Is the Chinese government still communist?

[iamthebandfanman]

Poll question: Is the Chinese government still communist?

or is it a big fat fascist state just like russia is becoming?

so, whatcha think


communist or fascist pigs.

[jeff30997]

1. Fascist Pigs.Big time!

:grr:

[Zynx]

2. CINO. Communist in Name Only.

It's amazing they went from Maoist excesses to the rightist excesses that Mao always railed against and went totally overboard trying to stop.

[Selatius]

3. The ruling regime is little more than an authoritarian oligarchy pretending to be a "workers' party"

They have embraced predatory capitalism. They are not communist and have not been for decades now. The only thing in common with Mao is that they're still as authoritarian as before.

[Fovea]

4. psychotic.

On one hand, they have the forms of worker's rights.
On the other, they have structures of corporatism.

I think China has multiple personality disorder. There is a fair chance that China is about to enter a two kingdoms period, like the old three kingdoms period.

[Breeze54]

5. I think they are now greedy, fascist, corporate, dictatorship, oppressive, unhuman, pigs! n/t

[Kajsa]

6. Amen, sistah!

:D :pals:

-except actual pigs are much nicer than
the ruling party in China.

;)

[Breeze54]

8. Hey there, Kajsa!

It's been awhile since I've seen you around these parts!

How've you been doing? Good, I hope! ;)

:pals:

[Kajsa]

12. I'm doing OK, thanks.

I've popped in to GD and GD-P a few times.

Good to see ya too, my friend!

I hope all is well with you.

:D :pals:

[Jack Rabbit]

7. The Chinese people ended up with the worst of both worlds

A Communist is basically a fascist in overalls in the first place. Now China has market solutions with the folly that protects the corporation that organizes production: lax enforcement of labor laws and no environmental regulations to speak of. This is coupled with the absence of free expression or political dissent.

Take this system and shove it.

[Better Believe It]

9. Do You Know What Fascism Is?

outside of namecalling?

Fascism doesn't simply mean dictatorship or undemocratic rule. You might want to study the role of communists, and other radicals socialists in opposing the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain. If you haven't done that, you know next to nothing about fascism.

I think some well meaning folks like to use the term "fascism" and "fascist" to describe any political figure or government they dislike without understanding how real fascism arose, how it achieved power and how it defended and represented the capitalist class in Europe after World War I.


Now we have a undemocratic regime in China (and I might add Russia) which clearly violates human rights and workers rights, however, that doesn't make it a fascist government and fascist economic system.

China, like Russia, is adopting a capitalist economy and this has happened AFTER the Communist Party bureaucrats abandoned the personality cult around Mao. There is no great leader like Mao in China today and while Chinese people have not yet won the democratic rights and freedoms they want and need, the government is less repressive than during the era of Mao and the cultural revolution.

Strikes and demonstrations in China were unheard of in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

They will continue to grow and become more frequent as capitalism is restored in China.

Many progressives in the United States, unlke Europeans, also seem to be fairly ignorant of Marxism, it's history and the communist and socialist opposition to the Stalinist regime in Russian and it's supporters in other lands including China.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. no, they arent fascist because they are a dictatorship

i think SOME PEOPLE(you) are confused on why we are saying they are fascist.


you can take your human rights violating sympothizing ASS and fuck off.

no love for china here.


they are fascist because .....

they use state run business for... PROFIT!
so now they are like one giant corporation ... HELL BENT on power and money regardless of workers rights or the treatment of their own people.

thats why they are fascist.

they have no workers rights.

i hope whatever youre getting for being a moron is worth your soul buddy, i really do.

YOU better believe THAT.

[Better Believe It]

14. Who Gets The Profit?

How are these alleged "profits" of nationalized "state run" businesses distributed?

It's common knowledge that thousands of privately run business enterprises have been forming at breakneck speed.

Genuine capitalism has arrived in China .... it is growing and expanding by leaps and bounds.

I don't think your stupid or a moron for not knowing that.

I just think you need to read and study a bit more about China.

You owe it to yourself to do that.

[iamthebandfanman]

37. ill tell you where it isnt going

to the millions of poor famers who dont live in cities in rural china.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Yes, I know what fascism is

Technically, you're correct. There are differences between a communist state and fascist state, but not great ones and much of the difference is simply rhetorical.

