Modern Underdog Blogspot

State capitalism aka china

With a series of reforms that began in 1978, China discarded its staunchly Communist economy. These reforms allowed for the privatization of certain areas of the Chinese economy, and for
China to enter into the Western world. China’s move away from Communism proved to be of
considerable foresight, as the USSR and Eastern bloc nations collapsed under similar economic
modalities a mere decade later. However, despite more than 30 years passing since economic reform began, the West’s
acceptance, and predictions that China will become the number one economy by 2016, the Middle
Kingdom has not emerged as a kind of democratic, free-market nation. Rather, China’s economic
and political position is a complex, translucent combination of absolute state power, repressions
of speech and thought, propaganda, and private enterprise. Tendencies to brand this nationalistic,
quasi-state run system as a kind of socialism are inaccurate; rather, China would be more properly classified as a modern model of a historic, twentieth-century Fascist economy. The Fascist “Third Way” Concerning the original Italian movement under Benito Mussolini, the Fascist economy in the twentieth century was a system that placed utmost importance on the state as an organic
institution. The Fascists decried both Capitalism and Communism as economic systems that placed
other interests above the needs of the state; Capitalism was unhealthy for the state because of its
focus on the individual, and Communism unhealthy for its priorities with the working classes.
Mussolini and other Fascist theorists rejected both systems and instituted what they labelled a
“third way.” Although mainly focused on the militarization of Italy, forcing propaganda upon the public, and
the obsessive attempts to define “Italianism,” Fascism did claim to possess a coherent economic system. Mussolini, at least in his co-authored Doctrine of Fascism, purported that “the Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others . . .” Mussolini supported
“Corporatism,” which was a system defined by small-but-powerful groups resembling medieval
guilds of industry. These government-controlled groups were to regularly meet and make
industrial decisions in accordance with the state’s domestic and international interests. This
system of guild-like entities was to create a utopian harmony between classes in Italy—
industrialists and the workers—that were commonly hostile. Corporatism’s applicability was simpler in theory than in reality. Defining the state’s interests was
difficult because Fascist membership—at least prior to the Pact of Steel with Nazi Germany— included Italians from all economic, political, and cultural spectrums: be they industrialists,
socialists, Catholics, atheists, Futurists, and so on. Although Mussolini was dictator—the self-
proclaimed Duce—his position did not exempt him from compromise, lest he jeopardize that position and become estranged from large sections of the Fascist intelligentsia. Ever the ambitious opportunist, in his rise to power Mussolini routinely readjusted his position on a
host of issues in order to garner widespread support. Once a revolutionary and international
socialist, he quickly went through a self-metamorphosis and became a staunch enforcer of the
industrial status quo. Once a philosophical pacifist who possessed an admiration for other cultures,
he later became a brutish and xenophobic warmonger. Once a virulent anti-Catholic atheist who
wrote on the historic atrocities conducted by the Church, he later created granted the Catholic church its own Vatican State. A fair portion of Fascism’s political and economic murkiness can be attributed to Mussolini’s personal comprises and ambition for power. Fascist China Despite Fascism’s
complexities, there are a
few factors which, when
combined, make the
Fascist economy stand out
from other models. In Fascism, one finds the
existence private business.
This does not make
Fascism unique per se, but
it is a requisite not found
in the Maoist regime. The second is that the
government must direct
the actions of the private
sector and larger
organizations. A close look
at some of the largest corporations in China will show that they are state run. At first glance, this could very well be mistaken for a kind of Socialism. However, one cannot
label China a Socialist nation in that Socialism concerns itself with the rights and wellbeing of the
working classes. China betrays Socialism in that regard; the quality of life among China’s working
class is poor, given the long hours, low wages, low air quality, and numerous incidents involving hazardous materials finding their way into food and health products. The Chinese working classes do not have the freedom to complain, for much like Fascist Italy,
China routinely quashes political dissent. Chinese secret police are able to make arrests for
criticizing the government: a mere mention of sensitive subjects as Tiananmen Square, Tibetan or
Taiwanese independence can mean jail. However, this kind of imposed subservience to the nation
does not fall solely upon the workers. As stated, a Fascist economy demands obedience from all
classes—both elite and poor. Recently, the High Court of China found China Mobile executive Shi Wanzhong guilty of accepting a bribe from Siemens, an international company. China decided on
the death penalty. There is to be no dissent in modern China. Although it has reformed its Maoist economy, China’s government remains exuberant in its
economic practices. Whatever Mao’s vision may have been for instituting communism in China in
the past, the modern regime is now concerned with economic prowess and regional—if not global—
superiority. To achieve these goals, the regime has been resolute in crushing dissent, both in the
political and economic arenas. These desires and actions present a striking resemblance to the
Fascist movement in Italy under Benito Mussolini. Much as the Fascist Party stood alone in Italy to do as it pleased, one must remember that in China
there is only its Communist Party. Perhaps most alarming about China is its ethnic policy, which
promotes the marginalization of the Tibetan and Falun Gong peoples. While this may not have
been a central tenet in early Fascism, Mussolini certainly developed a racial doctrine after his pact
with Hitler and Nazi Germany. In many ways, China is the Fascist regime that had never lost World
War II: the regime that never committed war crimes in Ethiopia and drew the ire of the West, the regime that was allowed to continue its militant march towards achieving state absolutism.

Single Post Navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: