also what the CCP would say. Their take - since Deng at least - on a level of theory is that Marx is right and you do need to go through the historical stages to reach Communism and that the party state is, in theory, retaining control while taking China through those stages (at pace). Now, as with the USSR, the theory is often justification and rationalisation of policy decisions just like Khrushchev's line.

Interesting thought. But I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that this is what is happening. Yes they're reigning in the big businesses and tying them even tighter to the regime.... but there's none of the doctrinal posturing you'd expect alongside this if they were following the Marxist roadmap. Instead the language is very fascist- its not people being rich that is bad, its the fact they are corrupt (to whatever extent this is actually true varies).

Those policies are still in place in China - I think they are ultimately derived and adapted from the nationality policy of the USSR. In China it's moved from nationality policy to ethnic minority from nationality to avoid the risk of disintegration. But the whole idea of having these official ethnic minorities, with certain separate institutions and with a sort of affirmative action or collective punishment is what the PRC has always had. I think there is more continuity from that approach to what China is doing now than you're suggesting. I don't think there is a wild break from Soviet or Chinese policies to minorities and Xinjiang - the example from the USSR is not the gulag but re-settlements and collective punishment for "disloyal" or dangerous minorities.

I think Xi is different but it's more scale or success than type. I think there's far more continuity than not with the past of the PRC.

Its still there on paper. But it is being very de-empathized and special rights for minorities being lost.

I think there's a continuity. But only in the sense that they started far left, have gone through liberalism, and are now coming out the other side.

[Tamas]

Ok so, in essence, if somebody in power is working toward selfish personal needs instead of the common good, they cannot possibly be labelled socialist? Gotcha.