北京拥抱古典法西斯主义
wanghx
作者:Michael Ledeen 翻译:九喻
2002年，我曾猜测中国会变成一个我们从来没有见过的东西：一个成熟的法西斯国
家。近期在那里发生的一些事件，特别是对西方批评的大范围愤怒，似乎在支持那
个说法。更明显的是，在干预的6年中，中国的领导人已经完成了他们对要害器官
的控制－－政治的，经济的，以及文化的。不是像很多人期待的那样逐渐走向多
元，中国的经济法西斯主义精英（corporatist elite。Corporatist：“经济法西
斯主义”，通常称为“社团主义”，法西斯的意大利曾实行这种制度）反而变得更加
强壮了。
尽管他们依然自称共产主义者，而且共产党依然统治这个国家，然而古典法西斯主
义（classical fascism）应该被作为尝试理解中国的起点。想象一下法西斯革命
50年后的意大利。墨索里尼（Mussolini）应该已经死掉了，而经济法西斯的国家
基本保持了下来，法西斯党牢牢控制政权，意大利会由职业政客治理，他们是腐败
精英的代表，而不是那些参与“向罗马进军”的虔诚的法西斯信徒。它不再是一个基
于个人魅力的体系，而是几乎完全基于政治压制；领导人像是商人，虚无而不是理
想主义，他们会不断公式化的唤起“伟大的意大利人民”的自豪感，“无休无止的教
导复兴祖先的荣耀”。
把口号里的词换成“伟大的中国人民”，一切听起来都是那么熟悉。我们当然不是在
对付一个共产主义政权，无论在政治上和经济上都不是，而且中共领导人、甚至那
些跟从激进改革人物邓小平的人，好像也对危险而崎岖的从斯大林主义转向民主的
道路毫无兴趣。他们知道，当戈尔巴乔夫（Mikhail Gorbachev，戈巴契夫）试图
一边控制经济一边提供政治自由的时候，他倒台了。他们在做相反的试验，一边牢
牢控制政治权力，一边允许经济实体有相对的自由空间。他们的政治手法和欧洲法
西斯80年前的办法非常相似。
与毛泽东那样的传统的共产主义独裁者不同，毛根绝传统文化，代之以呆板的马克
思列宁主义，现在的中国热烈的、甚至是狂热的拥抱中国的漫长历史中的光荣。他
们对过去伟大朝代的情绪性强调，让西方观察人士既惊喜又迷惑，因为这不适用于
“进化中的共产主义政权”的标准模式。
然而1920和1930年代的法西斯领导人使用了完全相同的招数。墨索里尼重建了罗马
城，以给古代的光荣提供一个戏剧性的视觉标志，而且他利用古老的历史来给征服
利比亚（Libya）和埃塞俄比亚（Ethiopia）提供合法性。希特勒钟爱的建筑师在
第三帝国上下到处修建新古典建筑，他喜欢的歌剧作者举办节日来庆祝传说里的古
代德国。
和欧洲的法西斯先辈一样，中国也是基于他们的历史和文化来支持自己在世界扮演
主要角色的要求，而不是基于当前的实力，或当前的科学和文化成就。中国甚至玩
弄法西斯主义早期的一些怪异观念，比如小麦自给的项目－－希特勒和墨索里尼都
曾着迷于经济自给。
可以确定的是，这个世界在过去50多年有了很大改变。实现完全自给要困难的多，
有时根本不可能。完全与外部世界隔绝的热情，被今天的全球化经济现实所压制，
而中国对石油和其他原料的胃口大的惊人。但是中共法西斯和欧洲法西斯一样，越
来越仇外，而且很明显他们担心如果人们对外面的世界了解的太多，可能会起来反
对他们。因此，他们努力控制信息流动。看看网络搜索引擎Google的例子，他们被
迫与中共合作过滤所搜索内容，以便可以进入中国市场。
一些研究当代中国的学者认为北京政权很紧张，甚至或许不稳定，近来的一些事
件，比如对藏族僧侣的温和示威表现出的流行的对立情绪，更加强了他们的看法。
类似的对中国做法的批评引起的对立情绪，从人权到空气污染，从对奥运会的准备
到中国制造的食品和玩具的质量问题，一再的支持这一看法。最近法国零售商家乐
福（Carrefour）在民族主义者手里受到的待遇就是很好的例子。它被公开指责和
抵制，因为法国总统萨科齐（Nicolas Sarkozy）竟敢考虑抵制奥运会的可能性。
所有这些事例都促使人认为，中共政权担心自己的生存，为了刺激民族主义情绪，
有把这个国家包装成世界的受害者的冲动。或许他们是对的。支持“中国社会最高
层存在不安全感”理论的最大证据，是高干子弟纷纷在类似美国、加拿大和澳大利
亚这样的地方添置房地产。那些房地产不是富裕的商人或中东产油国官员通常钟爱
的豪华房产类型，而是典型的“普通”住房，属于那种潜在的移民愿意储备下来以备
老家那边出了问题之用。
更有甚者，有理由相信，民族主义情绪确实让中共政权担心，而中共已经在过去几
次压下了那种情绪。近来，中共甚至与达赖喇嘛本人接触，明显是要平静局势，而
之前他们一直宣称“达赖集团”是一支危险的分裂势力，甚至叛国势力。
另一方面，扮演受害者一向是法西斯文化的一部分。正如德国法西斯和意大利法西
斯在两次世界大战之间那样，中国感觉遭到背叛和羞辱，寻求对历史创伤加以报
复。这可不像是不安的标志，而是超级民族主义不可分割的一部分，它一直是所有
法西斯运动和法西斯政权的核心内容。我们没法看到中共专制者的心里，但我怀疑
中国是个非常不稳定的体制－－一方面有资本主义的民主冲动，另一方面是中共政
权的压制。这是一个成熟的法西斯体制，它不是狂乱的群众运动，现政权也不是由
革命狂组成。今天的中共领导人是非常不同的两场革命－－毛泽东的革命和邓小平
的革命－－的后代。前一场革命是一次失败的共产主义试验，后一场革命是一次法
西斯转型，它的未来还有待观察。
如果法西斯模式的判断是正确的，那么我们就不必为最近群体示威的口号感到奇
怪。希特勒的德国和墨索里尼的意大利和对外国批评的敏感度，和今天的中国没有
一点区别，受害者心态对两者来说都是国家的基本标志，而且那是进行大众控制的
基本手段。对西方批评中共压制的激烈谴责未必是内部不安或虚弱的标志。那很可
能是强壮的标志，是政权有民意基础的标志。不要忘了，致使欧洲的法西斯政权倒
台的不是内部危机－－而是一场血腥的世界大战。法西斯主义是如此令人不安的深
得民心，在战争开始失败之前，德国和意大利都没有像样的反对运动。很可能对西
方要求更多政治宽容进行大规模谴责的做法，实际上是政治成功的标帜。
由于古典法西斯主义只在历史上延续了有限的时间，所以很难说是否存在一个稳定
的、长期的法西斯政权的可能性。从经济角度说，现在中国是典型的经济法西斯体
系，这个体系很可能证明比严格的中央计划经济更灵活更有适应性，严格的中央计
划经济体系注定了苏联和其他共产主义政权的失败（日本也试图结合资本主义企业
和政府指导，从她经历的经济阵痛看起来，日本经济已经显示的问题，中国可能也
要面对）。对法西斯主义的有限经验，使得评估政治体制的演化变的相对困难，而
且中国充满了不为人知的秘密。然而谨慎的策略人士倾向于推测，这个政权会延续
一段时间－－或许相当长的一段时间。
如果中共政权是一个有民意基础的法西斯政权，世界是否应该为一些可能发生的危
险而困难的对抗局面做好准备？20世纪的法西斯政权都很有进攻性；纳粹德国和法
西斯意大利都是扩张性政权。难道中共政权不会有类似的扩大版图的要求吗？
我相信答案是“会的，但是。”许多中共领导人会愿意看到自己的影响力扩张到整个
地区，甚至更远。中共军队并不特别掩盖他们准备在亚洲击败美国，以便防止美国
介入他们周边的任何冲突。没有哪个认真研究中国的人会怀疑，从中共领导人到中
国大众都野心勃勃。但是，与希特勒和墨索里尼不同，中国的专制者没有迫切的需
要，通过迅速的版图扩张来证明国家的荣耀和他们的未来蓝图的真实性。至少目
前，在内部获得成功，在外部得到国际承认，似乎对他们就足够了。由于中国法西
斯主义的意识形态色彩不象它的欧洲前辈那么强，中共领导人比希特勒和墨索里尼
有更大的灵活性。
不过，古典法西斯主义的短暂历史建议，中国寻求和西方对抗只是个时间问题。那
存在于所有那类政权的基因里。迟早中共领导人会有那种冲动，来展示他们的体制
的优越性，那时连最引人注目的人均GDP数字也不能再让他们满足。优越感意味着
其他人必须屈膝下跪，顺从于处于支配地位的国家的意志。正如墨索里尼认为殖民
非洲、入侵希腊和巴尔干国家是建立一个新法西斯帝国的必要步骤一样，中国可能
也会对邻国要求供奉－－首当其冲的是对岛国台湾，以便把恢复对失去地区的统治
纳入中共政权的成就清单。甚至今天，在中共政权寻求赞美而不是供奉的进入奥运
会季节的时候，官方口号里都透露出好战的调子。
那么，民主国家该如何应付中国呢？第一步，是不要再用“财富是和平的最佳保证”
的陈词滥调来折磨自己。西方曾经与苏联做买卖，给他们以承认，但那丝毫没有妨
碍克里姆林宫在非洲之角扩张，在欧洲和中东支持恐怖组织。一个富裕的中国不会
自动减少与台湾开战的风险，或者与之类似，对日本开战或以开战相威胁。
确实，相反的情况可能更正确－－中国越富裕越强壮，越会扩充军事实力，而那类
战争越可能爆发。因而西方必须要对与中国开战做好准备，谋求通过充分的战争准
备来防止战争的爆发。强大的罗马帝国曾经说，如果你希望和平，准备好战争。这
对应付希望在全球扮演举足轻重角色的法西斯中国来说，是个很好的建议。
与此同时，我们应该尽可能说服中国人，他们的长线利益，依赖于更多的政治自
由，无论那个过程有时会多么令人无奈和混乱不堪。我想我们可以在一点上相信中
共领导人：一个象中共那样对信息的自由流动实实在在感到紧张的政权，它自己相
当清楚，自由的意识可能会非常深入人心。让我们通过直接和“亿万人”对话来测试
一下那个假设。在今日的世界，我们一定能找到办法完成这个测试。
假如不这么做，我们的风险肯定会增大，愤怒的大爆发，无论是煽动起来的还是自
然发生的，有一天会出现。最终他们会真正采取行动。
【作者Michael Ledeen，在美国企业研究所从事公共政策研究，美国外交政策专
家。他曾在2001-2003年任职于“美中经济与安全评估委员会”（U.S.- China
Economic and Security Review Commission）。】
英文：Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism
by Michael Ledeen
《远东经济评论》（FEER），2008年5月号
http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism
Last edited by tigeranger3 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in
total
wanghx
THE MIDDLE KINGDOM
Black Shirts in Red China?
Beijing today is more fascist than communist.
by *MICHAEL A. LEDEEN*
Saturday, February 23, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
As President Bush, just back from Beijing, got up close to the rulers of
China, he must have had conflicting feelings.
We are told that the Chinese have helped us fight terror, which is cause
for satisfaction. On the other hand, the CIA has recently revised
sharply upward its estimate of Chinese military power in the near
future, which is cause for concern. As he ponders what China is and may
be, Mr. Bush might reflect that the People's Republic is something quite
unique, and therefore very difficult to understand.
China is not, as is invariably said, in transition from communism to a
freer and more democratic state. It is, instead, something we have never
seen before: a maturing fascist regime. This new phenomenon is hard to
recognize, both because Chinese leaders continue to call themselves
communists, and also because the fascist states of the first half of the
20th century were young, governed by charismatic and revolutionary
leaders, and destroyed in World War II. China is anything but young, and
