You didn’t make one you just stated something wildly incorrect so why should I take the time to give you a well thought out response trying to explain how truly idiotic is?
I did make one, that you can oppose two things at the same time.
I could explain, but wait, you already said that authoritarianism was meaningless to you. If it doesn’t matter to you, well, seems pointless to try to convince that it is actually fascist.
Sure not what I took issue with. I took issue with you calling China fascist which is just an untrue statement.
Authoritarian is a pejorative. All countries and states in class society are “authoritarian” by necessity. Fascism is a specific thing arising from the tendency for the rate of profit to decline in capitalist society.
You can keep insisting I’m a troll if it helps you deal with not being able to engage with arguments.
China is authoritarian, but authoritarianism doesn’t matter to you, so that shouldn’t matter to you. Consistency, please.
And no, countries aren’t “authoritarian” by necessity. Even if some amount of policies etc that would be considered such exist everywhere, you have countries that are freer and countries that have more political suppression, censorship of media outlets, etc etc.
China does censor it’s media—political and entertainment— heavily. Just one small example.
How much Chinese media do you watch? How much time have you spent on Chinese social media? How fluent are you in Chinese? Or did you just get told this by other white people and decided to just go along with it because it confirms your biases.
Please take a look through this page that elaborates on the oppression of queer people under the Chinese regime before you make any more personal attacks or assumptions about me. Just as an example.
I like it when the working classes in China wield the state against capitalists and fascists, and to ensure that social surplus is directed towards social ends above all else.
What do you think is happening in Xinjiang? Do you mean the lies about a genocide? Please be specific.
You are treating “authoritarian” as a special category of state. That is simply untrue. Every state is an instrument of organized authority. A state exists precisely to enforce the rule of a particular social order. Laws, police, prisons, intelligence agencies, and armies are not neutral features. They are mechanisms through which the dominant class secures its position and suppresses forces that threaten it. In that sense every state in a class society must act “authoritarian,” because it must compel obedience and defend the structure that produced it. The label therefore functions less as a meaningful description and more as a moral signal. Governments aligned with Western power are described with neutral language such as “government,” while adversaries are cast as “authoritarian” or reduced to the “regime” of a rival country. China becomes “authoritarian China,” Iran becomes the “Iranian regime,” yet the United States is rarely framed through the same lens even when its institutions exercise clear coercive authority, whether through domestic repression such as COINTELPRO or the routine enforcement of property and political order. The distinction therefore obscures the basic reality that all states rest on organized force. What changes from place to place is not the presence of authority but the historical conditions and social interests that direct it.
I still rather like to live in Europe,
And that’s your right like it is mine to say I would never want to live in any of the imperial core nations especially not at this moment in time where austerity and fascism is coming home to them as imperialism declines and the contradictions of capitalism are heightening. I am happy in China.
In what way is China fascist? It’s a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state.
China does not violently oppress minorities, and wielding state authority, censorship, and surveilance against capitalists and fascists is necessary for a socialist state, and doesn’t make it fascist. Fascism is capitalism violently defending itself from decay and solidifying bourgeois control, not proletarian.
That’s not what fascism means, especially when these are used against capitalists most of all, and not against the working classes nearly as much. Fascism is capitalism violently entrenching itself when it finds itself in crisis, it isn’t when a socialist state uses state power to keep capitalists under control and expropriate their property.
I wouldn’t call china fascist, though doubtlessly authoritarian. But I don’t have nearly as much info on china, it seems to me the persecution of minorities is less of a central political scapegoat and more some weird side thing. But without speaking chinese, I might be wrong. The US had plenty of fascist characteristics at this point and is rather open about the persecution.
It doesn’t, though. Socialism is not fascism, and all socialist states need to exert authority against capitalists and fascists to continue to exist. Class harmony is a lie.
But all of what you listed is used as a means to control the capitalist class, not as an arbitrary measure to oppress people. In your country, those same measures are used by the capitalist class against the working classes.
It does not stand because you rely on erasing vital context, that being which class uses it against which.
What are you even saying? Preventing independent journalism is oppressive towards the working class now? Censoring the media is oppressive towards the working class?
You can be against US and Chinese fascism simultaneously.
Just say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nice argument.
You didn’t make one you just stated something wildly incorrect so why should I take the time to give you a well thought out response trying to explain how truly idiotic is?
I did make one, that you can oppose two things at the same time.
I could explain, but wait, you already said that authoritarianism was meaningless to you. If it doesn’t matter to you, well, seems pointless to try to convince that it is actually fascist.
You have to be a troll.