While the communists advocate for the masses and the fascists for the leader-hero, the fact is that the leader-hero is not unknown to communism, as the cults of Lenin, Stalin and Mao attest. A communist state is a police state, exactly like a fascist state. A neoconservative state is also a police state. This is because, like communists and fascists, the neoconservative rests his one-size-fits-all ideology on a false view of humanity. Leaders who desire to make decisions based on a false ideology must have a police apparatus to keep intellectuals and dissidents in their place.

Under fascism, the state is paramount and the individual citizen has no rights not given to him by the state. Under communism, the state, which is defined as an oppressive power, will wither away once all bourgeois individuals allow the socialist man inside them to come out. The socialist man is completely dedicated to society, wishing nothing for himself. To a communist, the individual is a helpless actor in a pageant of historical progress in which the modes of economic production move from slavery to a utopian communist future.

If that seems arcane to many, it's because it's nonsense. A state is more than simply a police power; it is also a vehicle to facilitate public discussion on matters of importance in a collective decision making process. No matter how perfect a society might be, there are still mundane decisions to be made, such as whether to build a dam on the river and, if so, exactly where; as long as such problems exist, so will the state. As for the individual human being, he is at once an acquisitive and somewhat greedy fellow, as Ayn Rand saw him, and a social being who must reach out and unite with his fellows in order to survive, which Ms. Rand and her followers deny. Both communism and the kind of unbridled, free market capitalism we've witnessed in the last few decades is doomed to failure because each is based on a false view of humanity. As for the fascist notion that people just want to be led by great leaders, we won't even go there. Great leaders are heinous criminals with the law wrapped around them.

Returning to communism, seeing the individual as strictly a social being meant that whatever pain was involved in building the socialist state was unimportant. The important thing was to collectivize farms, not feed the masses. Consequently, tens of millions starved to death in Stalin's five year plan in the thirties and, as to underscore that the problem is systemic to the communist state, tens of millions staved to death in Mao's Great Leap Forward thirty years later. That kind of historical progress we can do without.

[Better Believe It]

30. Have You Read Much Read By Authentic Marxists

and not just their opponents?

I think you need to read something about fascism and communism, especially radical opponents of Stalinism and Fascism such as Trotsky and many others. Have you done that?

This comment: "Returning to communism, seeing the individual as strictly a social being meant that whatever pain was involved in building the socialist state was unimportant" was pure nonsense which has nothing to do with real history. That view is absolutely contrary to that of genuine socialists and Marxists. Stalin led a counter-revolution in Russia in which all genuine communists and radicals, including almost the entire leadership of the Communist Party (excepting Stalin and his hacks) were executed or if they were real lucky placed in slave labor camps.

But, that's the kind of propaganda and nonsense we are taught in our educational system today and its been like that for many decades.

For starters, I urge you to study some elementary and basic books on fascism and communism written by actual Marxists and socialists.

If you haven't done that and instead rely on second hand sources who read that literature and interpret it too you with their political spin you won't learn much.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. I have read extensively on Marxism

Especially Marx. I'm rather fond of the 1844 manuscripts. They show a young Marx, not yet so weighted down with his own ideology, that he couldn't be genuinely outraged at the economic injustice of his time. That Marx could still believe in socialism as a positive good, not merely the inevitable end of an impersonal historical process.

I am very much aware that communism was never monolithic. I am aware that there were strains of Marxism that were opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Those communists and socialists who opposed Stalin and Mao and lesser tyrants masquerading as the benefactors of the masses are to be lauded.

However, I am speaking here principally about communism as practiced, i.e., Marxism-Leninism under Stalin and Mao. What differs us is that I am not going Lenin off the hook for his contribution to the theory of totalitarian communism, nor Mao for being no less an adherent to it. Nor will I make any attempt to apologize for the Great Leap Forward any more than I would apologize for Stalin's five year plan. The GLF was an unmitigated economic disaster in which about 40 million Chinese peasants died of starvation or overwork. Do you defend mass famine if it used for some so-called "good" like collectivized farming? Or do you deny that there was any such famine under either Stalin or Mao?

Personally, I would like to believe that Lenin, had he lived longer in good health, would never have collectivized farming in the way Stalin did. Lenin was doctrinaire, but he had a hard-headed appreciation of facts that Stalin did not. If a system of peasant proprietorship feeds the nation, let it stand until it does not. As we Americans say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Stalin, and later Mao, would look at a system of peasant proprietorship and say. "it isn't red enough." And for that, those who produced died in poverty. Some workers' paradise, that.