it is governed by a third or fourth generation of leaders who are
anything but charismatic.
The current and past generations of Chinese leaders, from Deng Xiaoping
to Jiang Zemin, may have scrapped the communist economic system, but
they have not embraced capitalism. To be sure, the state no longer owns
"the means of production." There is now private property, and, early
last June, businessmen were formally admitted to the Communist Party.
Profit is no longer taboo; it is actively encouraged at all levels of
Chinese society, in public and private sectors. And the state is fully
engaged in business enterprise, from the vast corporations owned wholly
or in part by the armed forces, to others with top management and large
shareholders simultaneously holding government jobs.
This is neither socialism nor capitalism; it is the infamous "third way"
of the corporate state, first institutionalized in the 1920s by the
founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini, then copied by other fascists in
Europe.
Like the earlier fascist regimes, China ruthlessly maintains a
single-party dictatorship; and although there is greater diversity of
opinion in public discourse and in the media than there was a generation
ago, there is very little wiggle room for critics of the system, and no
toleration of advocates of Western-style freedom and democracy. Like the
early fascist regimes, China uses nationalism--not the standard
communist slogans of "proletarian internationalism"--to rally the
masses. And, like the early fascisms, the rulers of the People's
Republic insist that virtue consists in sublimating individual interests
to the greater good of the nation. Indeed, as we have seen recently in
the intimidation and incarceration of overseas Chinese, the regime
asserts its right to dominate all Chinese, everywhere. China's leaders
believe they command a people, not merely a geographic entity.
Unlike communist leaders, who extirpated traditional culture and
replaced it with a sterile Marxist-Leninism, the Chinese
enthusiastically mine the millennia of Chinese thought to provide
legitimacy for their own actions. No socialist realism here! Indeed,
this open embrace of ancient Chinese culture is one of the things that
has most entranced Western observers. Many believe that a country with
such ancient roots will inevitably demonstrate its profound humanity in
social and political practice. Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and
'30s did the same. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual
reminder of ancient glory, and Hitler's favorite architect built
neoclassical buildings throughout the Third Reich.
Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the
world because of their history and culture, not because of their current
power, or their scientific or cultural accomplishments. Just like
Germany and Italy in the interwar period, China feels betrayed and
humiliated, and seeks to avenge historic wounds. China even toys with
some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms, like the
program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat production--the
same quest for "autarky" that obsessed both Hitler and Mussolini.
It is therefore wrong to think of contemporary China as an intensely
unstable system, riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the
one hand and the repressive instincts of communism on the other. Fascism
may well have been a potentially stable system, despite the frenzied
energies of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. After all, fascism
did not fall as the result of internal crisis; it was destroyed by
superior force of arms. Fascism was alarmingly popular; Hitler and
Mussolini swept to power atop genuine mass movements, and neither
Italians nor Germans produced more than token resistance until the war
began to be lost.
Since classical fascism had such a brief lifespan, it is hard to know
whether or not a stable, durable fascist state is possible.
Economically, the corporate state may prove more flexible and adaptable
than the rigid central planning that doomed communism in the Soviet
empire and elsewhere (although the travails of Japan, which also tried
to combine capitalist enterprise with government guidance, show the
kinds of problems China will likely face). And our brief experience with
fascism also makes it difficult to evaluate the possibilities of
political evolution.
Although Hitler liked to speak of himself as /primus inter pares, /the
first among racial equals, he would not have contemplated the
democratization of the Third Reich, nor would Mussolini have yielded
power to the freely expressed will of the Italian people. It seems
unlikely that the leaders of the People's Republic will be willing to
make such a change either. If they were, they would not be so palpably
concerned that the Chinese people might seek to emulate the democratic
transformation of Taiwan.
To be sure, the past is not a reliable guide to the future. China has
already amazed the world with its ability to transform itself in record
time. Many scholars believe that China's entry into the World Trade
Organization will bring further dramatic change, as the Chinese have to
cope with freer competition and a greatly enhanced foreign presence.
They may be right, but I have doubts. For the most part, politics trumps
economics when the survival of a powerful regime is at stake, and the
Chinese leaders have often said they have no intention of following
Mikhail Gorbachev's example.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has to contend with the present state of affairs,
and must evaluate the risks and challenges of contemporary China.