Sure not what I took issue with. I took issue with you calling China fascist which is just an untrue statement.
Authoritarian is a pejorative. All countries and states in class society are “authoritarian” by necessity. Fascism is a specific thing arising from the tendency for the rate of profit to decline in capitalist society.
You can keep insisting I’m a troll if it helps you deal with not being able to engage with arguments.
China is authoritarian, but authoritarianism doesn’t matter to you, so that shouldn’t matter to you. Consistency, please.
And no, countries aren’t “authoritarian” by necessity. Even if some amount of policies etc that would be considered such exist everywhere, you have countries that are freer and countries that have more political suppression, censorship of media outlets, etc etc.
China does censor it’s media—political and entertainment— heavily. Just one small example.
How much Chinese media do you watch? How much time have you spent on Chinese social media? How fluent are you in Chinese? Or did you just get told this by other white people and decided to just go along with it because it confirms your biases.
https://www.equaldex.com/region/china
Please take a look through this page that elaborates on the oppression of queer people under the Chinese regime before you make any more personal attacks or assumptions about me. Just as an example.
Removed by mod
I like it when the working classes in China wield the state against capitalists and fascists, and to ensure that social surplus is directed towards social ends above all else.
What do you actually know about China?
“authoritarian oppression” entirely meaningless when stripped of context.
Removed by mod
What do you think is happening in Xinjiang? Do you mean the lies about a genocide? Please be specific.
You are treating “authoritarian” as a special category of state. That is simply untrue. Every state is an instrument of organized authority. A state exists precisely to enforce the rule of a particular social order. Laws, police, prisons, intelligence agencies, and armies are not neutral features. They are mechanisms through which the dominant class secures its position and suppresses forces that threaten it. In that sense every state in a class society must act “authoritarian,” because it must compel obedience and defend the structure that produced it. The label therefore functions less as a meaningful description and more as a moral signal. Governments aligned with Western power are described with neutral language such as “government,” while adversaries are cast as “authoritarian” or reduced to the “regime” of a rival country. China becomes “authoritarian China,” Iran becomes the “Iranian regime,” yet the United States is rarely framed through the same lens even when its institutions exercise clear coercive authority, whether through domestic repression such as COINTELPRO or the routine enforcement of property and political order. The distinction therefore obscures the basic reality that all states rest on organized force. What changes from place to place is not the presence of authority but the historical conditions and social interests that direct it.
And that’s your right like it is mine to say I would never want to live in any of the imperial core nations especially not at this moment in time where austerity and fascism is coming home to them as imperialism declines and the contradictions of capitalism are heightening. I am happy in China.
Oh, the old debunked “Uyghur genocide”. American propaganda really needs to become creative
In what way is China fascist? It’s a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state.
Authoritarianism, violent oppression of minorites and dissenting movements, deeply ingrained surveillance state with state censorship.
But those are actions of the US empire. Projecting them onto China isn’t a good thing
But enough about the US.
China does not violently oppress minorities, and wielding state authority, censorship, and surveilance against capitalists and fascists is necessary for a socialist state, and doesn’t make it fascist. Fascism is capitalism violently defending itself from decay and solidifying bourgeois control, not proletarian.
Surveillance and political suppression for one. Media, journalism, etc.
That’s not what fascism means, especially when these are used against capitalists most of all, and not against the working classes nearly as much. Fascism is capitalism violently entrenching itself when it finds itself in crisis, it isn’t when a socialist state uses state power to keep capitalists under control and expropriate their property.
That’s not what fascism is either lol
I wouldn’t call china fascist, though doubtlessly authoritarian. But I don’t have nearly as much info on china, it seems to me the persecution of minorities is less of a central political scapegoat and more some weird side thing. But without speaking chinese, I might be wrong. The US had plenty of fascist characteristics at this point and is rather open about the persecution.
The US is fascist because it’s in crisis. Imperialism is decaying and austerity is being brought inward.
I’m not trying to fuss over what to call something. My intended point stands.
It doesn’t, though. Socialism is not fascism, and all socialist states need to exert authority against capitalists and fascists to continue to exist. Class harmony is a lie.
My point is that the forms of oppression that occur in China aren’t exclusive to the capitalist class, and remain something I oppose.
Which stands.
But all of what you listed is used as a means to control the capitalist class, not as an arbitrary measure to oppress people. In your country, those same measures are used by the capitalist class against the working classes.
It does not stand because you rely on erasing vital context, that being which class uses it against which.
What are you even saying? Preventing independent journalism is oppressive towards the working class now? Censoring the media is oppressive towards the working class?
It really doesn’t because you have no idea what you’re talking about.