China: The First Mature Fascist State
For nearly ten years, I have been arguing that China may well be the first example of a mature fascism in power. The highest praise imaginable has been bestowed on this theory, by the People’s Republic itself. When I published an updated version of my theory (first published in the Wall Street Journal in 2002 and reprised in different form in NRO thereafter) in the Far East Economic Review in May, 2008, the entire issue was banned in China.
On the occasion of Mr. Hu’s visit to Washington, it seems appropriate to revisit this theme, which seems to me to have been abundantly confirmed by events.
Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism
by Michael Ledeen
Posted May 2, 2008
In 2002, I speculated that China may be something we have never seen before: a mature fascist state. Recent events there, especially the mass rage in response to Western criticism, seem to confirm that theory. More significantly, over the intervening six years China’s leaders have consolidated their hold on the organs of control—political, economic and cultural. Instead of gradually embracing pluralism as many expected, China’s corporatist elite has become even more entrenched.
Even though they still call themselves communists, and the Communist Party rules the country, classical fascism should be the starting point for our efforts to understand the People’s Republic. Imagine Italy 50 years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini would be dead and buried, the corporate state would be largely intact, the party would be firmly in control, and Italy would be governed by professional politicians, part of a corrupt elite, rather than the true believers who had marched on Rome. It would no longer be a system based on charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on political repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical, not idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals to the grandeur of the “great Italian people,” “endlessly summoned to emulate the greatness of its ancestors.”
Substitute in the “great Chinese people” and it all sounds familiar. We are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either politically or economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who followed the radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all interested in treading the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism to democracy. They know that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to control the economy while giving political freedom. They are attempting the opposite, keeping a firm grip on political power while permitting relatively free areas of economic enterprise. Their political methods are quite like those used by the European fascists 80 years ago.
Unlike traditional communist dictators—Mao, for example—who extirpated traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese now enthusiastically, even compulsively, embrace the glories of China’s long history. Their passionate reassertion of the greatness of past dynasties has both entranced and baffled Western observers, because it does not fit the model of an “evolving communist system.”
Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s used exactly the same device. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder of ancient glories, and he used ancient history to justify the conquest of Libya and Ethiopia. Hitler’s favorite architect built neoclassical buildings throughout the Third Reich, and his favorite operatic composer organized festivals to celebrate the country’s mythic past.
Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the world because of their history and culture, not just on the basis of their current power, or scientific or cultural accomplishments. China even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms, such as the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat production—the same quest for autarky that obsessed both Hitler and Mussolini.
To be sure, the world is much changed since the first half of the last century. It’s much harder (and sometimes impossible) to go it alone. Passions for total independence from the outside world are tempered by the realities of today’s global economy, and China’s appetite for oil and other raw materials is properly legendary. But the Chinese, like the European fascists, are intensely xenophobic, and obviously worry that their people may turn against them if they learn too much about the rest of the world. They consequently work very hard to dominate the flow of information. Just ask Google, forced to cooperate with the censors in order to work in China.
Some scholars of contemporary China see the Beijing regime as very nervous, and perhaps even unstable, and they are encouraged in this belief when they see recent events such as the eruption of popular sentiment against the Tibetan monks’ modest protests. That view is further reinforced by similar outcries against most any criticism of Chinese performance, from human rights to air pollution, and from preparations for the Olympic Games to the failure of Chinese quality control in food production and children’s toys.
In all these cases, it is tempting to conclude that the regime is worried about its own survival, and, in order to rally nationalist passions, feels compelled to portray the country as a global victim. Perhaps they are right. The strongest evidence to support the theory of insecurity at the highest levels of Chinese society is the practice of the “princelings” (wealthy children of the ruling elites) to buy homes in places such as the United States, Canada and Australia. These are not luxury homes of the sort favored by wealthy businessman and officials from the oil-rich countries of the Middle East. Rather they are typically “normal” homes of the sort a potential émigré might want to have in reserve in case things went bad back home.
On the other hand, the cult of victimhood was always part of fascist culture. Just like Germany and Italy in the interwar period, China feels betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge her many historic wounds. This is not necessarily a true sign of anxiety; it’s an integral part of the sort of hypernationalism that has always been at the heart of all fascist movements and regimes. We cannot look into the souls of the Chinese tyrants, but I doubt that China is an intensely unstable system, riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the one hand, and the repressive practices of the regime on the other. This is a mature fascism, not a frenzied mass movement, and the current regime is not composed of revolutionary fanatics. Today’s Chinese leaders are the heirs of two very different revolutions, Mao’s and Deng’s. The first was a failed communist experiment; the second is a fascist transformation whose future is up for grabs.
Great article; thanks for posting it for those of didn’t see it originally. Having read “Wild Swans”, published years ago, I’ve wondered what evolved from the remnants of Mao’s followers. I could see an elitist government, but what kind? You’ve answered that question.
I’ve been keenly interested in the Chinese history/culture ever since I began sculpture using porcelain and learned they were once technological leaders in the then-world. The common thread seems to be authoritarian rule and entrenched social classes over millenia, hardly a culture that would espouse individual rights.
The government seems to have its hands full at the moment with building infrastructure and obtaining energy; how long will this phase last? It seems that the brutality against Chinese people by Japanese in many reoccurring invasions over centuries, the creation of Taiwan and Korea by the UN are still resented and public knowledge in China. The Opium Wars with Great Britian are not forgotten, either….
If the leaders keep harping on past grievances, they will surely move to destroy Japan and retake Taiwan and South Korea. Will they use economics or guns?
Either way, it seems to me the U.S. should first of all pay our debts to foreign governments; it shouldn’t be impossible to pay back the $800 billion we owe China. Are the politicians in Washington paying attention?
emmaliza….China actually holds over 3 TRILLION dollars in U.S. debt….not $800 BILLION.
If we were to be coldly cynical about it we should borrow more money from the PRC. They will have less resources to improve themselves with and in the case of war we could default on it claiming that refuse to fund their war machine. That would damage their economy severely causing the “butter or bullets” dilemma that has often forced regime change.
I don’t know where you’re getting that $3 trillion dollar figure, but everything I’ve seen puts our dept to China at around $1 trillion now, including this: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/is-china-really-funding-the-us-debt/
Bill….Nobody actually knows the total about due to so many gimmicks available to hide such factual reporting. However, the most recent reports by world financial guru’s looking into the matter have estimated 1.7 trillion with many more gimmicks to pursue. I used the approximate 3 trillion based on government Treasury documents that were posted online….and amazingly, were gone in about an hour or so.
Whatever it is, its far to much and for certain far more than 7-800 billion.
The enthusiasm of establishment journalists for China- Thomas Friedman and James Fallows most prominently- shows our elite doesn’t give two figs for democracy or the rule of law, only having the right people in charge.
I have to admit I had not thought to think of China as a modern facist state, though that term fits my best attempts to define their currect political-economic matrix and xenocentrism. Nearly three years on from this writing, especially with Hu’s song and dance at the recent state dinner I wonder how we might best communicate with the billion, of at least few hundred million who havent bought in. Enough power to run a TV and meager food is an improvment for some one who has neither without the government. How to convince them…
Very interesting piece.
Just curious: how many muslims live in China?
Nobody knows, and the chinese population data from their census is as reliable as any other (past or present) communist source. They’re simply propaganda numbers – but then, so has our census data and sources become.
I am not going to argue your point that you don’t trust our numbers, but at least we can access the information and sources.
A lot of wisdom in this piece. I guess you could describe the Chinese system as “practical” or non-ideological fascism.
Still, it’s subject to the same knowledge limitations of any centrally directed system. Any economic system that produces empty cities is going to have to eventually account for unproductive investments. The open question is at what point does the public get sick of bailing out the state capitalists and what can they do about it?
How do you define “Fascism”?
Good question. I don’t think anybody knows a precise definition.
I’d say:
one party rule, nationalistic, militaristic, atheist, imperialistic.
capitalistic with strong government influence.