[Better Believe It]

39. You Read About Marxism But Have You Read Much Written By Authentic Marxists

such as Castro, Trotsky, Guevara, Cannon, etc.,

I'm sure you've read a lot by pseudo Marxists or anti-communists and their political spin on the Russian Revolution before Stalin betrayed it and led a counter-revolution.

I hope you don't lump Castro, Trotsky and Chavez in the same category with Mao and Stalin.

Do you?

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Response

Check on Trotsky, check on Che, check on Lenin (I still have my old college text of works by Lenin), and check on Mao.

I do not lump Castro in the same heap as Mao and Stalin. He's pretty mild stuff as dictators go. He also had the wisdom to not completely collectivize farming, which I believe is one of the reasons he lasted as long as he did. Certainly not the best political leader imaginable, but definitely the best one available to Cubans in 1959.

Chávez should not be mentioned in the same breath as the others. If one could call Chávez a Marxist at all, one definitely could not call him an orthodox Marxist. Hopefully, he'll have better success in his country than another unorthodox Marxist, Robert Mugabe, had in Zimbabwe (another example of messing with, and messing up, farm production).

Trotsky and Che never ran the government on their own. Frankly, I have concerns about the kind of leader either of them would have made. Like Stalin and Mao, both were intelligent men, unwaivering ideologues and could very easily have made the same mistakes as Stalin or Mao or imposed a more brutal police state than Castro did. I suspect history looks more kindly on them as it is than if either had absolute power. An irrelevant aside, I think I would have liked Che had I known him personally.

[Greyhound]

10. The Chinese government has never been communist. n/t

[Breeze54]

13. China has been under communist rule since 1949 !!

Seems fair to say China is communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China#Political_divisions


Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China#Political_divisions

Main article: Politics of the People's Republic of China

While the PRC is regarded as a Communist state by many political scientists, simple characterizations of China's political structure since the 1980s are no longer possible.<23> The PRC government has been variously described as authoritarian, communist, and socialist, with heavy restrictions remaining in many areas, most notably in the Internet and in the press, freedom of assembly, reproductive rights, and freedom of religion. However, compared to its closed door policies until the mid-1970s, the liberalization of the PRC is such that the administrative climate is much less restrictive than before, though the PRC is still far from the full-fledged democracy practiced in most of Europe or North America, according to most observers internationally.

The country is ruled under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Its incumbent President is Hu Jintao and its premier is Wen Jiabao.

The country is run by the Communist Party of China (CPC), which is guaranteed power by the Constitution.<24> There are other political parties in the PRC, referred to in China as "democratic parties", which participate in the People's Political Consultative Conference and the National People's Congress. There have been some moves toward political liberalization, in that open contested elections are now held at the village and town levels,<25><26> and that legislatures have shown some assertiveness from time to time. However, the Party retains effective control over governmental appointments: in the absence of meaningful opposition, the CPC wins by default most of the time.


Human rights

The Tiananmen Square protests were human rights demonstrations that were repressed by force in 1989


Main article: Human rights in the People's Republic of China

The Peoples Republic Of China is known for not having many rights and routinely violates international laws in human rights. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China states that the "fundamental rights" of citizens include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, and property rights. However, censorship of political speech and information is openly and routinely used to protect what the government considers national security interests.<40> In particular, press control is notoriously tight: Reporters Without Borders considers the PRC one of the least free countries in the world for the press.<41> The government has a policy of limiting some protests and organizations that it considers a threat to social stability and national unity, as was the case with the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989.

[Better Believe It]

15. Well, They Called Themselves Communists

But they sure didn't follow some of the basic principals established by the original leaders of the first "communist' revolution, the Russian Revolution in 1917.

And within less than two decades almost the entire political leadership of the Russian revolution and soviet Communist Party was either in prison or executed by Joseph Stalin. A successful political counter-revolution had taken place in the former Soviet Union. However, they didn't restore the old capitalist economic system. It became the "dictatorship" over the working class rather than a "dictatorship" over the capitalist class by the "proletariat".

