No it’s fascist.
Just like the United States’ government.
Mao wasn’t a true believer in Marxism. He thought it was great for China because he could use it to replace the thousand various religions that dominated the country...and thereby give his dictatorship greater control.
Think of the Chinese government as a criminal organization ran by a “godfather”. Corruption is not a vice, but a virtue.
It is a top down organization where the orders flow from the top to the bottom and the wealth flows from the bottom to the top.
Almost every business in China is owned by a party member who collects the graft and passes on a percentage to the big guy at top.
The dumbest thing we ever do is all the navel gazing about what kind of totalitarian they are. Nazi, communist, theocracy, monarchy, fascist, whatever the hell Singapore is, whatever you want to call DC today… all the same in the end.
There is freedom on one end…and all those above on the other end.
Communism is just the same game that’s been played time and time again.
Promise the “have nots”, that they will be given to, in exchange for power.
The distinctions over verbiage demonstrate why the taxonomy of various political stances is mostly BS. And people adore having BS to say for -- or against -- other BS.
We try to see things without using the Left-Right model, which has failed about as often as centralized economic planning has failed. It's difficult because so many conversations devolve into the simple use of Left and Right, as if they have any meaning excepting "that one's not me."
If one takes all the various government systems and political stances which lead to big, powerful and invasive control and places them together, then they separate quite easily from a stance which advocates for smaller, less powerful and far less invasive control. The distinctions become clear and do not rely on political terms.
Liberty versus authoritarian control.
It makes sense, because the two "famous" and supposedly "Right" governments of the National Socialists and Italian Fascists both advocated for big, powerful and invasive control, just as have the Soviet Socialists and Sino-socialists (Chinese Communists) advocated for that same "big, powerful and invasive control."
Together at last, so to speak. Moreover, Hitler specifically delineated his party from the Marxist socialists because that was "Jewish" socialism while his was "Aryan socialism." This is lost in the tiny sea of "Left and Right" malarkey.
Advocate for smaller, less powerful and less invasive government, and the only response from your opposition is ad hominem and bogus terminology.
Small is good. It annoys the big government advocates something fierce.
Of course it’s Marxist.
Of course it’s communist.
People who claim PRC is not communist and that the Chinese COMMUNIST Party is not communist are idiots who think communism is actually good.
Totalitarianism in all forms is EVIL!
Forget the label they wear, they are all the same.
“Despite some conservative claims, neither the CCP or the Democrats are ‘’communist’’ in the true sense of the word.”
This is just a variation on the “no true Communist” fallacy. There are no ideal communists or ideal communism, as the author admits. Therefore, the fact that someone isn’t an ideal communist or that some country doesn’t practice ideal communism does not mean that they are not communists. Otherwise we could never call anyone a communist. Yet communists managed to kill 100 million people in the last century, so they obviously exist, since a non-existent thing cannot exert such demonstrable results on the real world.
Communism is a lie that helps a new group of people use the blood of others so they can ride in the government limousines and live in the government palace.
Another logical mistake the author makes. Yes, Marx and Engels claimed that the end stage of communism would be a stateless "worker's utopia". But they never claimed that all the intermediate steps towards that goal did not also constitute essential elements of communism. Only more dishonest Marxists who came after them have tried to claim that, and the author obviously fell for that bait.
Marx and Engels were quite clear that a total dictatorship by the state was a very much necessary stage of true communism. The fact that communism never proceeds beyond that step is completely predictable, and it serves to debunk the silly utopian theories of Marx and Engels, but it does not mean that states which become stuck at that stage have abandoned their driving ideology.
How many words for bribe are there in Chinese? That culture could never actually be communist.
Their system is part Marxist and part traditional Chinese which has no western equivalent.
The closest analogy I can think of to describing it for someone from the west to immediately understand is “theocratic slave state”
I’ve never understood how the leaders of a society that was an advanced civilization when Karl Marx’ homeland was nothing more than a collection of barbaric savages, could adopt his form of government. How does the Chinese government reconcile this? “Yeah, we’ve been around much longer than you, but have a much better idea!”
They are the same as the Chinese triads and the former Chinese warlords - criminal group, but unlike regular criminals they are 100% about getting and keeping 100% of the political power in their hands. They get away with not looking like “regular” criminals only because 100% of the police power is in their hands, and they can and do do with it as they wish.
America has been wrong from the beginning in the geopoltical arena when it comes to Taiwan.
It is not a matter if “Chinese” “national” interest, while it is 100% only a matter of CCP political interest. Taiwan is a democracy, the CCP is not. Were the CCP not in charge in China and China was a true democracy like Taiwan, China and Taiwan would have already peacefully resolved any post-1949 issue between China and Taiwan. They haven’t because democratic Taiwan cannot surrender to dictatorship of the CCP.
If the people of mainland China want to reunite with the people of Taiwan, they can easily do so by dumping the CCP.
I would agree. The end goal in both cases isn't ending capitalism and creating a command economy. They don't want to kill the golden goose.
But I'd also note that the current "green" visions -- much more popular in the West than in China -- do have some serious similiarities to communist thought and practice.
The Democrats aren't communist, but there is something in what they say and do that certainly could create that impression.
Of course they are.Marx,Lenin,Stalin,Mao and other top Commies never had to worry about elections and never wavered from their “from those according to their means” attitude.
Servants are held in their place by the greatest motivator of all, fear.