Brutal intrusive government control.
Preoccupied with purity, discipline, self sacrifice.
Mass meetings used as tool to energize the public and galvanize support.
Something like that.
And don’t forget: with a “press” totally controlled by the state (just our own “mainstream media.”
Dictionaries are less than ideal when it comes for definitions to terms for political philosophy.
I submit that this is the essence of Fascism:
A form of statism is which property rights are respected de jure, but not de facto.
That is, it allows for the appearance of ownership but, in fact, property is controlled by the state. It retains the appearance of many elements of a capitalist society, but is in fact socialist.
There are degrees, of course.
The ideology is important. Fascism is a war ideology, it came out of the trenches of the First World War, and it insisted that those who were hardened in war were uniquely qualified to lead. There’s a lot more: fascist leaders mobilized the masses (communists didn’t, once power had been consolidated, and men like Franco certainly didn’t); the “new fascist man” is very different from the “new communist man,” and we must pay attention to the differences even though, at the end of the day, both are devoted to the destruction of democracies and thus are inevitably driven to attack us…
Neither China or Russia are devoted to the destruction of Democracy nor is it inevitable they will attack us.
I suppose it is more or less a truism that large and powerful countries have subsumed their less powerful neighbors.
However each instance of this since the mid-19th century had specific geographical, political and social frameworks and I don’t think it’s helpful to generalize about each conqueror having an ideological imperative that leads them against free countries that have a parlimentary type system; that doesn’t even make sense.
Jeff, I think you have it about right. A good example is the U.S.
You may “own” your business. But the government tells you who you can and can’t hire and fire, how much you must pay them while they are working, what you must pay them if you fire them, and, in many ways, what you can and cannot sell. And, of course, the government shares in your profits but not your losees.
You may “own” your home. But you must pay the government for the privilege of living there. The amount is based on the value of your home. There is not even a pretense of any relation between your tax share and your share of the government “services” that are provided (as if we even wanted most of them). How is this tax different from the rent a landlord would charge? Sure you can still decide for yourself how to use and enjoy the property to a significant degree, subject to zoning laws and building codes. But so can a renter.
You cannot even buy what you want, or expect to do so at a price held down by competitive market forces. The government dictates what equipment your cars must have even with respect to risks to yourself only, e.g., air bags and seat belts. The government dictates how much health care will be available to you and articifially inflates the cost of that which is available. It does so, among other ways, by placing itself in charge of the decision whether hospitals can be built, or expanded (see the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, a favotire of Obama and Rezko). And so on, and so on.
Nominal freedom. Actual servitude. So, unlike the Chinese, you can cast a vote from time to time on who rules you. How’s that been working out for you?
Sad as it is, you are completely correct.
I remember, many decades ago, I had a neighbor who worked for the federal government at that time. I was a little surprised when referred to himself as a “fascist.”
“What do you mean by that?” I asked.
He explained that he was in favor of the current political/economic system in the US, which he considered to be a fascist system, so that made him a fascist.
I could not argue that he was anything else.
Wow TL, sounds as though you are not very happy living in our country. You do have the right to emigrate to whatever country that will accept you. Let me know if you need any help in choosing a new country.
Websters dictionary defines it as “a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” A perfect description of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s and Deng’s and Hu’s regimes. (Look it up!)
“A wealthy China will not automatically be less inclined to go to war over Taiwan, or, for that matter, to wage or threaten war with Japan.”
Taiwan, yes. Japan would be idiotic and would likely cause WWIII. I see China acting more as the Soviets during the Cold War. They’ll start fights they’re certain they can win, and take surrounding territories. However, they know that going after a nation too well protected will quickly lead to intervention from other world powers (well, really just NATO). America and Western Europe might be willing to let China have Taiwan in order to prevent the next world war. However, they would not be hesitant to defend Japan. And unless America becomes severely weakened somehow, I don’t see China surviving that war intact.
I guess we all like labels these days so here are two more. China changed from Left Wing Collectivism (Communism) to Right Wing Collectivism (Fascism). But it is still collectivism and for this reason China does not have much economic or political freedom.
Because China is undergoing an economic revolution I would think that more economic freedom is likely. That should, in turn, bring more political freedom. Economic competition from other developing countries, and increasing wages inside China should favour the growth of the domestic economy. Individually, Chinese people have sharp elbows so I think keeping the proletariat happy and the country stable will be a higher priority for the Chinese government than a new Chinese Empire.
Crony capitalism will continue as the major form of enterprise but as the domestic economy grows there should be more small/medium sized businesses created that are free of government patronage. If a critical mass of middle class bourgeois Chinese is achieved then I think China will start to move away from Fascism and towards more economic freedom and more political freedom.
WESTERCANADIAN…American interests have been working with [free enterprise Chinese], especially agri producers since the very early 80′s. The list of U.S. agri companies helping Chinese farmers develop agri diversity and expansion is far to long to produce here. There seems to quite a deficit of valid information here in America about the transitioning China. They can only transition so fast with a population in excess of one billion people.
Vietnam on the other hand is transitioning much faster and along the very same lines as China if you want to see into the future of China. Vietnam began its social, political and economic transition from essentially the South in what use to be Saigon and now Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam’s economic hub), North to Hanoi as infrastructure is developed and completed.
>Vietnam on the other hand is transitioning much faster and along the very same lines as China if you want to see into the future of China. Vietnam began its social, political and economic transition from essentially the South in what use to be Saigon and now Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam’s economic hub), North to Hanoi as infrastructure is developed and completed.
Speaking as someone who’s lived for more than 10 years (total) in Vietnam and China, this is objectively false. China’s economic progress is far, far ahead of Vietnam’s, although the Vietnamese have made a lot of progress. Remember that the Vietnamese economic reform program (doi moi) started more than 10 years after China’s – China started in 1978, Vietnam only in 1989 (after the shock of the Cold War ending forced Hanoi to change course). Anyway, it’s not hard to see that VN is lagging behind; just compare the science-fiction skyline of Guangzhou, or Tianjin, or any major Chinese city, with that of HCMC and Hanoi. In fact, China’s quick progress is a crucial spur impelling Vietnam to develop faster; if China was still as backward as it was in the 1970s, VN would be even more so (you don’t know the meaning of the phrase “deadening hand of the government bureaucracy” until you’ve dealt with Vietnamese officials).
(Communism)(Fascism)
same thing .. same source .. same belief .. diff angle
Yes, but while both communism and fascism have totalitarian governments, secret police and death camps, fascists make the trains run on time.
Very persuasive. China no longer talks about “The People” but “The Nation”.
It works if all major stakeholders are on the same page. Deng Xiao-Peng was the architect with his 4 or was it 5 “Moderns”.
Remains to be seen if they can pull it off for the long haul. There are many internal contradictions and bad debt that are currently tamped down but could spring up in a down cycle and the leadership could then lose their “Mandate from Heaven”.
Jonah Goldberg pointed out that another aspect of fascism is the growth of the “nanny state.” Now I’m curious about whether that is happening in China as well.
No great dictatorship has lasted more than ten years past hosting an Olympic games.
Nazi Germany – hosted in 1936, fell in 1945.
Empire of Japan – was to host in 1940 (moved to Finland), fell in 1945.
Soviet Union – hosted in 1980, fell in 1989.
Yugoslavia – hosted in 1984, fell in 1992.
P.R.O. China – hosted in 2008, fell in ???
Maybe it is one of the characteristics of fascism that they want to host an Olympic games and that the hosting process undermines their control of information. Think of all the connections between athletes all around the world now with various people in China.
In that case, then Obozo and Mooch and the Daley dynasty had better consider themselves fortunate that they did not succeed in getting Chicago to be selected for hosting the Olympics.
Well, if a State which claims de jure authority over everything (without necessarily exercising all that authority), holds “rights” to be the permissions it grants and nothing else, and empowers the ruling elite, overtly or covertly, to select its own successors qualifies as a fascist state, several such have been around since about 1945:
– Any Islamic state;
– Any “social democracy;”
– Any “welfare state” sufficiently thoroughgoing that its ruling elite has become effectively self-perpetuating.