Classical fascism was the product of war, and its leaders praised
military virtues and embarked upon military expansion. Chinese leaders
often proclaim a peaceful intent, yet they are clearly preparing for
war, and have been for many years. Optimists insist that China is not
expansionist, but optimists pooh-poohed Hitler's imperialist speeches
too, and there is a lot of Chinese rhetoric that stresses Beijing's
historic role, as if there were a historic entitlement to superpower status.
Thus, classical fascism should be the starting-point for our efforts to
understand the People's Republic. Imagine Italy 50 years after the
Fascist revolution, Mussolini dead and buried, the corporate state
intact, the party still firmly in control, the nation governed by
professional politicians and a corrupt elite rather than the true
believers. A system no longer based on charisma but on political
repression, cynical not idealistic, and on formulaic appeals to the
grandeur of the "great Italian people," endlessly summoned to emulate
the greatness of its ancestors.
That is China today. It may be with us quite a while.
/Mr. Ledeen, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and
a member of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, is author of "The
War Against the Terror Masters," forthcoming from St. Martin's Press.
/
/http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/michael-ledeen-beijing-embraces-classical-fascism/
/
Michael Ledeen: Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism
<http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/michael-ledeen-beijing-embraces-classical-fascism/>
Michael Ledeen is an expert on U.S. foreign policy at the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He writes in the Far
Eastern Economic Review
<http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism>:
In 2002, I speculated that China may be something we have never seen
before: a mature fascist state
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism>. Recent events there,
especially the mass rage in response to Western criticism, seem to
confirm that theory. More significantly, over the intervening six
years China’s leaders have consolidated their hold on the organs of
control—political, economic and cultural. Instead of gradually
embracing pluralism as many expected, China’s corporatist elite has
become even more entrenched.
Even though they still call themselves communists, and the Communist
Party rules the country, classical fascism should be the starting
point for our efforts to understand the People’s Republic. Imagine
Italy 50 years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito%20Mussolini> would be dead and
buried, the corporate state would be largely intact, the party would
be firmly in control, and Italy would be governed by professional
politicians, part of a corrupt elite, rather than the true believers
who had marched on Rome. It would no longer be a system based on
charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on political
repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical, not
idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals to
the grandeur of the “great Italian people,” “endlessly summoned to
emulate the greatness of its ancestors.”
Substitute in the “great Chinese people” and it all sounds familiar.
POSTED COMMENTS: 2 Responses
*
Ironic, the article was written by a fascist terrorist.
By etv | May 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
<http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/michael-ledeen-beijing-embraces-classical-fascism/#comment-1990>
*
Ledeen’s comments are much more telling if he were to replace
“Italy” and “China” with the U.S. Ledeen is a war criminal who
favors torture and tapping. Replace “Ledeen” with “Fritsche” and
“Streicher”.
The prosecution case, argued by Drexel Sprecher, an American,
placed considerable stress on the role of media propaganda in
enabling the Hitler regime to prepare and carry out aggressive
wars. “The use made by the Nazi conspirators of psychological
warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few
exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign
calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German
people psychologically for the attack. They used the press, after
their earlier conquests, as a means for further influencing
foreign politics and in maneuvering for the following aggression.”
The War on Iraq will be merely the first count against him.
“The basic method of the Nazi propagandistic activity lay in the
false presentation of facts. … The dissemination of provocative
lies and the systematic deception of public opinion were as
necessary to the Hitlerites for the realization of their plans as
were the production of armaments and the drafting of military
plans. Without propaganda,…, it would not have been possible for
German Fascism to realize its aggressive intentions, to lay the
groundwork and then to put to practice the war crimes and the
crimes against humanity. In the propaganda system of the Hitler
State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most
important weapons.”
How many military installations in foreign countries does China
have? How many troops in foreign countries? Compare that to the
number of military installations and troops in foreign countries
the U.S. has. There’s your answer on the aggression.
source for the quotes: World Socialist Website.
By stevelaudig | May 25th, 2008 at 4:00 am
<http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/michael-ledeen-beijing-embraces-classical-fascism/#comment-1995>
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27943/pub_detail.asp
Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism
Print <javascript:printThis()> Mail <javascript:emailThis()>
<javascript:printThis()> <javascript:emailThis()>
By Michael A. Ledeen
<http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.,scholarID.35/scholar.asp>
Posted: Tuesday, May 6, 2008
ARTICLES
Far Eastern Economic Review <http://www.feer.com> (May 2008)
Publication Date: May 1, 2008
Freedom Scholar Michael A. Ledeen
Freedom Scholar
Michael A. Ledeen
In 2002, I speculated that China may be something we have never seen
before: a mature fascist state. Recent events there, especially the mass
rage in response to Western criticism, seem to confirm that theory. More
significantly, over the intervening six years China's leaders have
consolidated their hold on the organs of control--political, economic
and cultural. Instead of gradually embracing pluralism as many expected,
China's corporatist elite has become even more entrenched.
Even though they still call themselves communists, and the Communist
Party rules the country, classical fascism should be the starting point
for our efforts to understand the People's Republic. Imagine Italy 50
years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini would be dead and buried,
the corporate state would be largely intact, the party would be firmly
in control, and Italy would be governed by professional politicians,
part of a corrupt elite, rather than the true believers who had marched
on Rome. It would no longer be a system based on charisma, but would
instead rest almost entirely on political repression, the leaders would
be businesslike and cynical, not idealistic, and they would constantly
invoke formulaic appeals to the grandeur of the "great Italian people,"
"endlessly summoned to emulate the greatness of its ancestors."
Substitute in the "great Chinese people" and it all sounds familiar. We
are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either politically or
economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who followed the
radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all interested in treading
the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism to democracy. They know
that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to control the economy while
giving political freedom. They are attempting the opposite, keeping a
firm grip on political power while permitting relatively free areas of
economic enterprise. Their political methods are quite like those used
by the European fascists 80 years ago.
*The Chinese now enthusiastically, even compulsively, embrace the
glories of China's long history.*
Unlike traditional communist dictators--Mao, for example--who extirpated
traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile Marxism-Leninism, the
Chinese now enthusiastically, even compulsively, embrace the glories of
China's long history. Their passionate reassertion of the greatness of
past dynasties has both entranced and baffled Western observers, because
it does not fit the model of an "evolving communist system."
Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s used exactly the same
device. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder of
ancient glories, and he used ancient history to justify the conquest of
Libya and Ethiopia. Hitler's favorite architect built neoclassical
buildings throughout the Third Reich, and his favorite operatic composer
organized festivals to celebrate the country's mythic past.
Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the
world because of their history and culture, not just on the basis of
their current power, or scientific or cultural accomplishments. China
even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms,
such as the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat
production--the same quest for autarky that obsessed both Hitler and
Mussolini.
To be sure, the world is much changed since the first half of the last
century. It's much harder (and sometimes impossible) to go it alone.
Passions for total independence from the outside world are tempered by
the realities of today's global economy, and China's appetite for oil
and other raw materials is properly legendary. But the Chinese, like the
European fascists, are intensely xenophobic, and obviously worry that
their people may turn against them if they learn too much about the rest
of the world. They consequently work very hard to dominate the flow of
information. Just ask Google, forced to cooperate with the censors in
order to work in China.
Some scholars of contemporary China see the Beijing regime as very
nervous, and perhaps even unstable, and they are encouraged in this
belief when they see recent events such as the eruption of popular
sentiment against the Tibetan monks' modest protests. That view is
further reinforced by similar outcries against most any criticism of
Chinese performance, from human rights to air pollution, and from
preparations for the Olympic Games to the failure of Chinese quality
control in food production and children's toys. The recent treatment of
French retailer Carrefour at the hands of Chinese nationalists is a case
in point. It has been publicly excoriated and shunned because France's
President Nicolas Sarkozy dared to consider the possibility of
boycotting the Olympics.
In all these cases, it is tempting to conclude that the regime is
worried about its own survival, and, in order to rally nationalist
passions, feels compelled to portray the country as a global victim.
Perhaps they are right. The strongest evidence to support the theory of
insecurity at the highest levels of Chinese society is the practice of
the "princelings" (wealthy children of the ruling elites) to buy homes
in places such as the United States, Canada and Australia. These are not
luxury homes of the sort favored by wealthy businessman and officials
from the oil-rich countries of the Middle East. Rather they are
typically "normal" homes of the sort a potential émigré might want to
have in reserve in case things went bad back home.