Unfortunately, huge crimes against humanity were committed by Stalin's regime in the name of "communism". This made it almost impossible for genuine "marxist" political parties to be formed with massive following. And the crimes of Stalin and his supporters made the Communist Party an easy target for the rulers in this country during the post World War II witchhunt. That fact that the leadership of the American Communist Party were uncritical supporters of Stalin's regime didn't help them any.
But, everyone suffered on the left during that dark period of American history, not just members of the CP.

And of course many terrible things have occurred in China during and since Mao .... all in the name of communism!

Well, today you could honestly say many crimes are occuring today in the name of capitalism!

[Breeze54]

16. "many crimes are occuring today in the name of capitalism" - and Facsism!

In the US, under the * crime regime!! :grr:

[Greyhound]

17. Exactly, all of these authoritarian ruling hierarchies go by many names,

but in the end they are all about theft.
:kick:

[Better Believe It]

18. Who Calls China And Russia "Fascist" Nations Besides You?

and a few others who know little or nothing about the history of fascist or communist movements.

Tell us .... who did the genuine fascists in Germany, Italy and Spain target for repression, execution and concentration camps in the 1930's?

This is not a real tough question. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of that history can give a clear answer to that simple question.

Can you?

[rockymountaindem]

19. To what side did millions of German communist voters defect during the1930s?

To the NSDAP, of course. Think about it... in 1932 the KDP had over 100 seats in the Reichstag and over six million votes in the most recent election. By 1936, that was all just a memory. Hitler certainly targeted the KDP leadership and apparatus, but their millions of everyday supporters mostly went along with the new regime, and a fair share of them became ardent fascists. Why? Well, the KDP and NSDAP both appealed to unemployed voters against the SDs, who were the socialist voice for workers with a job. Once the NSDAP came to power and started to alleviate the unemployment issue (partly through its own ham-handed policies of top-down management and forcing workers to stay in their jobs, partly because it benefited from the policies already enacted by the governments of Walther Brunning and Franz von Papen), the formerly unemployed KDP voters mostly assumed they'd been wrong about the NSDAP, and went along with the new bosses.

Oh, and let's not forget who went around calling the Social Democrats the "Social Fascists" for three years prior to Hitler's ascendancy: Stalin and his tools in the ECCI. Had they conceived of the Volksfront strategy as a means of defeating Hitler instead of as a response to his success, maybe the whole Third Reich thing never would have happened in the first place. It was Stalin's risky throw of the dice on the "politique du pire" in Germany that helped Hitler come to power. Once he got there, he proved a lot more menacing and a lot more enduring than Stalin had predicted.

Honestly, I thought you only made your own propaganda posts. I didn't realize you came around to post in other peoples' threads.

[Better Believe It]

20. The Role Of The Communist Party And Social Democrats

I do agree the misleadership of the German communist party played the major role in preventing a united front against the Nazis. The Social Democrats leaderships hands are not clean either.

However, are you now claiming the Communist Party was actually a fascists organization? That sounds similiar to the false claim of German Communist Party leaders that the socialists were "social fascists". And now you come along and claim that the German communists were "communist fascists"!!!!!

If your position had been accepted in Germany that would have been yet another obstacle to building a united front against the Nazis.

Did many radicals quit the Communist Party, Social Democrat party and other left organizations and join the Nazis? Of course. Many of them just to avoid the concentration camps. What's your point?

But, back to the main point. Why do you think China is a fascist nation and do you also think Russia is fascist?

[rockymountaindem]

21. You asked who the "genuine fascists" persecuted in the 30s

My answer was "a lot less communists than you think, because most of the rank and file ended up with the NSDAP". If you want to refute me, maybe you could point to all the agitation perpetrated by the communist underground during the 30s, or the armed uprisings against the fascist regime. Oh wait, none of those things happened. Why? The majority of the *six million* KDP voters just went along to get along. "Communist fascist" they were not, just communists who were less than reluctant to embrace the ultimate victors.

If you think the KDP and their masters in Moscow didn't play a leading role in preventing the united front, I don't know what to tell you. Going around calling the largest leftist party a bunch of class enemies and fascist collaborators doesn't do much for cooperation. Funny that it was only *after* that agitation stopped in 1935 that PF governments actually came to power in France and Spain. That was also after, I might point out, the *armed* uprising by SDs in Austria against the installation of Dollfuss' clerical-fascist regime. It seems that the hated "social fascists" were actually ahead of their erstwhile communist friends in the realm of actually challenging fascism in the streets.