That would seem to embrace all of Europe and the Muslim Middle East, at the minimum. Indeed, the United States itself teeters on the lip of qualification.
No wonder Jonah Goldberg said that fascism is “popular.”
So, any larger than anarchocapitalism form of state is fascism? A social-democratic welfare state is essentially communism to you?
The way I see it, it’s not utopia, but it’s the least worst of possible models for a society, and the only one where “equal opportunities for everyone” isn’t a theoretical option. The welfare state runs pretty dandy as long as it’s a so-called high level of trust -society. From each according to their ability works only if the people are motivated towards the common goal to make their country a good place to live. A culture with shared values and a strict work-ethic, that makes freeloading unacceptable, is also needed. Even in developed countries, like Belgium and Italy, the cultural gap between north and south breeds resent among the northeners, who feel they carry the heavier load in paying more taxes while the southeners use more welfare. The ugly truth could also be that some kind of ethnic peopleness could be behind the succes of the welfare states.
Some less socialist countries that have still adopted a “fascist”, large-state approach towards health-care (Southeast Asia, Japan, Canada) have splendid results on that front. Even the Cubans have generally better teeth and lower infant mortality than the yanks. That’s just fail even if the liberalists would argue that in a free world everyone has the right to fight for their lives since birth.
I suggest you take a flight to Mogadishu to check out your utopia. No state, no taxes, no form of organised repression of individual rights there.
No great dictatorship has lasted more than ten years past hosting an Olympic games.
Nazi Germany – hosted in 1936, fell in 1945.
Empire of Japan – was to host in 1940 (moved to Finland), fell in 1945.
Soviet Union – hosted in 1980, fell in 1989.
Yugoslavia – hosted in 1984, fell in 1992.
P.R.O. China – hosted in 2008, fell in ???
Maybe it is one of the characteristics of fascism that out of their great hubris they want to host an Olympic games, and that the hosting process undermines their control of information. Think of all the connections between athletes all around the world now with various people in China.
There is hope. It is one of the characteristics of mature fascism that they want to host an Olympic games and that the hosting process undermines their control of information. No great dictatorship has lasted more than ten years past hosting an Olympic games.
Nazi Germany – hosted in 1936, fell in 1945.
Empire of Japan – was to host in 1940 (moved to Finland), fell in 1945.
Soviet Union – hosted in 1980, fell in 1989.
Yugoslavia – hosted in 1984, fell in 1992.
P.R.O. China – hosted in 2008, fell in ???
Think of all the connections between athletes all around the world now with various people in China. If the pattern above holds, China’s government should fall in 2015 or 2016.
They’re the first “mature fascist state” (actually, they’re the first mature communist state lite), and we’re the first “immature fascist state” (actually, we’re the first immature communist state lite.)
The look and head movement (chin up, way up and looking to the side) is the look of both Mussolin and Soetoro.
Correction: that’s “Mussolini” of course, Benito Mussolini not “Mussolin.”
In other words, Il Duce and Il Douche. The more things change, the more they stay the same…
I am not so troubled by China’s military ambitions. I disagree that it is a part of a fascist country’s DNA to come into conflict with free nations unless you describe that DNA as expansion and invasion which you point out, rightly I think, is not on the table for China.
Where would they expand to? They don’t even feel strong enough in their own backyard to seize Taiwan. Asians are an intensely pramatic people and I question the extent to which the Chinese feel wounded by past sleights; no Vietnamese want to fly planes into our buildings.
China is surrounded by either troubled nations or nations that are suspicious of them. They have a big navy now but is it an effective one; it certainly isn’t blue water nor does it have submarine or carrier capability that would worry anyone. They seem to be more in a mode of defensive paranoia like the old Soviet Union than anything else. A big army is of little use if it is landlocked and so with no navy capable of supporting an overseas occupation and with no U.S. troops on their ground there is no U.S. to conflict with.
China has problems the U.S. does not in terms of its borders and having no natural allies. It must be ever wary of maintaining a cohesive state and not letting local ethnic aspirations rise which could lead to a Balkanization of China; more political freedom would almost certainly lead to China’s dissolution.
The U.S. itself I think should be wary of demonizing yet another nation it is not a natural enemy of. With Communist dogma on the wane and capitalism on the rise China’s leaders will have more respect for having the “spice flow” so to speak than any ideological imperatives to stab around with.
China is growing fast, maybe too fast and there is a difference between an economy that thrives on births and one that is productive. China will almost certainly fade as its birth rate drops. China is not really an outward looking country and they will more or less rest easy if they do not feel threatened. I think pride runs alongside wanting to be accepted and the role of global pariah is not one that would fit the Chinese personality well. We shouldn’t mistake wanting to be respected with threatening their neighbors. China is not WW II Japan and doesn’t need territory. Although China doesn’t have natural allies it doesn’t really have natural enemies either. If China ever gets to the point where it has to invade to acquire natural resources the whole world will be in the same boat.
I think you offered a brilliant analysis.
A well written comment on a well written article. But logic alone does not hold sway in all things military. Logically China should avoid military confrontation because it is accomplishing it’s goals very successfully by economic expansionism. However, Asian or not, humans have egos and too much power concentrated in too few humans can be used to guard or defend those egos.
There are dead Tibetans, Indians and Soviets who would question the assertion that China is not outward looking. They may not be bold about it (yet) but they continue to probe not only those on their borders but the US as well (surprise showing of the stealth fighter, development of “carrier killer” missiles, supply of arms and technology to rogue states like Iran). There is also the “testosterone” bomb ticking away there due to a shortage of women thanks to the “one child” policy. A little military adventurism is a sure outlet for the angst of un-paired male appetites and if done right could even relieve them of some excess old folks as their own demographic “baby boom” becomes a burden.
The author is quiet correct that western nations should be prepared for war with China, failure to prepare would make a preventable war inevitable, as such failures always have before.
JustAl….No matter any of the circumstances you describe, China is not stupid! They have NO formidable military allies except for North Korea….should they ever lose their minds and exercise military threat.
Whew! What a relief, we can now go ahead and gut the defense budget because the Chinese are so smart unlike those dumb Soviets. Despite the fact that their population dwarfs that of us and all of our allies, most of whom can barely project military power past their own borders, we have nothing to fear.
Because intertwined economies make it shear madness to wage war against your trading partners (The Guns of August obviously got this one wrong)then even despotic dictatorships won’t go to war to stay in power.
Many thanks for setting me straight!
James, I agree with you, but for one thing. I’ve sensed for some time that the Chinese are growing increasingly impatient with the Kim clan in North Korea. The elder Kim’s whacky antics have been a thorn in their side for some time, not so much for their political ramifications, but that the threat of conflict would be very bad for business. Now that power’s changing generations in North Korea, it strikes me that the Chinese might be prepared to give the Kim the younger a year or eighteen months to see what he’s made of, and then, if he looks weak, they might move in.
I don’t think the Chinese want to leave open indefinitely the risk that a tin-pot dictator in an also-ran state could really mess up their economy by starting an all-out conflict, possibly a nuclear one, on the Korean peninsula. At the same time, China has a huge surplus of single men as a result of their one-child policy. That could be the right combination of circumstances which pushes them to expand into North Korea. A ready army, a booming economy and the chance to test the waters of expansionism all in one opportunity – that could hold a certain appeal for the Chinese.
I agree with you, on everything except the direction the PLA will go.
North Korea, as is, is a thorn in China’s side, true. But it’s an even bigger thorn in the side of the United States. As long as there are a succession of “Kims Behaving Badly”, the U.S. has to help defend South Korea and, by extension, Japan. To China, this means that as long as they make the right noises about “we agree with you about North Korea, but we cannot agree to its suppression for philosophical reasons” they have us stalemated- which, in chess, counts as a win. (And after all, they invented chess.)
