Posted on 08/28/2019 1:34:18 AM PDT by vannrox
[I always thought that Mao was a radical break with the past. Then I started reading a lot of Chinese history. Some emperors were nice guys, some were monsters but all controlled their societies minutely beheading mandarins, generals and common people for minute infractions or because they were believed about to commit infractions.]
I used to think of Chinese Communism as a bane to the world. Now I think of it as an excellent obstacle to Chinese ambitions. The Communists have found a way to perpetuate the reigns of the emperors under their own banner. Fortunately for the rest of the world, that style of governance incorporates the very weaknesses that allowed nations from the other side of the world, whose forebears were savages when the Chinese were civilized, to kick the Chinese sovereign’s teeth in. So long as China is ruled by emperors like Xi Jinping, it will never rule the world. And not for lack of trying.
I had awn acquaintance recommend that book to me. The Chinese playing the long game is what the book details. A great read. It gives insight to how they are willing to wait until the timing is right. They are in no hurry, for they truthfully have all the time in the world.
Such a method of rule works all too well. Since America’s founding, we have been the essential embodiment and defender of the democratic and humane ideals of Western civilization. The US and China now seem to be at odds over a set of trade issues, but in truth, we are in a civilizational struggle as momentous as WW II and the Cold War.
That is not quite correct.
Their strategy requires the U.S. to be complacent enough for them to win.
So you’re saying the Chinese are national socialists.
Really? Seems like it’s not holding back their ambitions one bit.
The people who run the government are communists. But that label does not by itself define what each individual in the party believes.
I think the majority of the Chinese people are proud of their country and will form a somewhat united front in the face of external opposition, whether they are in the communist party or not. (I say "somewhat" because there is seldom a case where everyone in a large group is in agreement with the leadership on any matter.)
As for calling them national socialists, that seems confusing to me. The Nazi party did not claim to adhere to Marx.
It’s irrelevant what the national socialist party claimed to adhere to, but what they did in practice. Josef Goebbels openly described the NSDAP as “the German Left … we despise bourgeois nationalism”; and this gives a good insight into the CPC’s strategy, where they openly tout “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, an open declaration of national socialism if there ever was one. Adolf himself in an interview expounded on point number 13 of the party’s 25-point program as “the nationalization of all public companies—in other words socialization, or what is known here as socialism”.
National socialism also migrated to the Islamic sphere of the Middle East and north Africa; the Ba’ath Party particularly openly declares itself both nationalist and socialist, and Nasser did also with his own Nasserism.
(BTW, I was just looking at Sky News’ live feed as I was typing this, and one scene showed Hong Kong’s airport with the word “Chinazi” scrawled on a display.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.