Moreover, there are reasons to believe that eruptions of nationalist
passion do indeed worry the regime, and Chinese leaders have certainly
tamped down such episodes in the past. In recent days, the regime has
even reached out to the Dalai Lama himself in an apparent effort to calm
the situation, after previously enouncing the "Dalai clique" as a
dangerous form of separatism and even treason.
*The violent denunciations of Westerners who criticize Chinese
repression may not be a sign of internal anxiety or weakness. They may
instead be a sign of strength, a demonstration of the regime's popularity.*
On the other hand, the cult of victimhood was always part of fascist
culture. Just like Germany and Italy in the interwar period, China feels
betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge her many historic wounds.
This is not necessarily a true sign of anxiety; it's an integral part of
the sort of hypernationalism that has always been at the heart of all
fascist movements and regimes. We cannot look into the souls of the
Chinese tyrants, but I doubt that China is an intensely unstable system,
riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the one hand, and the
repressive practices of the regime on the other. This is a mature
fascism, not a frenzied mass movement, and the current regime is not
composed of revolutionary fanatics. Today's Chinese leaders are the
heirs of two very different revolutions, Mao's and Deng's. The first was
a failed communist experiment; the second is a fascist transformation
whose future is up for grabs.
If the fascist model is correct, we should not be at all surprised by
the recent rhetoric or mass demonstrations. Hitler's Germany and
Mussolini's Italy were every bit as sensitive to any sign of foreign
criticism as the Chinese today, both because victimhood is always part
of the definition of such states, and because it's an essential
technique of mass control. The violent denunciations of Westerners who
criticize Chinese repression may not be a sign of internal anxiety or
weakness. They may instead be a sign of strength, a demonstration of the
regime's popularity. Remember that European fascism did not fall as the
result of internal crisis--it took a bloody world war to bring it down.
Fascism was so alarmingly popular neither Italians not Germans produced
more than token resistance until the war began to be lost. It may well
be that the mass condemnation of Western calls for greater political
tolerance is in fact a sign of political success.
Since classical fascism had such a brief life span, it is hard to know
whether or not a stable, durable fascist state is possible.
Economically, the corporate state, of which the current Chinese system
is a textbook example, may prove more flexible and adaptable than the
rigid central planning that doomed communism in the Soviet Empire and
elsewhere (although the travails of Japan, which also tried to combine
capitalist enterprise with government guidance, show the kinds of
problems China will likely face). Our brief experience with fascism
makes it difficult to evaluate the possibilities of political evolution,
and the People's Republic is full of secrets. But prudent strategists
would do well to assume that the regime will be around for a while
longer--perhaps a lot longer.
If it is a popular, fascist regime, should the world prepare for some
difficult and dangerous confrontations with the People's Republic?
Twentieth-century fascist states were very aggressive; Nazi Germany and
fascist Italy were both expansionist nations. Is it not likely that
China will similarly seek to enlarge its domain?
I believe the answer is "yes, but." Many Chinese leaders might like to
see their sway extend throughout the region, and beyond. China's
military is not so subtly preparing the capability to defeat U.S. forces
in Asia in order to prevent intervention in any conflict on its
periphery. No serious student of China doubts the enormous ambitions of
both the leadership and the masses. But, unlike Hitler and Mussolini,
the Chinese tyrants do not urgently need quick geographical expansion to
demonstrate the glory of their country and the truth of their vision.
For the moment, at least, success at home and global recognition of
Chinese accomplishments seem to be enough. Since Chinese fascism is less
ideological than its European predecessors, Chinese leaders are far more
flexible than Hitler and Mussolini.
Nonetheless, the short history of classical fascism suggests that it is
only a matter of time before China will pursue confrontation with the
West. That is built into the dna of all such regimes. Sooner or later,
Chinese leaders will feel compelled to demonstrate the superiority of
their system, and even the most impressive per capita GDP will not do.
Superiority means others have to bend their knees, and cater to the
wishes of the dominant nation. Just as Mussolini saw the colonization of
Africa and the invasion of Greece and the Balkans as necessary steps in
the establishment of a new fascist empire, so the Chinese are likely to
demand tribute from their neighbors--above all, the Chinese on the
island nation of Taiwan, in order to add the recovery of lost territory
to the regime's list of accomplishments. Even today, at a time when the
regime is seeking praise, not tribute, in the run-up to the Olympic
Games, there are bellicose overtones to official rhetoric.
*The short history of classical fascism suggests that it is only a
matter of time before China will pursue confrontation with the West.*
How, then, should the democracies deal with China? The first step is to
disabuse ourselves of the notion that wealth is the surest guarantor of
peace. The West traded with the Soviet Union, and gave them credits as
well, but it did not prevent the Kremlin from expanding into the Horn of
Africa, or sponsoring terrorist groups in Europe and the Middle East. A
wealthy China will not automatically be less inclined to go to war over
Taiwan, or, for that matter, to wage or threaten war with Japan.
Indeed, the opposite may be true--the richer and stronger China becomes,
the more they build up their military might, the more likely such wars
may be. It follows that the West must prepare for war with China, hoping
thereby to deter it. A great Roman once said that if you want peace,
prepare for war. This is sound advice with regard to a fascist Chinese
state that wants to play a global role.
Meanwhile, we should do what we can to convince the people of China that
their long-term interests are best served by greater political freedom,
no matter how annoying and chaotic that may sometimes be. I think we can
trust the Chinese leaders on this one. Any regime as palpably concerned
about the free flow of information, knows well that ideas about freedom
might be very popular. Let's test that hypothesis, by talking directly
to "the billion." In today's world, we can surely find ways to reach them.
If we do not take such steps, our risk will surely increase, and
explosions of rage, manipulated or spontaneous, will recur. Eventually
they will take the form of real actions.
/Michael A. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at AEI./
Related Links
AEI's Tocqueville on China project to study China's civic culture
<http://www.aei.org/research/projectID.29/project.asp>
Related book on Italian fascism by Ledeen
<http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.622/book_detail.asp>
Related article on China's movement from communism to fascism by Ledeen
<http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.13637/news_detail.asp>
AEI Print Index No. 23085
http://trade-wars.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Michael Ledeen calls China a fascist state and the Chinese
government proves him right by censoring him!
<http://trade-wars.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html>
The following note appears in the May 30 entry on Michael Ledeen's blog
<http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/>:
Modern life offers many happy moments, but I’m particularly indebted
to the People’s Republic of China for censoring the latest issue of
the Far East Economic Review, which featured an article of mine on
the cover. As Rowan Scarborough was kind enough to point out, the
folks at FEER had asked me to update an old think piece, in which I
had argued that contemporary China is difficult for us to
understand, because it is something we haven’t seen before: the
world’s first mature fascist state....
And here is the beginning of his censored piece in the /Far Eastern
Economic Review/
<http://feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism?searched=ledeen&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1>:
*Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism*
In 2002, I speculated that China may be something we have never seen
before: a mature fascist state. Recent events there, especially the
mass rage in response to Western criticism, seem to confirm that
theory. More significantly, over the intervening six years China’s
leaders have consolidated their hold on the organs of
control—political, economic and cultural. Instead of gradually
embracing pluralism as many expected, China’s corporatist elite has
become even more entrenched.
Even though they still call themselves communists, and the Communist
Party rules the country, classical fascism should be the starting
point for our efforts to understand the People’s Republic. Imagine
Italy 50 years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini would be dead
and buried, the corporate state would be largely intact, the party
would be firmly in control, and Italy would be governed by
professional politicians, part of a corrupt elite, rather than the
true believers who had marched on Rome. It would no longer be a
system based on charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on
political repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical,
not idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals
to the grandeur of the “great Italian people,” “endlessly summoned
to emulate the greatness of its ancestors.”
Substitute in the “great Chinese people” and it all sounds familiar.
We are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either
politically or economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who
followed the radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all
interested in treading the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism
to democracy. They know that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to
control the economy while giving political freedom. They are
attempting the opposite, keeping a firm grip on political power
while permitting relatively free areas of economic enterprise. Their
political methods are quite like those used by the European fascists
80 years ago.