As for what that large mass of young men in uniform will be used for, think Siberia. One characteristic of true fascist states is that they do things from a profit-loss standpoint. The profit may be political (forcing a neighboring country to become a satellite and reaping the benefits), philosophical (taking over a neighbor, thereby being able to extend their dogmas to other peoples), or purely financial (grabbing a neighboring state to loot it of resources).
North Korea is not worth the effort, by any of these criteria. Siberia is the goose which lays the golden eggs by the third; a virtually unexploited natural-resources bonanza, which is defended by what is now at best a second-tier military in conventional warfare force projection terms, which would be operating at the thin end of its logistics train in trying to do so.
As for this sort of fascist mindset being new in China, it isn’t. China has been a “mature” fascist state for centuries, if you define fascist as an absolute state run on oligarchic principles in which all profit ultimately belongs to the state. Whether run by an emperor, a chairman, or now a de facto CEO, this definition has always accurately described China. The only things which change are the titles, and the fashion sense (or lack thereof) of the leaders.
cheers
eon
That second tier state has atom bombs. China is like the “Moties” in “The Mote In God’s Eye”: they ain’t going anywhere. They’re bottled up by circumstance and other polities that would be fiercely defensive of their territory even if left to themselves.
Imperialism is over; the risk/reward doesn’t add up.
“Where would they expand to?”
My personal preference would be Afghanistan.
What is is that we want to accomplish there? While it would be nice to leave behind a modern democratic country that respects human rights and does not harbor terrorists or export drugs, the United States would have to remain in Afghanistan for another century while maintaining a heavy handed presence and building up infrastructure and educating several generations to want the same things we want. That would cost more than we are willing to pay in blood and treasure.
What we will be lucky to settle for would be for Afghanistan to not export terrorists or drugs. In other words we want nothing from Afghanistan since everything we have gotten from there so far has been highly negative. Hopefully that will be the end result of our current strategy but hope is not a substitute for contingency plans. One way to get nothing from Afghanistan would be to nuke the place until everybody was dead. Most of us would prefer to leave that for a last resort.
As the Chinese have demonstrated in Tibet and with the Uighurs, they are very accomplished at keeping a lid on things. Chinese expansion into Afghanistan would be a Win-Win for both China and the United States. It would also bring China right up to the border with Iran in case the Chinese get an itch to secure their energy supplies.
“What is is that we want to accomplish there?”
You are overemphasizing the importance of a measurable achievement. Taking a stand against anarchy and evil is important in itself. The primary goal is not just victory in Afghanistan. The primary goal is to make headway in the global fight for the human spirit against evil and tyranny. You don’t have to win in an absolute sense to do that. Just by fighting and taking a stand, the good guys win in the sense that it makes the bad guys think twice about their evil plans.
That’s how it works with bullies. Just fighting them is important. Even thought you might not “win” in a knock out kinda way. If they can’t win easily they stop pursuing their future evil plans.
Take Vietnam as an example. The US lost the war in Vietnam – or did they? The stated goal was to stop the Domino effect of Communistic expansion. And that actually did happen. There was no Communist revolutions after the Vietnam war. The Soviet Union realized that since the US was willing to suffer 50.000 casualties for just this one war, they basically gave up even trying in other places.
Mark, that is a brilliant suggestion. We could invite a fully mechanized entire Chinese Army Corps into Afghanistan as “peacekeepers” and then silently slip away.
Voila!. No more Taliban or heroin and Pakistan would benefit from having their population instantly doubled as the Chinese colonize and rename the country “Lithiumstan”.
We could use some Chinese peacekeepers in inner city Chicago. No real American wants it anyways. Camden’s losing its cops – bring in the Chinese. Some people are probably praying that Al Sharpton shows up and gets inner city Camden to secede from the Union anyway.
Some decent analyzing above and then some naive BS about fighting bad guys. You ppl forgot about Xin Jiang province. Xinjiang jihadists don’t care if you or the PLA or CCP have morally won they just happen to love the Cause.
Much moral righteousness about how the Tibetans should be allowed to live according to their tradiotional culture, as serfs in slavery for the clerical dictators, as templeboys serving the urges of pederastic monks, as wives for empoverished serfs, married to the whole set of brothers in a family, and also at the disposal of the elite monks… And so on. Tibet used to be a shithole and I would argue that the PLA takeover indeed was a liberation for 98% of the people. Now they have healthcare, education, decent nutrition, human rights for everyone, including women and children, and a growing economy, especially after the building of the Tibet railway.
(more on the subject can be read here http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)
The whining about tibet/Xizang is just like palestinehugging, where the righteous outsider has decided to defend the underdog no matter what monstrosities they commit – just like in Xin Jiang, where the west closes it eyes to all the Han ppl who have been brutally murdered in the Uighur jihadist racist uprisings, and only cries about the repression of their culture&religion. Yes, China has compulsory education and it bans child-marriages, and it also does its best to build an infrastructure and an economy to help its muslim citizens rise from poverty and their oppressive customs and ideology that keep all the believers of the vengeful moon-god lagging behind in everyting. The Xizang is so backwards, that if they succeed, then I too hope they’ll occupy Afghanistan. Why not the rest of the Middle Asian theocracies as well. Their cultures could be little repressed in the right places.
About Taiwan you anglophones are far out. Ask any chinese, mainland or island, they’ll tell you there is only one China. Some TW hardliners might be still telling themselves that the TW-government is the “rightful ruler” of China, but most have silently admitted that the island is some sort of autonomously ruled “special trade zone”. The two have been unofficially united since 2008, when free travelling between the mainland and island was opened. Officially there was never a division. The Chinese are very sensitive about their Great Homeland and don’t want it chopped to pieces. Taiwanese or mainland minority-province independence would not be in the best interest of the people either. TW has suffered from huge income disparity, wage stagnation for the working- and middle-class, tax-evasion and estate speculation. It direly needs the economic possibilites the mainland boom has to offer.
You anglophones must seriously reflect upon why you want the world built according to your blueprint of democracy. The sudden fall of CCP rule would only bring misery to most chinese. Even if there was an election tomorrow they would still have one-party rule, with maybe a 3-15% representation of other groups. Current pragmatists approach within the party is much better for the people than blindly chasing the ideological, best possible society. The chinese society also lacks the cohesion of the japanese, that makes democracy work there despite all. Family-oriented selfishness is still far from the hobbesian paranoid liberalism, but the chinese voter would certainly not have the common good or even the environment as goals. They should be left to develop without outsiders telling them how.
Back in the 1980s, after China had done away with collective farms but had not yet become the industrial powerhouse it is today, far leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, in discussing his dislike of the dismantling of the collective farms, described China as a fascist state. Prophetic.
I think National Socialism is a better term for China than fascism.
Nice thought-provoking piece. One of the key questions raised by Mr. Ledeen is whether the Chinese social order is stable? I spent some time in Southern China, and came back with the impression that this society could easily become unstable because a great majority of the people did not enjoy the economic boom of the urbanized areas, which make all the flashy headlines.
I saw the respect for the authority as a thin varnish. On my way out, I went to a bank to change my Renminbis into Hong Kong Dollars. While I took my position at the tail of the waiting line, a senior policeman with a big smile approached me. He could muster enough English to enquire how many Renminbis I had. He then took a small calculator out of his pocket, punched the numbers, and showed me the results. The number of HK dollars on the display was just a tad below what I had expected based on the official exchange rate. No question about it, he was making me an offer! I took it, amazed that a public servant in uniform did not feel any restraint in offering his illegitimate private service in plain view. These folks are not afraid to game the system, and they well might seek a better way if they ever discover a path.
Talking about path, the Bible translated into Chinese sells very well. How far behind can individualist notions be after this?
I came to much the same conclusion without knowing about your piece by looking at the economic structure within China and how it treated its own people.
Crony capitalism is a hallmark of fascism and the belief that the State can accurately determine what is best for productive capacity, wages, prices and ownership then leads to problems in business failure: those well-connected businesses have no need for competent managers as the State will always be ready to hand out new loans to them. This sort of lending triggered the foreign financed boom of China in the 1990′s and they rolled that into debt vehicles with defined payout dates. China missed their first payout date in 2000 and rolled over the vehicles with a promise to pay out on the next date in 2005. That was then rolled over to 2010… last year the creditors wanted their money.
