Yes, that is what the word “genocide” means, as defined by the United Nations Convention on Genocide in 1946. Destroying a people’s culture and way of life is genocide, even if nobody at all is physically harmed.
This is why the U.S. government officially refers to the Chinese actions in Xinjiang as genocide.
“Amid growing international condemnation, the PRC continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement, using the abbreviation for China’s official name, the People’s Republic of China.
Blinken said the US reiterated its call for the Chinese government to “bring an end to the repression” of Uyghurs, calling on China to release “all those arbitrarily held in internment camps and detention facilities.”
(the above is from Business Insider, 3/22/21. It can’t possibly be the case that Discourse doesn’t let us put quote tags around text, can it?)
I would ascribe miraculous powers to the Chinese government if it had somehow been able to keep knowledge of events like the Tiananmen Square massacre or the 1979 war with Vietnam from its citizens. How, for example, would they have erased the memories of the people who were alive when these events occurred? I feel that most Chinese citizens are aware of these events even if they don’t know all the details. They may not talk about these events but they know about them.
The communist regime has long defended its legitimacy by pointing out that it gets results and delivers on what it says. This emphasis on legitimacy justified by success allows the regime to sweep away the questionable means it uses to achieve its ends. But it creates the potential for the system to collapse if it fails to deliver success. The Soviet Union an example of how quickly and completely an apparently strong regime can lose power.
Going back to the OP. The term “Fascist” has been vague-ified to almost meaninglessness.
Was Mussolini’s government really nasty and harmful to the Italians and their neighbors? Yes.
Was Hitler’s government really nasty and harmful to the Germans and their neighbors? Yes.
Was Stalin’s government really nasty and harmful to the Russians and their neighbors? Yes.
Is Putin’s government really nasty and harmful to the Russians and their neighbors? Yes.
Is Kim’s government really nasty and harmful to the North Koreans and their neighbors? Yes.
Is Xi’s government really nasty and harmful to the Chinese and their neighbors? Yes.
So ...
Are these 6 governments past and present identical? No.
Are they close enough to one another in terms of practical effects if not in terms of publicly stated cover story / rationale to tar with one brush? Yes.
I doubt an orthodox Marxist would fare better in today’s China than Emma Goldman did in the (proto-)Soviet Union. Antinomically, one wonders whether a True Fascist, if there be such a thing, would last long in China.
I suppose a better way to say what I said is that “Fascist” now means so many different discrete things to so many different people that it has lost the ability to convey a single definite idea to a wide audience. Even one as narrow as just the participants in this thread. If some academicians actually do agree on a more precise technical definition, we won’t. It’s not so much meaningless as so out of focus as to be indiscernible.
So I threw the question back to the OP. Is he looking to declare whether the China regime is beastly and worthy of condemnation, containment, and reform or overthrow by its citizens? Or is he just wanting to hold a 70+ year-old political label up to current China like a cookie cutter and see how well the innies and outies line up?
By the terms of his question I suspect the latter. But IMO the former is the question worth discussing.
Anecdotally, a bunch of Chinese high schoolers came to study at an American boarding school near my alma mater (in upstate New York) in 2009. They were asked if they knew about the Tienanmen massacre. Not a single one had the slightest clue.
(Lack of) knowledge of Tiananmen among the Chinese populace is the subject of any number of articles that one could search for in good faith.
My source for the fact that not everyone in China was aware of the 1979 China-Vietnam war is personal conversation with a person who grew up in China in the 1960s-1980s and immigrated to the U.S. in the 1990s and had no idea China ever fought a war with Vietnam until I told her.
Did you consider the possibility they just didn’t want to discuss it with some relative strangers? And American strangers to boot? Presumably in the presence of other Chinese people who are listening to what’s being discussed?
All the Chinese government needs to do is recall one student back to China and I’m pretty sure the rest would get the idea that they are topics you don’t discuss while traveling overseas.