Unlike traditional communist dictators—Mao, for example—who
extirpated traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile
Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese now enthusiastically, even
compulsively, embrace the glories of China’s long history. Their
passionate reassertion of the greatness of past dynasties has both
entranced and baffled Western observers, because it does not fit the
model of an “evolving communist system.”
Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s used exactly the same
device. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder
of ancient glories, and he used ancient history to justify the
conquest of Libya and Ethiopia. Hitler’s favorite architect built
neoclassical buildings throughout the Third Reich, and his favorite
operatic composer organized festivals to celebrate the country’s
mythic past....
Later in the piece, he discusses the delusion that China's growing
wealth makes it more Democratic and less dangerous. The opposite is
true. He wrote:
How, then, should the democracies deal with China? The first step is
to disabuse ourselves of the notion that wealth is the surest
guarantor of peace. The West traded with the Soviet Union, and gave
them credits as well, but it did not prevent the Kremlin from
expanding into the Horn of Africa, or sponsoring terrorist groups in
Europe and the Middle East. A wealthy China will not automatically
be less inclined to go to war over Taiwan, or, for that matter, to
wage or threaten war with Japan.
Indeed, the opposite may be true—the richer and stronger China
becomes, the more they build up their military might, the more
likely such wars may be. It follows that the West must prepare for
war with China, hoping thereby to deter it. A great Roman once said
that if you want peace, prepare for war. This is sound advice with
regard to a fascist Chinese state that wants to play a global role.
Senator Obama has stated that he is pleased that United States trade
policy is stabilizing this fascist regime. Specifically, here is a
selection from his remarks when he spoke to the Alliance for American
manufacturing in Pittsburgh on April 14 2008
<http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/14/remarks_for_senator_barack_oba_5.php>:
Seeing the living standards of the Chinese people improve is a good
thing - good because we want a stable China, and good because China
can be a powerful market for American exports. But too often, China
has been competing in ways that are tilting the playing field.
Senator McCain was more realistic about China's fascist government in a
column that he wrote with Senator Lieberman on May 27
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121183670827020887.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>.
They wrote:
China's rapid military modernization, mercantilist economic
practices, lack of political freedom and close relations with
regimes like Sudan and Burma undermine the very international system
on which its rise depends. The next American president must build on
the areas of overlapping interest to forge a more durable U.S.-China
relationship. Doing so will require strong alliances with other
Asian nations and a readiness to speak openly with Beijing when it
fails to behave as a responsible stakeholder.
Howard
Posted by Howard Richman at 12:57 PM
<http://trade-wars.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html>
http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism
May 2008
Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism
by Michael Ledeen
*In 2002, I* speculated that China may be something we have never seen
before: a mature fascist state. Recent events there, especially the mass
rage in response to Western criticism, seem to confirm that theory. More
significantly, over the intervening six years China’s leaders have
consolidated their hold on the organs of control—political, economic and
cultural. Instead of gradually embracing pluralism as many expected,
China’s corporatist elite has become even more entrenched.
Beijing Embraces FascismEven though they still call themselves
communists, and the Communist Party rules the country, classical fascism
should be the starting point for our efforts to understand the People’s
Republic. Imagine Italy 50 years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini
would be dead and buried, the corporate state would be largely intact,
the party would be firmly in control, and Italy would be governed by
professional politicians, part of a corrupt elite, rather than the true
believers who had marched on Rome. It would no longer be a system based
on charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on political
repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical, not
idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals to the
grandeur of the “great Italian people,” “endlessly summoned to emulate
the greatness of its ancestors.”
Substitute in the “great Chinese people” and it all sounds familiar. We
are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either politically or
economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who followed the
radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all interested in treading
the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism to democracy. They know
that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to control the economy while
giving political freedom. They are attempting the opposite, keeping a
firm grip on political power while permitting relatively free areas of
economic enterprise. Their political methods are quite like those used
by the European fascists 80 years ago.
Unlike traditional communist dictators—Mao, for example—who extirpated
traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile Marxism-Leninism, the
Chinese now enthusiastically, even compulsively, embrace the glories of
China’s long history. Their passionate reassertion of the greatness of
past dynasties has both entranced and baffled Western observers, because
it does not fit the model of an “evolving communist system.”
Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s used exactly the same
device. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder of
ancient glories, and he used ancient history to justify the conquest of
Libya and Ethiopia. Hitler’s favorite architect built neoclassical
buildings throughout the Third Reich, and his favorite operatic composer
organized festivals to celebrate the country’s mythic past.
Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the
world because of their history and culture, not just on the basis of
their current power, or scientific or cultural accomplishments. China
even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms,
such as the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat
production—the same quest for autarky that obsessed both Hitler and
Mussolini.
To be sure, the world is much changed since the first half of the last
century. It’s much harder (and sometimes impossible) to go it alone.
Passions for total independence from the outside world are tempered by
the realities of today’s global economy, and China’s appetite for oil
and other raw materials is properly legendary. But the Chinese, like the
European fascists, are intensely xenophobic, and obviously worry that
their people may turn against them if they learn too much about the rest
of the world. They consequently work very hard to dominate the flow of
information. Just ask Google, forced to cooperate with the censors in
order to work in China.
Some scholars of contemporary China see the Beijing regime as very
nervous, and perhaps even unstable, and they are encouraged in this
belief when they see recent events such as the eruption of popular
sentiment against the Tibetan monks’ modest protests. That view is
further reinforced by similar outcries against most any criticism of
Chinese performance, from human rights to air pollution, and from
preparations for the Olympic Games to the failure of Chinese quality
control in food production and children’s toys. The recent treatment of
French retailer Carrefour at the hands of Chinese nationalists is a case
in point. It has been publicly excoriated and shunned because France’s
President Nicolas Sarkozy dared to consider the possibility of
boycotting the Olympics.
In all these cases, it is tempting to conclude that the regime is
worried about its own survival, and, in order to rally nationalist
passions, feels compelled to portray the country as a global victim.
Perhaps they are right. The strongest evidence to support the theory of
insecurity at the highest levels of Chinese society is the practice of
the “princelings” (wealthy children of the ruling elites) to buy homes
in places such as the United States, Canada and Australia. These are not
luxury homes of the sort favored by wealthy businessman and officials
from the oil-rich countries of the Middle East. Rather they are
typically “normal” homes of the sort a potential émigré might want to
have in reserve in case things went bad back home.
Moreover, there are reasons to believe that eruptions of nationalist
passion do indeed worry the regime, and Chinese leaders have certainly
tamped down such episodes in the past. In recent days, the regime has
even reached out to the Dalai Lama himself in an apparent effort to calm
the situation, after previously enouncing the “Dalai clique” as a
dangerous form of separatism and even treason.
On the other hand, the cult of victimhood was always part of fascist
culture. Just like Germany and Italy in the interwar period, China feels
betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge her many historic wounds.
This is not necessarily a true sign of anxiety; it’s an integral part of
the sort of hypernationalism that has always been at the heart of all
fascist movements and regimes. We cannot look into the souls of the
Chinese tyrants, but I doubt that China is an intensely unstable system,
riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the one hand, and the
repressive practices of the regime on the other. This is a mature
fascism, not a frenzied mass movement, and the current regime is not
composed of revolutionary fanatics. Today’s Chinese leaders are the
heirs of two very different revolutions, Mao’s and Deng’s. The first was
a failed communist experiment; the second is a fascist transformation
whose future is up for grabs.
If the fascist model is correct, we should not be at all surprised by
the recent rhetoric or mass demonstrations. Hitler’s Germany and
Mussolini’s Italy were every bit as sensitive to any sign of foreign
criticism as the Chinese today, both because victimhood is always part
of the definition of such states, and because it’s an essential
technique of mass control. The violent denunciations of Westerners who
criticize Chinese repression may not be a sign of internal anxiety or
weakness. They may instead be a sign of strength, a demonstration of the
regime’s popularity. Remember that European fascism did not fall as the
result of internal crisis—it took a bloody world war to bring it down.
Fascism was so alarmingly popular neither Italians not Germans produced
more than token resistance until the war began to be lost. It may well
be that the mass condemnation of Western calls for greater political
tolerance is in fact a sign of political success.
Since classical fascism had such a brief life span, it is hard to know
whether or not a stable, durable fascist state is possible.