Internally the Non-Performing Loan rate for those businesses that have walked away from loans (and buildings and machinery) is over 30%. Consider that a 10% NPL rate triggered the Japanese bubble burst and rates of 12-15% did the same for the ‘Asian Tiger’ economies in the 1990′s. Japan’s ‘solution’ was rampant infrastructure investment… which drained critical capital from the markets in return for public works that no one uses.
The description of China building apartment blocks, malls,factories, shipyards and having no one using them, no occupants and no production starts to sound eerily similar to Japan in the early 1990′s. Because of the One Child policy, the generation born before 1972 is slowly aging out of the workforce. The demographic decline after that is sharp and hard… who, exactly, is going to populate all those buildings when there is a population decrease brought on by government family size policies?
The kicker of this stuff is that China did follow Western banking strategies… like our home mortgage system they pumped up prices for not just residential but commercial and industrial construction. With a 30% walk-away rate for industrial buildings, unutilized commercial space, and swaths of apartment blocks sitting empty we are seeing a culmination of ‘build it and they will come’. Save there is no one to occupy these places and the cost for them is astronomical.
Finally they have a dust bowl going on in central China. You can see the dust clouds on satellite imagery… just how is China going to deal with that? And the Uigher’s connection to radical Islam? They can’t pay off the Talibe like they did in the 1990′s…
It is a mature fascist state.
Imploding demographics. A financial system that is heavily leveraged and the banks won’t stop lending out to deadbeats even when told not to. The military is rattling its saber. Marginally fertile land is no blowing away. Toxicity problems in Beijing ring up health problems that take away a large chunk of the city’s productivity (in the hundreds of millions if memory serves). Why is this place considered ‘the future’ by the Left? How is it even considered survivable by anyone?
Your article pretends to be logical, but it’s not. In your article, Fascist country. By your implied definition, any coutry that is rule by one political party that tries to control information flow and be self-sufficient in wheat production is a fascist country. I call bullsh*t. A coutry that do not invade another country is not a fascost country.
BTW I think the US is domestically democratic but internationally fascist.
So if you invade another country, you’re fascist? That’s your definition?
The most absurd, ridiculous, idiotic, insane aspect of China’s transformation from a communo-fascist totalitarian slavery into a semi-totalitarian, fascist state is that her “progress” is being FINANCED BY AMERICA, Eurabia, Eunuchalia, Canukistan, and so may other idiotic entities.
Are we mad? Are we financing our own suicide?
There is NO BENEFIT from giving up 250 billion by America to the hostile power that is plottong America’s demise.
The Sino-fascists finance by those billios not only their own military machine but also all those totalitarian, genocidal regimes around the world that sooner or later will be used by China as a proxy against the US.
“Trade” with China is a classic LENINIST case of capitalist selling the rope to his own executioner.
In that case, we are giving FREE MONEY to our own executioner.
How the otherwise prudent people in the “West” could have CRETINISED themselves to such an extent?
Appart from that the gigantic torrents of a cheap GARBAGE flowing from China have demoralised the Western consument and transformed “it” into HOMO-CONSUMUS-DEGENERATUS that will binge enthusiastically even on the fermenting excrements, provided that they are wrapped in a shiny paper and advertised by a photoshoped mannequin they call a “SUPERMODEL”.
HOMO-CONSUMUS-DEGENERATUS no loner respects the product nor the work put into producing it.
And what is even worse, neither “it” respects the HUMAN who produced the product.
The idea that the one way traffic of goods and money could be called a FREE TRADE is beyond ridicule.
It is neither FREE nor FAIR.
So far, the only public figure who is openly naming the things be their names is otherwise FARCICAL potential candidate for the US President, Donald Trump.
Lets hope that after Obama is deposed, the new President will address that idiocy and stop the incessant flow of economic poison into America.
Let’s hope also it shall be Sarah Palin…
Mate, you are being extremely naive in thinking by cutting off trade, you could stop a nation from industrialising. What could probably happen is some juggernault corporations immerge from China and compete with Western MNCs. Trade with China have largely prevented their domestic companies from growing into international MNCs.
Excelent Michael.50 millons people in China are conected with the Party.And 150 millons relatives too.The rest are slaves
ajacksonian@20 pretty much nails it. Add to that a rapidly shrinking water table (that underneath Beijing has shrunk>120′ in the last 2 decades, iirc) and the heavy pollution of most surface water and one has a prescription for disaster. And make no mistake about it, the end result of Communism is ALWAYS Fascism. Hitler (who was a MUCH better politician/political prognosticator than he was an Arm-Chair General) once said in a newspaper interview (circa 1936, IIRC) when asked where he thought National Socialism’s biggest rival–The Communist Soviet Union–was headed, opined: “Oh, they will eventually end up where we already are.” Meaning, of course, that they would eventually, inevitably abandon internationalist aspirations and revert to nationalism–as witnessed by the crony, incestuous corporatism of the Brezhnev et al era from the 70s on.
Well, just as Germany had Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Italy had those
who were imprisoned by Il Duce, and eventually ran Italia after Mussolini’s execution – those people who shone on the light on “My
father is Li gang”, they will be running China to its true destiny
instead of it being a plaything for the ethically questionable currently running China.
I still think the Chinese are Comintern-style Bolsheviks. I don’t think it makes sense to call them fascist, which I regard as a label better reserved for the conditions immediately succeeding the First World war, the collapse of empire, and the encroachment of Bolshevik terror. The Chinese Politburo harnesses national sentiment, it’s true, but there’s not reason why that isn’t simply another part of “the line” adopted in order to maximize the translation of Western wealth into Chinese Communist power. Those who run China certainly believe in their Marxism-Leninism. Remember the New Economic Policy of V. Lenin. Look at the J-20. Look at the deals they force foreign companies like GM into. Look at the demands they make that enterprises entering China must share their intellectual property. This is much closer to the Bolshevik model, in my opinion, than the fascist.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever.”
Its as I have feared ever since the world let China off the hook for Tiannamen, giving them everything they want all the while they only continue to perfect their control without any intention of improving human rights.
But I think all the talk about engaging China in order to get them to improve their human rights record has always been a sham. What is really important is the gigantic Chinese market Everyone gets something out of it except for the people lost in the gulags.
Yes we have helped them perfect the facist state. Think about that the next time you buy a convenient, cheap Chinese product at the local Walmart. Just picture that human face when you do.
–A loooong time boycotter of Chinese products
(Just know there are options. You can also go retro/resale if needed.)
Another variant model of business as China is that China is the ultimate vertical monopoly corporation. Freewheeling, able to react quickly to changes in the business climate, the worlds banker, are a few of their characteristics.
Dr. Ledeen: I don’t disagree with how you describe the PRC, but I do disaree with your calling it Fascist. After reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, it seems to me the prime difference beteen Fascism and Communism is is whether the socialsim practiced is of the internationalist variety (in which case it is Communism) or whether it is of the nationalist variety (in which case it is Fascism). To me, the PRC is neither; it is simply an authortarian state led by people whose hold on power is so strong it will be pried away only from their cold dead hands.
Thre are currently 65 million empty apartments and condos are in China. It’s been noted by more than one wag that they are waiting for the souls of Mao’s 65,000,000 corpses to come home.
Two easy calls:
1. China will collapse both politically and economically in 2011.
2. Tom Friedman will claim he saw it coming.
John Batchelor, a late-night show host on WMAL (http://www.wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=9992) regularly talks with Gordon Chang of Forbes. (http://www.gordonchang.com/information.htm) China is appearing very aggressive; they are moving into Tibet with Northern India being the next step, they claim various islands near Japan including even Okinawa, they claim – of course – Taiwan but also most of the China Sea down to Indonesia. They’re building more and better weapons, including some that are only useful for taking on U.S. carrier groups. I’d say that yes, we need to worry about the Chinese.