[Better Believe It]

22. Social Democratic & Communist Party Leaders Both Responsible

And what is your opinion of the left-wing faction within the German Communist Party that opposed that dreadful policy. Two members of the left-wing were members of the German Parliament and fought that policy. Didn't the leadership of the German Social Democratic party ignore the appeals of members for a United Front with the Communist Party? They did. And the leadership used the excuse that "communist leaders are saying we're as bad a Hiter" to justify their sectarianism. They should have gone right around the top leadership of the Communist Party and appealed directly to the millions of working class supporters and members of the Communist Party for united action against the Nazis. They failed to do that.

So, don't let the leadership of the Social Democrats off so lightly as if they did no wrong.

OK?

[rockymountaindem]

26. I think the SD "sectarianism" was wholly predictable

I mean, if people are denouncing you as fascists at every turn, would you want to pal around with them? Furthermore, appealing to the masses would have failed thanks to the dogged determination of the cadres to enforce Moscow's line and that of the ECCI, which expounded the "social fascist" pejorative. Do you deny that the Communist parties of Europe were led in a highly-centralized manner and were responsible to Moscow? Do you deny that any sect of the Communist Party that deviated from Stalinist dogma was denounced as a Trotskyite splinter faction? Since that was clearly the case, there was no hope of unity until after the Communist leadership (initially Thorez in France) started to appreciate the failure of their schismatic policy and turned toward the PF.

Certainly nobody is blameless, but the constant "social fascist" yammering of the European Communist parties and the ECCI prior to 1935 certainly lay at the foundation of the inability of the European left to cope with the appeal and rise of fascism.

"Florin, for the KPD, said the chief question in Germany, if the fascist dictatorship was to be overthrown, was to establish relations with the social-democratic masses and their organizations appropriate to the new conditions. In the past their united front work had been 'attended by grave defects and shortcomings'. They had believed a united from with the SPD to be impossible, and had concentrated, even after Hitler's coming to power, on the propaganda of communist doctrine. The change to a policy of united front and popular front had been made at the beginning of 1935."

From "The Communist International 1919-1943: Documents" edited by Jane Degras.

[Better Believe It]

27. You Mention Leon Trotsky - You're Familiar With His Writings On Fascism?

That was one of his most famous contributions to Marxist literature.

He wrote a book on Fascism which detailed the role of the sectarian Social Democratic party leadership and the ultra-left sectarianism of the Communist Party leadership in Germany which allowed the Nazis to win power. He proposed an effective united front strategy that could have defeated the Nazis in Germany. Many communists, socialists and other radicals adopted and fought for such a strategy within the mass workers parties and labor unions in Germany. Unfortunately they did not win that battle within the Communist Party and other workers organizations.

Again, you seem to be justifying the sectarianism of the Social Democratic Party leadership and have nothing to say regarding the left-wing faction within the German Communist Party that called for a United Front with the social democrats and every other organization that opposed the Nazis.

It seems that you only know part of the story. Are you not familiar with the activities and literature of the left-wing within the German Communist Party?

If not, I can suggest some reading materials on the subject. You owe it to yourself to study those materials because I think you have an open enough mind to read that literature objectively.

You might want to start be reading a popular pamphlet written by Trotsky called: Fascism What It Is And How To Fight It.

You can find this pamphlet and many more articles written by Trotsky on the subject posted by various Marxist groups on the internet. I don't subscribe to the politics of those groups, however, they perform an important service for those individuals who are interested reading the actual views and writings by Trotsky and other Marxists rather than depending on someone else's interpretation of those writings. Just google it like I did.


Here's part of the introduction to it written in 1969:

By George Lavan Weissman

* * *
Liberals and even most of those who consider themselves Marxists are guilty of using the world fascist very loosely today. They fling it around as an epithet or political swearword against right-wing figures whom they particularly despise, or against reactionaries in general.

Since WWII, the fascist label has been applied to such figures and movements as Gerald L. K. Smith, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Eastland, Barry Goldwater, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Wallace.
Now, were all these fascist, or just some? If only some, then how does one tell which are and which aren't?

Indiscriminate use of the term really reflects vagueness about its meaning. Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies in such terms as dictatorship, mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of unscrupulous propaganda, the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the masses, etc. Impressionism and confusion on the part of liberals is not surprising. But Marxism's superiority consists of its ability to analyze and differentiate among social and political phenomena. that so many of those calling themselves marxists cannot define fascism any more adequately than the liberals is not wholly their fault. Whether they are aware of it or not, much of their intellectual heritage comes from the social-democratic (reformist socialist) and Stalinist movements, which dominated the left in the 1930s when fascism was scoring victory after victory. These movements not only permitted Nazism to come to power in Germany without a shot being fired against it, but they failed abysmally in understanding the nature and dynamics of fascism and the way to fight it. After fascism's triumphs, they had much to hide and so refrained from making a Marxist analysis which would, at least, have educated subsequent generations.

In his attempts to awaken the German Communist Party and the Communist International (Comintern) to the mortal danger and to rally a united-front against Nazism, Trotsky made a point-by-point critique of the policies of the social-democratic and Stalinist parties. This constitutes a compendium of almost all the mistaken, ineffective, and suicidal positions that workers' organizations can take regarding fascism, since the positions of the German parties ranged from opportunistic default and betrayal on the right (social democratic) to ultra-left abstentionism and betrayal (Stalinist).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

[New Dawn]

40. Hitler's voters were typically unemployed and non-unionized.

The KPD's base was the organized working class. The reason many were "silent" after Hitler established his dictatorship was because the ones who spoke out would be tortured and murdered.

In addition, one of the main reasons that Hitler came to power is because German big business funded him specifically to eliminate the KPD (and ultimately, they hoped, the USSR as well). A lot of US Cold War propagandists conveniently tried to forget that little fact about Hitler's rise to power. Or the fact that many large American businesses were happily funding and doing business with the Hitlerite regime, most notably, Grandpa Bush. Or how the US Hearst newspapers published Hitlerite propaganda during the 1930s. Or how most of the same German business leaders who funded and brought Hitler into power, were placed right back into to power in West Germany after the war.

That is the real story about Nazi Germany that has not been told in the US.

[Zynx]

24. China definitely fits the mold of fascist governments such as Salazar's Portugal, Pinochet's Chile

and many more. A large authoritarian state overseeing and protecting unbridled and often government sponsored capitalism.

[Better Believe It]

25. Explain The Difference

So please explain the difference between a non-fascist and a fascist dictatorship with a capitalist economy.

Some examples would also be helpful.

You might say Salazer's Portugal, Hitler's Germany, Pinochet's Chile and (fill in the blank) _________ China.

Who is that world renowned "fascist" dictator running China and suppressing Chinese communists?

[Jed Dilligan]

28. No, see, I'm the kind of proletarian that OWNS factories.

[Swamp Rat]

29. They have adopted predatory capitalism, similar to ours... our countries are merging.

[fascisthunter]

33. Perfect! (nt)

[tom_paine]

35. Damn, Swampie, you beat me too it. Why can't people see it? The power of denial over the pain

of realization, I suppose.

Amerika, Russia and China are growing together in their form of governemnt so rapidly it makes the head spin.

We our nation criticizes Russia or China, we are only criticizing ourselevs, for we are now under the same form of rule they are, oligarchy.

[Swamp Rat]

36. Benito Mussolini:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

[tom_paine]

32. China, Russia, and Amerika: all have the New Totalitarianism asd their form of government.

Don't be so hard on China. When you criticize their Thugs and Goons you are only criticizing our own nation.

Whatever it will finally be called, BushPutinism, pseudo-democracy, whatever,it doesn't matter.

This new form of government currently rules the three biggest surevillance states of the world: Amerika, Russia, and China.

[fascisthunter]

34. the New World Order

brought to you by the corporate class.

[iamthebandfanman]

38. well, some of us have 'been hard on china'

long before the bush administration came into power.


whether the corporation becomes the state, or the state becomes the corporation the result can be the same... the eventual extinction of the working class and all of their rights.... so long as regardless of which occurs the ultimate goal is to benefit the few with great riches and more rights than the 'average' man.

communism and fascism are only a few steps away.

people can come on this thread and say they arent the same, and thats true because they do have some fundamental differences...but in the hands of the wrong people the result can be the same.

so no, i wont stop being hard on china. i wont stop being hard on russia. oh, and of course ill never stop being hard on the bush administration.

greed is greed is greed is greed, no matter what false ideology they proclaim it to be.

im so sick of everyone bastardizing great things that could give hope and promise to all of mankind.
and then we wonder why nobody wants to talk religion or politics...cause they are so corrupted by greed and nobody wants to admit it!