It makes plenty of sense from a contemporary American perspective. Trump was both the least liberal and least conservative President our country has had in living memory. And yes, Trump and his supporters are fascists in every sense of the word.
Yes, and? You seem to be taking it for granted that Stalinist communism is completely different from fascism, and that any equating of the two is inherently absurd. Why? Personally, I don’t think that either modern China nor Stalinist Russia are quite precisely fascist, but they’re both at least very similar to fascism.
“Authoritarian” and “totalitarian” are much easier concepts to define, but some people who think certain forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism are good need to parse out which ones are good and which ones are “fascist.”
Ultimately I think the attraction of the word “fascist” is that nobody but nobody thinks Hitler & Mussolini were good governments to live under or that ended well. And those two are the archetypes. So the word “fascist” represents not just a big boss, not just a bad boss, but the final boss; the Big Bad.
So if you want to label something as irredeemably bad, can’t get no worse, label it fascist. If you label it anything else, there’s room to weasel that “they’re not that bad, after all, they’re not fascists”.
Even in the context of mid-20th-century Western European regimes, the word is used for ideologies with crucial differences. A lot of the imagery associated with “fascism” (traditionalism, severe religion, obsession with rules and order) is completely the opposite of how Germany and Italy in 1938 actually were and is a better fit for the Franco regime in Spain.
I think I’m going to bow out of this thread, because the question is meant to be about whether China is fascist, but @Little_Nemo is turning it into “Is it really genocide if they only kill the people from a particular religion or ethnic group who refuse to be re-educated?”
Is it really useful to continue to pigeonhole current authoritarian regimes by comparing them to early 20th century political philosophies? Those categories barely made sense even then. Putting fascism and communism on opposite ends of a spectrum when they share many things in common is not helpful. They share things such as central planning, state control over media, the needs of the collective outweighing the rights of individuals etc.
The real split in the world is between freedom and authoritarianism, between individualism and collectivism and between allowing people to self organize or having a powerful state direct the activities of a nation full of people.
Whether a powerful autocratic state nominally allows husinesses to exist while being controlled or simply nationalizes them is a difference in implementation, but not of kind. Both assume the right of the state to direct private activity by force on the assumption that a bunch of elected apparatchiks are capable of micro-managing a country, and the rights of property owners do not matter.
In such countries the right of the people to live their own lives is dependent on their ability to do so without getting in the way of the grand plans of the established political leaders. Otherwise, they are crushed under the boot of ‘progress’, whether it comes from a communist or a fascist any other authoritarian government.
The real question is where China fits on the totalitarian ladder. It’s not as bad as Stalin or Mao or Hitler perhaps, but you might disagree if you are one of the undesirables. Mussolini is closer, as was Hugo Chavez. Not complete monsters, but people with plans that were intended to ‘fix’ things but just led to oppression and the necessary squashing of human rights to make a big state omelette.
Actually, I’m just interested in what people think. It would have been more appropriate in IMHO, but I thought (1) people with opinions on the subject would more likely be here, and (2) it seemed cheap to ask people’s opinion without giving a starter opinion for them to react to.
Anyway, while your opinion is phrased as an attack on me, that’s typical for Great Debates, so I’ll accept it: on the basis of your posting, you think that describing China as Fascist is just labeling.
I apologize for sounding like an attack on you; that wasn’t my point or my intent. On re-reading I agree with you that it sounded that way. Sorry.
I was mostly concerned with whether we’d all be quibbling over fussy definitions, or over the Big Idea of evil governance.
I’d say my attitude to China is that they have almost all the bad features of classic fascism, plus few of their own. In a tired cliche, it’s “Fascism with Chinese characteristics.” Although even in that formulation I’m using “Fascism” more as a short-form substitute for “ethnic asshole totalitarianism with business clientelism.” Xi (and more so his predecessors) does not seem to be in nearly the hurry that, e.g. Hitler was in.