Re #29
See also http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/socialism_by_other_means.html
I read a book a while back about the Chinese emperors which pointed out that by most definitions the current leadership of China is simply another in their string of dynasties.
An interesting article Dr. Ledeen, but I am sorry you did not mention Europe’s other fascist state, Franco’s Spain. It seems unique in that it was not very aggressive – outwardly at least -and its strong-man founder returned it to the monarch heir, who promptly established the modern republic. No similarity there to Mao’s China. But I would like to read your thoughts about the Spanish experience with fascism vis-a-vis the Chinese. (A digression: to what extent was Pinochet influenced by Franco’s example?)
Bigfoot (and others), the way I was taught–by the likes of George Mosse, Stanley Payne and others of the same quality–Franco cannot be considered a fascist. He was a standard-issue military dictator. The fascist in that story was Jose Antonio Prima di Rivera, and although he’s buried alongside Franco in the “Valley of the Fallen,” their politics were very different.
That is a shame.
The idea of Fascism being a temporary situation that eventually leads to a happy ending like with Franco or Pinochet is attractive but if those governments could not be characterized as fascists, it makes me less optimistic for China’s future.
People take a snapshot and want to call it a Movie.
Unless and until you have studied at least the last Two thousand years of Chinese history do not pretend to know what type of government or system exists, or more importantly WHY that type of system exists to organize and manage China.
This requirement to define without studying background and history of a given subject is also the root cause of troubles today in America. Nobody takes the time to study the creation and history of legislation or an entity like the Monetary System, or who is controlling and Benefiting from that system.
If China is a Fascist nation, then America is a Plutocracy.
The author states: ["Their passionate reassertion of the greatness of past dynasties has both entranced and baffled Western observers, because it does not fit the model of an “evolving communist system.”]
Seems to any observer that has read their standing constitution and observed their transitions over the past 80 years, might not agree with that assumption. Their standing constitution indicates a transitional desire and mechanism for democratic socialism vs communism…which is evolving as an oxymoron for much of the world today….to include the socialist progressive movement in the U.S.
When discussing their “culture” influences one would seemingly be aware of the fact that China has not been much of a conquering imperialist nation in modern philosophical nature. I would tend to believe they have long observed and are slowly transitioning to the U.S. model of global economic and military dominance void of any desire to influence [any] particular political ideology or expanded ownership of real estate upon the world.
You extended this example: ["China even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms, such as the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat production—the same quest for autarky that obsessed both Hitler and Mussolini."]
My, my! Doesn’t that mirror part of the U.S. agri program long held and long sustained? The U.S. has worked with China for three decades to help them diversify and expand their agri production….from produce and grains to edible meats production and the modernization of techniques and equipment….precisely for the reason you state above. Heck, during the 50′s America grew such a surplus abundance of wheat and corn that it was hauled off shore from Houston, TX and dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, the government continues subsidized American farmers to leave percentages of acreage idle from grain production.
You go on to state: ["But the Chinese, like the European fascists, are intensely xenophobic, and obviously worry that their people may turn against them if they learn too much about the rest of the world."]
I don’t know about that since, they continue to send large numbers of exchange students to America and likewise many American students to China in exchange. There remains a huge exchange between many of their peoples and the larger concentrated communities of Chinese in America. There are hundreds upon hundreds of Chinese restaurants here in America that rotate employees (many illegals) from China to the U.S. and back….and the list goes on and on to include such things as American fast food chains, American music, American fashion, American favored electronics and digital gaming, etc.
I dare say that if it were America in the position of a population in excess of 1 BILLION people mostly of peasant class, the same kinds of historic culture, trying to transition socially, economically and politically in an ever advancing world, we too, would encounter the very same kinds of problematic issues….and external scrutiny.
In a global economy such as today, China, given its circumstances in totality, are powerless to become anymore dominate than the developed nations allow it to be….even, should it develop an edge on military technology and indicate some aggressive posturing. They are smart enough to know that in todays global economy one either becomes a “team-player” or become isolated from the rest of the developed world of allies. Not precisely that simple but, essentially so.
I’ll save the discussion of communism vs fascism and their many evolutionary philosophical rebirths for another day.
Any war with China is likely to involve nuclear weapons. One of these days China will do something colossally stupid, thinking America too weak to resist, and wind up starting a great naval war. When the US Navy utterly destroys the Chinese Navy, they will try to escalate to save face, forgetting, of course, that they’re not in the same weight class as us. Such a war might kill 50 million Americans, but the result will be over a billion dead Chinese. Our economic power may fade, but our ability to fight will outlast our economic power.
We should remind China that it would not be a challenge for us to park 3 Ohio Class SSBNs off their shore: one to take out their nuclear arsenal, one to wipe out their military and industrial capacity, and a third to act as a substitute should they manage to sink either of the first two. If we ever ordered them to launch, their entire war fighting capability and 90% of their population would be dead or dying within five minutes. Remind them just how weak they are, and then warn them against starting something they can’t finish.
You should change your handle to “Eternal Optimist”.
I’m not sure your distinction of a “mature” fascist state has any validity. I see what you’re saying, and there’s some wisdom in it, but the bottom line is that fascism is just one more form of tyranny and all tyrannies destroy themselves in the end (usually leading to another tyranny, but, nevertheless). ajacksonian above (20) stole my thunder: China is imploding on several different levels. They are going to crash and burn. It won’t be pretty. All this fawning adoration of ancient Chinese philosophy, blah blah is a bunch of bull: it’s not that good, it’s never gotten them anywhere much, and they don’t really believe in it anymore anyway. They’re typical, run-of-the-mill dictators and they are going to fall – hard.
Wow. An article on PJM that I don’t disagree with. I can’t say I necessarily believe all of the worst connotations – I think china’s leaders do basically “get it” when it comes to realpolitik and trade. And I think they are genuinely shifting away from a centrally-planned economy, even if influence is still controlled from the center. And I don’t really think they actually hate their own people, even if they’ve had a hard time figuring out how to reform their political and economic structures.
But I agree that china comes across as extremely chauvinistic – witness the little gangs of toughs bussed in to wander the streets of canberra during the olympic torch parade, with huge (strangely similar) PRC flags and quick tempers. Thank god that nobody thought to encourange the cronulla mob to drive down as well, or things could have got nasty.
China strikes me as a brat of a country. It’s had a tough time, it hasn’t had the successes it thinks it deserves, but also has a hard time accepting that it’s basically its own fault. Mention that, and the nationalism flares. It seems like the quickest way for a dissident to find themselves in the clink is to attract outside attention – it embarrasses the powerful, and they REALLY don’t like being embarrassed.
None of that matters though. What china thinks, or what we think about that, isn’t going to slow its economic growth and ability to affect markets. It’s trying it on a bit already – see the recent mucking about with rare earth exports. China is GOING to be annoying. There’s no point stomping.
Just look after your own interests is the best approach. That’s what everyone else will be doing.
A great analysis, Mr. Ledeen, and I think your are spot on with yur perception that the People’s Republic leaders do not see themselves as communists or followers of any Western socialist ideology. It is my opinion (and this ties in with your observation of fascist infatuation with past glories) that they regard themselves as mandarins, restorers of the once great Chinese Empire. Their employment of a nomenclatura, with party faithfuls appointed to every governmental position in the nation, down to the smallest village, owes more to that imperial rule than to Russia’s Stalinism. They encourage enterprise to flourish and permit the entrepreneurs to enjoy the wealth of their efforts jst so long as they share the spoils and bow to the powers in Beijing. They assure sustenance for the impoverished by employing them for menial tasks, which is why you see highway construction sites without a tractor in view: only swarms of men with shovels, and picks and barrows, just like a millenium ago.
Like all tyranies, it is wary of the threat presented by the fervor of adherents to religions or cults and supresses them mercilesslly, with brutality proportionte to the perceived degree of threat. “Human rights” are not an imperialist concern. Only Buddhism, long established in China and completely pacific, is tolerated. A friend who travels frequently to Tibet says that there is a proliferation of signs telling the people how they are being protected from the horors of Indian occupancy.
Anyone who thinks the new Imperialists do not have military ambitions is delusional., but those ambitions are expansionary. Hegemony in Eastern Asia is a major objective Korea – all of it – is an obvious province, as is Indonesia, with its large populations of Chinese descent. Action by the U.S.to protect South Korea would be fiercely resisted, but with little likelihood of retaliation on American soil.
The Chinese consider hemselves the cleverest people in the world and take great pride in their record of achievements in technology and culture, and their invulnerability prior to the collapse of their last dynasty one hundred years ago. These are sweet days for the Neo-Imperialists, reveling in their ascendency and the loss of face of the United States by its ineptitude and obsequious posture in foreign relations. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of “face” to the Chinese, the sense of triumph that attends the humiliation of an opponent which accounts for the contemptuous air of Hu’s contingent.
But the Beijing regime faces tremendous problems inherent in its size and population of over 1.3 BILLION. That’s over four times that of the U.S., more than the total population of the Western Hemisphere, in a country just slighty larger than than ours with a higher proportion of land unfit for habitation or cultivation, dependent on outside food and energy sources.
.
Communist ideologues in the Hugo Chavez style these are not. They are regressive imperialist despots, They have no more interest in cooperation than the Palestinians in Gaza. They face greater risk from internal forces than foreign. In any event,we should not quaver, but at least stand up firmly to them and save face.
I don’t think it is inevitable that a fascist state will pursue foreign conquest. Spain was fascist under Franco from the 1930s until he died in the late 1970s. The Shah of Iran’s government might have been considered fascist, as well as many of our South American allies during the 1970s. Chiang Ki Shek, who created a short-lived fascist government in China until Mao’s communists defeated him, ruled Taiwan until he died.
It may be that the horrors of Nazi Germany were due not so much to fascism as to the Nazis’ peculiar racist ideology. (That is not to say that China does not consider the Chinese to be a superior race, but they do not seem to have any great ambition to destroy or torment their own country’s ethnic minorities.)
Besides, perhaps the world which condemned the unipolar world of “American hegemony” under G. W. Bush might deserve to experience the alternative. We (the U.S. and China) simply have to agree not to mess in one another’s internal policies, and to keep trade agreements reasonable.
Of one thing I am reasonably certain: If you could put Augustus, Louis XIV, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Mussolini, Napoleon I, Peron and any of our current crop of tyrants together in a conference on governance it wouldn’t take them an hour to come to a mutual understanding on how to rule. They might disagree on the object of exercising power but not on how to take and hold it. And in the end that is all it is about: power. All the high falutin’ babble about underlying philosophies is nothing more than justification for oppressing and terrorizing others in order to coerce obedience to the commands of the ruler(s). Of all the temptations to which human beings are subject the desire for, and abuse of, power is surely among the most alluring (if not THE most alluring). Amass enough power and all other desires may be assuaged. Surround that thirst for power with good intentions and it can be exercised in the most savage manner without troubling the conscience – or at least the pangs of guilt and shame can be smothered under a shower of justification and excuse that it was for “the greater good”.
Mr. Ledeen, what an interesting and perceptive article and what interesting and perceptive comments overall.
We need an extensive and continuing examination of China including its structure, economy and ambitions in order to pierce the propaganda veils worn by the PRC/CCP/PLA.
I read that Mao brought with him all the maps of the Chinese dynasties and empires and considered himself as the greatest Chinese emperor.
The military buildup is very disconcerting and does not coincide with a peaceful rise. Chinese conquests (Tibet and Xinjing) and attempted conquests (India and Vietnam) since 1949 indicate imperial ambitions consistent with Mao’s imperial ambitions for China. When a top Chinese admiral tells one of our top admirals to let the Chinese patrol west of Hawaii and we can patrol east of Hawaii; Asia has a real problem for China is building the blue water navy to do that-especially submarines. When three Chinese generals threaten nuclear attack upon America for various reasons including even entering vast, overstated claims of Chinese territorial waters, we, Asia and the world have a problem.
Along much of China’s borders there are Maoist rebellions; over one-half of India’s provinces have Maoist-type insurrections. It is hard for me to believe that China does not control every move that North Korea makes; NK, with 25 million or so people, is essentially a stalking horse and puppet since Mao’s takeover in 1949.
On regime stability, official government reports indicated well over a hundred thousand riots involving millions of people in 2006 as a representative year and apparently continuing to grow in numbers. Reportedly, during the Plenery Session of the People’s Congress involving about 1,500 leaders (before the Olympics), there were supposedly several hundred thousand police and troops guarding them in Beijing.
I think one of the most interesting questions relates to China’s perceived economy and financial strength. Comment #20 by “ajacksonian” seems to have the right focus on the reality of their financial strength/economy as perhaps a Potemkin Village or shell game.
Consider:
E & Y in 2004 issued a report indicating almost $1 trillion in bad bank loans; Beijing forced its retraction.
Perhaps $2 to $3 trillion was spent on the Olympics, the show cities of Beijing and Shanghai, and the “ghost cities” with little or no return.
There was a $1 trillion or so stimulus in 2008/9 on a $4 trillion economy. The banks were ordered to make loans.
We have read of the endless regional and local projects underway and under the control of the regional and local authorities; they would seem to logically obtain the money from the regional and local banks.
Perhaps the savings/funds of the public and business sectors are at high risk in these regional and local banks? Are these banks also supporting in some fashion the major city banks?
In 2004/05 it was reported that many/most of the enterprises did not make a profit; presumably the goal was to generate foreign exchange reserves and losses were presumably supported by the banks. Generating foreign exchange reserves has been a goal since 1949 as a means to carry out PRC/CCP/PLA policies.
Reportedly, from 1958 to 1962, 38 million Chinese were starved to death to sell their food abroad to generate the foreign exchange necessary to build the atom bombs-Google “powerkills” website.
Therefore, Mr. Ledeen, are the internal finances of China a shell game and potential black hole for the almost $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves being used to carry out the “soft power” intimidation/goals of this mature fascist state/regime?
at least some of the official data are very unreliable. when i was on the China Commission we pointed out that the official budget numbers were pure inventions.
A rough guess on the military budget is multiply by three to four times the official budget when compared to the U.S. defense budget. Part is that personnel expenses are not included, part is the lower cost of production, part is the pure invention you talked about, etc.
Do you have any take or sources on the real numbers on their financial system’s status?
3 Cheers for the king of Spain. He peacefully terminated the Fascist system in Spain after Marco. He is 100 times the man Dung Xiaoping was.
I wrote about this historic transition in “Freedom Betrayed.” Don’t forget Adolfo Suarez, the head of the Falange who did the bulk of the political work with the king…
yes Juan Carlos is one of the great leaders of my time…
Mr. Ledeen…..I think sometimes well intentioned intellectuals of history let their historical knowledge taint real time reality. American geopolitical (academic) strategies around the world post WWII, have failed to one degree or another in every instance. I submit to you, there are a pretty simple and consistent reasons.
I personally think that projecting the present and the future of China, well into in the midst of transition, based on some historical or even current premise, is misdirected without some supporting facts. You say you sat on some China Commission. Did you sit down and discuss with the government leaders, the comprehensive and strategic contingency of their transition?
I would be interested in what their transition contingency and ultimate objective is as you understand it from sitting on a China Commission. I was doing some work with ADM when they were selected and invited to assist China in some agri production areas, leading me to understand a different scenario than yours, that is not inconsistent with where they are today….or ultimately heading toward. That said, unintended or intended consequences from the Clinton Administrations forward, have creates quite a different playing field for China….and America! Add to the list of American geopolitical failures…or so it is seeming.
I would like to see you tie-in some supporting facts aside from history, in developing the premise of your article as it relates to China’s transition of political, economic and military objectives.
Yes and America is a Martian colony. Ever heard of history? And I don’t mean the last 50 years. But let’s just simplify it all and say Confucius was a Fascist too. Hey why not? Makes it all so simple!
We are trying to progress/evolve as a human race. The modern representative democracy experiment started here is well over 200 years old. No democracy has attacked another democracy since 1816. No famine has occurred in a democracy.
More or proportionately more of the human race became free under U.S. world leadership in the past century than any other time in human history. More people have been lifted out of abject poverty and starvation in the past century than any other time in history. People forget or have not been taught how few free nations existed after WW II and how many exist today. The thousands of people in Tiananmen Square in 1998 wanted to experience that freedom and a brutal regime repressed that desire for freedom. Hong Kong and now Taiwan have shown that the Chinese people when given a choice will choose freedom.
See the full story of democracy at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ “It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.”
See the story of how power totalitarian and authoritarian killed in the 20th Century at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
The equivalent of the entire population of the U.S. in 1990-262 million- was killed by their own governments in the 20th Century: China PRC-77 million; USSR-62 million; Colonialists-50 million; Hitler’s Nazis-21 million; China’s KMT-10 million; Japan-6 million; China-Mao-Soviets-3.5 million and horribly so on and so on.
Democracy saves lives and power-authoritarian or totalitarian-kills!
Michael Ledeen has provided a feast of thought here. It will take a while to digest the dinner, and the after dinner conversations. Thank you, I find this a believable platform to consider Chinese intentions and various courses of action. And I suspect that those who may develop rational responses, do not realize how low rationality will count in the scheme of things.
The Chinese leaders have been very successful with their version of making the trains run on time, but their resultant power will surely corrupt any not yet corrupt, and I think they have few George Washingtons in their clique.
I would describe the current Chinese system as Marxist capitalism.
http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/MarxMoney.html
Please correct typo/transposition in second paragraph. Tiananmen Square massacre was in year 1989 not 1998.
The study of History as context for politics and economics in the present day simply does not exist any longer. It is a loss for ourselves and our understanding of our own place in world history when we take these snapshots and are lazy to research and study why something is.
China has one of the most complicated histories recorded…emperors, dynasties, dragon thrones, suffering terrible invasions, overthrows, revolution after revolution, desperate times, and Golden centuries that accumulated the worlds greatest concentration of wealth.
China is ruled by an authoritarian system because of its History, not in spite of it. If people writing articles and posting reactionary responses would read or take a course on Chinese History, the present day would fall into place.
How do you explain the dual success of democracy and the economy in Hong Kong and the growing democracy in Taiwan? The regime argues as you do. However, imagine the potential success of China and the Chinese people if individual freedom is unleashed and democracy gradually takes over from the power of the clans and the repressive CCP/PRC.
Alex…you are an accomplished writing orator but, like so many, you omit the facts of real time reality. This article does not cite the realities of an organized, methodical transition toward an ultimate objective. Can you address that?
Academic historians (geopoliticals) are very much akin to psychologists. They can only project probabilities on the basis of statistics…or history that creates a norm. History, I suppose can be a great predictor of some factors if that history remains static. In the case of current China, they do not remain static to their modern history and are now in transition. Transition to what and how? I doubt it is backward to some previous point in history!
Surely, with all the academic and political brass around PJM, this subject could be presented far less subjectively.
Just remember as you read your history, all the American academic elites have a very poor geopolitical analytical and strategic planning record around the world, post WWII.
Hey, T.T.Thomas, I have often argued that we cannot know with any reasonable certainty what crazy people will do next. It’s not just the American academics who have trouble with prophecy, it’s most everyone, everywhere. The past is NOT a reliable guide to the future. That’s why you have to play the game…
Mr. Ledeen….Thank you for your candid, honest response. If we had more Will Rogers, or even more Johnny Cash’s running foreign affairs I’m certain we’d have had a much better track record over the past several decades. Also, I should not let pass, that folks who are indifferent to America by any degree, modest or radical, does not always equate to “crazy” as you stated.
Old warriors have a different perspective of academics who contribute to, and run our government and micro manage wars. Many of us old warriors are not to impressed with “playing the game”… knowing the horrible price payed by our soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines and their families.
Mr. Ledeen….you commanded the following: ["That’s why you have to play the game…"] I would only remind you that the [game] you prescribe to, has consistently failed America at home and around the world for many decades. Somebody is consistently getting it wrong and I’m doubtful anybody can point the finger at the average American citizen.
TTT: I think comrade Gorbachev would disagree with your assessment of American failure…
Mr. Ledeen…Thanks for your reply! I’m a bit different I suppose. I never measure success in the moment of battle. I measure success at wars end. I’m sure there are those who would give victory for the battle you refereced to Reagan and defeat to Gorbie. I, on the other hand conclude, the war has not yet played out. Going through a timeline post WWII, I am confident that in each instance, I can defend my positions and conclusions…from say ’47 to present.
Anyway, thanks again for being kind enough to respond.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”-G. Santayana. The past is normally and logically the starting point for the advisors to the leaders of the modern world. However, a leaders’ attempt to go one better than history can lead to their and their people’s doom. Alternately, truly learning from history can lead to a better nation and a better world. One answer to and lesson from history is representative democracy combined with free markets.
China built a peace-loving, compassionate society under Chairman Mao from the wreckage of American and Japanese corporate imperialism. however, the peaceful, naive Mao was beguiled by the serpent “Tricky Dick” Nixon into signing the Shanghai treaties that opened his compassionate country to the moral poison of corporate greed. Now greed rules all of China; the average Chinese worker is just as much in thrall to Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds as his American counterpart.
This is an excellent article, and is much as I see it. A thing I see is that the Chinese rulers are statisfying (not satisfying) their people. Progress is slow,but constant, and the people don’t have the least desire to elect leaders.
The best Chinese engineers have been busy vastly improving military capability. China has the great opportunity of gradually increasing credit to their people with which material goods can be purchased, while at the same time, preventing excessive credit and avoiding devaluation of their money supply.
Effectively, China is run by the equivalent of a board of directors, very intelligent people, with the chairman of the board elected by the other board members to a four year term of office, with a focus on economic performance. If the first term is judged successful, the chairman can be elected to a second four year term, but no more than that.
To those who have lofty and impossible ideals, this form of government wouldn’t be acceptable. From a practical standpoint, it seems to be working out very well indeed.
Representative democracy allows total idiots to have a large say in how a nation is run, and given what has gone on in the US over the past half century, is absurd and results in the most fragile form of government possible. A benevolent dictatorship has always been the best form of government for the people. Keeping a dictatorship benevolent has always been the problem. China may have found a way to do that. Only time will tell.
yes democracy has profound weaknesses. however tyranny is the most unstable form of government, while republics, as machiavelli pointed out, have the longest life spans.
To paraphrase W. Buckeley I would also rather be governed by the first 300 people in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.
I guess it is ok to have elites and a “benovolent” dictator murder 76 million Chinese and another “benevolent” dictator in the Soviet Union murder 66 million of his own “subjects”/people. Benevolent dictators in the past century including all totalitarian/authoritarian governments murdered 262 million of their own people. This is about 7 times the 37 million killed in all wars in the past century. Why are the anti-war people against wars? If it is the killings, then they should be 7 times more anti-totalitarian/authoritarian in their protests. Why not?
By the way democracies killed 800,000 of their own people but were also tagged with killing another 2.2 million people by sending/repatriating Soviet citizens back to the Soviet Union to be murdered by Stalin after WW II. Therefore, Stalin should really have 68 million murders to his account. Google “powerkills” to see extensive information on what the author calls all forms of murder Democide and why democracy saves lives.
tks servant. very well said. and fun, too.
I noticed a website yesteday that seemed alot like this, are anyone positive a person just isn’t duplicating this web-site?
ghaser, if you provide the link we can check it. “Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery…”
Why didn’t you quote the sentence after that?
pimpin
i’m hooked
Hello! I merely want to make a enormous thumbs up with the amazing info you’ve here during this post. We are returning to your weblog for additional soon.