Economically, the corporate state, of which the current Chinese system
is a textbook example, may prove more flexible and adaptable than the
rigid central planning that doomed communism in the Soviet Empire and
elsewhere (although the travails of Japan, which also tried to combine
capitalist enterprise with government guidance, show the kinds of
problems China will likely face). Our brief experience with fascism
makes it difficult to evaluate the possibilities of political evolution,
and the People’s Republic is full of secrets. But prudent strategists
would do well to assume that the regime will be around for a while
longer—perhaps a lot longer.
If it is a popular, fascist regime, should the world prepare for some
difficult and dangerous confrontations with the People’s Republic?
Twentieth-century fascist states were very aggressive; Nazi Germany and
fascist Italy were both expansionist nations. Is it not likely that
China will similarly seek to enlarge its domain?
I believe the answer is “yes, but.” Many Chinese leaders might like to
see their sway extend throughout the region, and beyond. China’s
military is not so subtly preparing the capability to defeat U.S. forces
in Asia in order to prevent intervention in any conflict on its
periphery. No serious student of China doubts the enormous ambitions of
both the leadership and the masses. But, unlike Hitler and Mussolini,
the Chinese tyrants do not urgently need quick geographical expansion to
demonstrate the glory of their country and the truth of their vision.
For the moment, at least, success at home and global recognition of
Chinese accomplishments seem to be enough. Since Chinese fascism is less
ideological than its European predecessors, Chinese leaders are far more
flexible than Hitler and Mussolini.
Nonetheless, the short history of classical fascism suggests that it is
only a matter of time before China will pursue confrontation with the
West. That is built into the dna of all such regimes. Sooner or later,
Chinese leaders will feel compelled to demonstrate the superiority of
their system, and even the most impressive per capita GDP will not do.
Superiority means others have to bend their knees, and cater to the
wishes of the dominant nation. Just as Mussolini saw the colonization of
Africa and the invasion of Greece and the Balkans as necessary steps in
the establishment of a new fascist empire, so the Chinese are likely to
demand tribute from their neighbors—above all, the Chinese on the island
nation of Taiwan, in order to add the recovery of lost territory to the
regime’s list of accomplishments. Even today, at a time when the regime
is seeking praise, not tribute, in the run-up to the Olympic Games,
there are bellicose overtones to official rhetoric.
How, then, should the democracies deal with China? The first step is to
disabuse ourselves of the notion that wealth is the surest guarantor of
peace. The West traded with the Soviet Union, and gave them credits as
well, but it did not prevent the Kremlin from expanding into the Horn of
Africa, or sponsoring terrorist groups in Europe and the Middle East. A
wealthy China will not automatically be less inclined to go to war over
Taiwan, or, for that matter, to wage or threaten war with Japan.
Indeed, the opposite may be true—the richer and stronger China becomes,
the more they build up their military might, the more likely such wars
may be. It follows that the West must prepare for war with China, hoping
thereby to deter it. A great Roman once said that if you want peace,
prepare for war. This is sound advice with regard to a fascist Chinese
state that wants to play a global role.
Meanwhile, we should do what we can to convince the people of China that
their long-term interests are best served by greater political freedom,
no matter how annoying and chaotic that may sometimes be. I think we can
trust the Chinese leaders on this one. Any regime as palpably concerned
about the free flow of information, knows well that ideas about freedom
might be very popular. Let’s test that hypothesis, by talking directly
to “the billion.” In today’s world, we can surely find ways to reach them.
If we do not take such steps, our risk will surely increase, and
explosions of rage, manipulated or spontaneous, will recur. Eventually
they will take the form of real actions.
/Mr. Ledeen is an expert on U.S. foreign policy at the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He served as a
commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
from 2001-03./
* Print <javascript:window.print();>
* Email to a friend <http://www.feer.com/home/email-a-friend?id=8132>
* Back to top <http://www.feer.com/#header>
* See archives <http://www.feer.com/archives/essays>
* Digg it
<http://www.digg.com/submit?url=http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism>
* Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism>
* del.ici.ous <http://del.icio.us/post>
* Reddit
<http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism&title=Beijing%20Embraces%20Classical%20Fascism>
* Stumbleupon
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism>
comments (70)
Greg @ 2008-06-12 11:14:41
Mr. Ledeen has a bit problem with history. After reading his article, I
understood that building neo-classical buildings, making country
self-sufficient in wheat production, domination of the flow of
information, criticism of France, rebuilding cities and embracing
glories of the past makes one's country lead to fascism. I don't think
that Congress and Lincoln Mausoleum are build in gothic or baroque
style; I won't even talk about the agricultural subsidies in the U.S.;
telecom companies in the U.S. right after 2001 were also forced by the
Bush Administration into providing data about their subscribers; working
in Washington in 2001-2003, Mr. Ledeen had probably more than one
occasion to order "freedom fries"... Rebuilding cities and countries,
well, how about FDR's "New Deal"? Marshall Plan? What was that then?
Embracing glories of the past... United States doesn't do it? Talking
about the "fore-fathers", "founding fathers" and the Constitution? For a
person who claims to be an expert on U.S. foreign policy, those are
very, very weak arguments. Additionally, according to Mr. Ledeen,
"Fascism was so alarmingly popular neither Italians not Germans produced
more than token resistance until the war began to be lost". Anyone being
in the opposition to Hitler at that time was automatically send to jail
or concentration camps. Most opposition spend their time in exile or
imprisoned. Just look at the biographies of two famous post-war German
figures; Willie Brandt and Erich Honecker. Given such conditions, well,
don't think Mr. Ledeen would be in opposition at that time himself...
And there was one more famous fascist country in Europe - Spain. But
here, "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."
That's according to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon.
So now we have a distinction of "good" and "bad" fascism. It seems, as
usual, the U.S. foreign policy is full of double standards, and since
Mr. Ledeen is so eager to prepare for a war, even quoting one of the
Roman emperors, I would suggest here another famous quote from Albert
Einstein (a German, who was in opposition during WWII) who said "I know
not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV
will be fought with sticks and stones."
hetra @ 2008-06-10 16:20:52
@007: of course can other countries make the same promises! Even more
promises! But no one ever said to keep the promise... The Westerns
should not look down on developing countries (especially if this
situation is caused by our countries like in Africa). Although Chinese
people sometimes show a little too much nationalism for my taste, they
still like to buy BMW, Bosch and Louis Vuitton. The rich people keep an
eye on quality of products and prefer to buy imports - can this be
called nationalism? On one side they have resentments agains Japanese on
the other side they collect Hello Kitty - can this be called fascism? We
all act the same worldwide. If we have a scapegoat, we use it. Now that
China rises and is struggling to keep a certain order in its interior
borders, we use them. We blame them for poisoned toys, which are
produced by Mattel, a US company, that actually should know better... We
blame them for their "greedy oil hunger" while BMW and GM produce cars,
that should be forbidden because of their gas hunger and sell it to
China. We complain about Chinese policys, but the World Bank still gives
money for projects which are doomed. Now the people in China become
richer and richer and the governance system is being subject to changes
and reforms. What should Chinese believe in, if not in traditional
values which are recalled more and more now? Should they switch to plain
Manchester Capitalism? My personal opinion is that the main thing
missing in China as well as in most other countries simply is the sense
of community and the will to help and protect these who are weaker than
oneself.
shawn Chen @ 2008-06-09 14:05:31
Why does the rest of the world have to prepare for a war with China
while the Chinese themselves feel just the opposite? The Chinese
leaders, for example, opine that the country is contributing to
worldwide peace and development since more and more people are getting
out of poverty; the ordinary people are condifent in each one's life as
economic and administrative (not yet political) reforms and openness
provide ample opportunities. Can I suggest Feer be more serious towards
irresponsible remarks such Mr. Ledeen's?
cnnbbc @ 2008-06-07 22:49:28
are you crazy???
fay @ 2008-06-07 18:05:47
Obviously the author thought himself clever than all Chinese. This
article can reflect he knows China, but only a little. Also his arrogance.
john @ 2008-06-06 23:42:39
such a stupid man! In fact , i'm very happy to know us goverment has a
idiot expert. It is obviously that Mr Ledeen want to have a war with
china,and then he have to find some reasons. Does he know what is fascism?
sabri @ 2008-06-06 17:55:55
I think that all the misunderstandings among everybody who answered are
a good model, in scale of course, of what's going on around the world
and the medias' world... Anyway, as for me: I think that, even if the
article is enough in line with the U.S.A. current political view, it
doesn't mean that it's only a propaganda article. I do not think that
"Mr. Ledeen may be stretching himself a little too thin", even if I do
agree that "one cannot be expert in everything". As I am a sinologist,
who's living,working and studying in China since 3years, studying it
since 10...WELL...I must say that actually also "the expert", mainly the
expert, must always remember that he/she just knows something more and
that is just a good chance to try to be open-minded, as a risk to rest
on some discoveries without trying to go forward step by step, mistake
after mistake... It's true:It takes years, even decades, to learn the
Chinese language and everything, but I do not feel that it is the case
to question so much whether or not the author is the best person to
write such an article and how much weight we should give to his
theory...and the reason is very simple: he does not have "a theory" His
comparison is pointed and claimed as a possible methodology and is not a
theory at all. He only says that it could be quite useful TO USE THE
FASCIST MODEL AS A MEAN (he says a MODEL) TO UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT
CHINESE GOVERNMENT's ORGANIZATION AND INFLUENCE ON ITS PEOPLE. well... I
am Italian, I am a sinologist and I am actually studying the same topics
you all are discussing about and , yes I try to have a quite liberal and
open view (I just try)'cause it is the only thing that works-out with
every kind of research. Anyway,since I started to have the chance to
attend classes and debates in mainland China, to debate and study many
topics in here, with my Chinese collagues, to be always the only
westerner in every occasion, to see the way in which the history is
narrated in here and so on, I started to be very very very interested to
European and Italian Fascist/Nationalist's organization, propaganda and
so on...as well as to U.S.A.'s policies and so on... ..oh well, To be
sincere, actually the fascist model-as a model for social and cultural
control, with all the differences of the case (which are a lot, but less
than in other cases)- works-out pretty good as a base for future
comparisons and researches. it is just a comparison, a mean to some
researches, nobody said that "all the Chinese are fascists" or something
like this! the only scary thing in here is how much everybody always in
this contemporary confusing mediatic world...and war...only focuses on
few words without taking care of the points somebody wants to express.
So, the fact that Mr.Leeden was "immediatly accused of heaping insult
upon China by speculating on it's "fascism", by those who obviously have
never studied what fascism was" is what I consider most scary in
here...as when european peoples where considered xenophobic because
there was a high percent of persons who said they did not like Israel's
policy in Gaza Stripe...so...I mean...where's the connection between
these two points? what are we talking about?
Tyson @ 2008-06-06 16:52:18
It is interesting, all this ultra-nationalist talk in America as China
rises up. Not interesting because it is new, mind you. Interesting
because it is a tested pattern of history. What about Darfur, what about
Burma, etc. Painting the leadership in China as a modern fascist regime
was entirely expected to anyone who was paying any attention. In the
1980s and 1990s because of the US`s bilateral trad debt with Japan,
there was much trash-talking about that country, too. But it never gets
down to a cut and dry comparison. Let`s take, the USA`s involvement in
the Phillipeines for example, or Chile and compare it with China`s
support in Africa. Or let`s take the USA`s support of subfascist regimes
in Central America, the Mideast and Indonesia and compare to China`s
support of Burma. This propagandist article brings a veil over the
machinations of the USA and moulds China into somethign that it is not:
fascist. No more fascist than, say, providing dictators in Brazil with
weapons and training (as the USA did) or supporting S. Hussein with
money, aid, weapons and the gas with which he poisoned the Kurds. And
anyone who listens to this garbage without furthering their own
knowledge by making an inquiry into the facts on their own steam does
themselves much harm.
aa @ 2008-06-05 14:58:28
你这个人太笨了，偏激加对中国的成见，有本事去说说Amercia,china无论走什么
道路永远是YOU anti my country !I hate YOU! my englsih is bad! but our
cuntry are well!不要忘了是你们侵略了我的国家，我们会永记！资本主义的侵略！
@ 2008-06-05 09:01:52
作者只是个，无知、狂妄、战争狂。。美国霸权存在一天，全世界永无宁日。。
Richard Collnis @ 2008-06-05 08:22:50
The Ledeen article was cheap journalism at its worst. He took failings
of the Chinese government that are well known to all readers, imparting
no new information, and added the bizarre notion that combined with
appeals to patriotism and vague ideas about China starting wars, the mix
should be described as fascism. Since 1949, China has started no wars.
Of course it supported the brutal side in Korea, but even that was long
ago. In that period, the U.S. has begun several wars, including the Iraq
debacle. And how strange for Ledeen to think that appeals to patriotism
= fascism, when U.S. senators are justly lampooned for wearing flag
lapel pins.
Neo Jiang @ 2008-06-05 08:06:33
This so called expert is such an idiot! Why do you keep fixating on the
problems? In the world, who made a bigger progress than China in the
recent 20 years?
yun wang @ 2008-06-05 00:10:34
I still need to write a paper. So, I just have some questions for Mr.
Ledeen and his supporters. First, what is human right? If the human
right against majority people's interests, can we still call it human
right? Second, according to you, we are going to have WWIII, will you
Mr. Ledeen, together with your supporters go to the front? Third, "the
Chinese now enthusiastically, even compulsively, embrace the glories of
China’s long history." As a Chinese, I am proud of what 1.3 billion have
done and what we are going to do for this country, but not embrace the
history. I want to know how many Chinese you can represent? Third, if
China give up self-sufficient in wheat production project do you know
how many people will die? Oh, I forgot, you don't care about it. Forth,
why so many study and work abroad Chinese love China and understand our
government more and more instead of turn against them? Fifth, were you
in Tibet when Tibetan monks’ "modest" protests? Last, do you think
American are foolish by told them Chinese boycotte Carrefour because
France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy dared to consider the possibility of
boycotting the Olympics instead of the truth which I believe you know no
less than us. It's too long, I don't want to read further to waste too
much of my time. Just for fun, you know, writing paper sometimes is such
a painful thing.
chinese @ 2008-06-04 22:43:21
i wang to say so many people of the WEST don`t understand the Chinese
civilization at all,because your IQ is so low that only can use one kind
of thought to look at the other country which is not Christian.Idiot~!
Enclave @ 2008-06-04 18:22:01
不要为了对抗而寻求对抗。你们西方最大的失败在于一些啥都不懂的人，也能成为
专家。
clangfe @ 2008-06-04 16:40:41
if you spread hatreds among people,if you pose a military threat to
other countries,if you force you opinion based on nonsense to others,
then you can be called a fascist, just as Hitler ever did so.This
article is a disgrace of america democracy.I can`t believe it is written
by an expert.Wow!God bless America.
@ 2008-06-04 15:16:54
作者后代希特勒的后代，墨索里尼的信徒，向和平的中国人民发出的战争动员。
来自中国 @ 2008-06-04 14:16:57
法西斯是西方人的专利，中国从历史、现在到未来都不会盗版你们的法西斯。
@ 2008-06-04 13:54:23
Congratulations! After all this, FEER won the notoriousness! Why not
writte a serial, prove that China is a slavery country which culture
originated from Voodoo, and the government have slaughtered one billion
Puritan last 30 years since vanquished Eskimo? And whatever, it's
confirmed that Beijing allowed a Nazi to be Dalai Lama's teacher, isn't
it? By the way, the witter forgot a sameness between Chinese leader and
Hitler, their hair are both black. What a convincing evidence is it!
one day @ 2008-06-04 13:11:33
I am a Chinese in China. Think you for your study of china. It makes me
think more about my people and myself. Before 2008, China had many
internal problem, every Chinese have their own complaint, that was
naturally, everybody had their own benefit and ambition, especially in
today in China. such as, corruption of officer, pollution, equity of
child education and career. But after the very strong prejudice from the
western society, all the internal problem of China was disappear;
everybody became a patriot, Just like 911 in America. But if you are a
Chinese, what kind of behave would you choose when the all the westen
people say: your country need to be split, the reason is an obvious lie.
Western people know the old Tibet was slavery; most of Tibetans were
slaves except 5% masters and Lamas. At least, we think, western history
expert know it, why they are silent at this time. Western medias said
there was "crackdown" in Tibet, like 1989 in Tiananmen, I was a student
in 1989 in Beijing, but we all Chinese know that today is not 1989,
"crackdown" is impossible in today in China. Western medias were lying
obviously. All this taught Chinese, western people were inimical. So all
the Chinese chose anger because western people's prejudice was too deep.
That is where your Fascism comes from.
Hans @ 2008-06-04 11:34:47
I have to say that I’ve very rarely read such nonsense as Ledeen’s
essay, even by Ledeen whose writings I have monitored pretty closely
since 9/11 for indications of what Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Victor
Davis Hansen, Dick Cheney, and even Karl Rove may be talking about when
they get together in various permutations and combinations. He argues,
among other things, that the China of today is what Italy would look
like “50 years after the fascist revolution” if Mussolini’s corporatist
state had somehow survived into the 1970’s, requiring of the reader an
act based solely on his or her imagination and absolutely no empirical
evidence of any kind. In Ledeen’s imagination, such a state would “no
longer be a system based on charisma, but would instead rest almost
entirely on political repression, the leaders would be businesslike and
cynical, not idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic
appeals to the grandeur of the ‘great Italian people…’.” While Ledeen
might think that description constitutes “classical fascism,” I don’t
see the difference between that and a typical autocratic regime that
bases its legitimacy on some form of nationalism. After about another
1,200 words of rampant speculation based on virtually nothing but
(mostly questionable) cliches and stereotypes — “the Chinese, like the
European fascists, are intensely xenophobic…;” “Just like Germany and
Italy in the interwar period, China feels betrayed and humiliated, and
seeks to avenge her many historic wounds;” “…the short history of
classical fascism suggests that it is only a matter of time before China
will pursue confrontation with the West” — Ledeen concludes: “It follows
that the West must prepare for war with China, hoping thereby to deter
it.” Based on my own modest experience in China, I have no doubt that
the country (not unlike the U.S.) is nationalistic, that its ambitions
as an emerging global power are significant, and that (again, like the
U.S.) it considers military power an essential component of great-power
status. But “fascist?” That’s quite a leap. From his own post-graduate
study of Italian fascism, as well as his work under the great George
Mosse at the University of Wisconsin, surely Ledeen knows that a cult of
violence (to which Ledeen and other hard-line neo-cons like Charles
Krauthammer have themselves shown a perverse attraction) and the
so-called Fuehrerprinzip — the notion that a charismatic leader who
thoroughly embodies the virtues of a nation should be revered and his
orders followed without question — are central to the “classical”
fascist ideologies that grew up in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. And
while one can argue that both characteristics were on display during the
Cultural Revolution, it would be very difficult to find any trace of
them in the Chinese leadership today. That a once-respected and
influential journal should publish this kind of agitprop is truly
disgraceful.
Hans @ 2008-06-04 11:24:44
Last time I checked, U.S. already has more than 50% of the world's
military budget. Why do you write this article to ask for more military
budgets from taxpayers already hammered by the economic disaster? I pray
to god that you are not U.S.'s policy maker.
happytosee @ 2008-06-04 10:03:18
Mr. Ledeen,Good job! Keep on closing your eyes, and befooling Americans.
I read some articles like yours 10 years ago, when I was 13 and felt
angry. But now I'm very glad to see the people like you have made no
progress during the past 10 years. We are Yellow Peril We are Communists
We are Brain Washed We are Nazis And what will be the next Be more
creative, Mr Ledeen. Your opinion is too timeworn. Keep on working, Mr
Ledeen.我看好你哦 :P
Amanda @ 2008-06-04 09:21:41
Mr Michael Ledeen is a dangerous people. He try to tell people China is
dangerous and start war and hatred between the two nations. Review this
article, you can see how many words are data or facts, and how many
words are his imagine. A reasonal people who want to believe this
article, he should visit china firstly.
dakelv @ 2008-06-04 08:42:01
Judged by this article and other famous quotes attributed to Mr. Ledeen,
I have every reason to believe that he is the very proponent of fascism
himself. The following quotes are taken from a wikipedia article on Mr.
Ledeen: "the level of casualties (in Iraq) is secondary" "we are a
warlike people (Americans)...we love war" "Change — above all violent
change — is the essence of human history" "the only way to achieve peace
is through total war" "The purpose of total war is to permanently force
your will onto another people" Need I say more?!
kihin @ 2008-06-04 04:12:42
look at usa, what you did!!!!! iraq,afghantistan and so on,and you have
so many army base on the world.and your soldier went to north korea
,vietnan,iraq,afghantistan and so on. what do you think???how many
people you did killed????? who is the fascism????? why we try our best
to solve the food problem,and you call this is fascism????? the only
answer I got that is you are stupid and you are fascism!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE
FASCISM!!!!!!!
kihin @ 2008-06-04 03:26:41
you are the one what you said Fascism
James DeBono @ 2008-06-03 21:43:08
In the first place I want to congratulate the Far Eastern Economic
Review for yet again publishing another article written by yet another
incoherent, morally bankrupt and evil Western intellect like Mr. Michael
Ledeen. As we all know very well, the description of a truly dangerous
and malignant Fascist state can be very aptly applied to the Anglo Saxon
countries namely the USA. These countries have been at war with the rest
of the world since the end of World War II. They cannot live in peace
with themselves or with others. Everything he says in this article is
really more about the USA than any other country in the world. Why do we
keep hearing this kind of nonsense? The answer is simple. The neo cons
(actually the Fascists) are masters of deception (e.g. WMD in Iraq) who
will stop at nothing to convince themselves that they are indeed the
Master Race aka Adolf Hitler. Like the Nazis, they will one day be
utterly destroyed!!!!!!!!!
Toth @ 2008-06-02 01:30:58
In the imagination of mr. Ledeen a 50 year post-Mussolini fantasy must
be about as easy to do as fantasizing about post-war Iraq or post-war
Iran. And with the same kind of accuracy that would means getting
everything wrong or rather said not getting anything at all. The sole
basis for this ridiculous comparison between real contemporary China and
an imaginary post-WWII Italy is the absence of an emphasis on political
idealism and/or ideology within the leadership and the adoption of a
more pragmatic and technocratic approach of governing. From this
non-existent premise, a specially tailored definition of classical
fascism, now reduced to a form of state-corporatism and the observation
of historical and cultural sense of national pride in Chinese -
patriotism as US citizens call it and never cease to pride themselves on
- mr Ledeen draws the conclusion that China is a “classical” fascist
state. It seems to me that indeed this cannot amount to anything more
than petty name-calling. Classical fascism is not a single well defined
concept. Among the features that could serve as an outline of classical
fascism, many are very well applicable to neoconservatism. Historically
they are believers of permanent warfare; they think life is purely lived
for struggle. Self-criticism, let alone pacifism is seen as direct
support for the enemy. Because of their simultaneous need for enemies
and self-exaltation, they shift constantly between painting their
enemies too strong and too weak. They believe in the noble lie and are
incapable of objectivity. Insofar as xenophobia is a feature of
classical fascism it is primarily directed at minorities inside. We can
recognize much more classical fascism in neoconservatism as a movement
and their grip on the present US administration who with their
unprecedented lawlessness, erosion of liberty, centralization of power
and militarization of society and their devils pact with the extreme
rightwing christian end-timers who truly are fascist in every way, than
we can in developing countries like China despite all their - sometimes
tragic – flaws. But it is easy to see why mr Ledeen doesn’t understand
any of all of this if he laments that: “classical fascism had such a
brief life span, that it is hard to know whether or not a stable,
durable fascist state is possible.” History of man truly begins in 1939
for these neocons. Anyway it should be clear the interest for these
neocon morons is not in evaluating real political situations or balances
of power or in any shape or form striving for objectivity in
assessments, but purely in creating anti-China propaganda and maximizing
bilateral animosity. And so this is why mr Ledeen so excessively
exaggerates, lining up the whole worn-out parade Stalin, Mao, Mussolini,
Hitler to construct in real Ledeenite fashion the most eejitic
absurdies. Like Mao erasing history and Chinese now embracing proves
Chinese fascism. Or Hitler had an architect who built new stuff and
China builds new stuff too and so China is a fascist state. And for
those recalcitrant doubters still not swept off their feet by these
undeniable facts, mr Ledeen shows those darned evil Chinese xenophobes
even want to grow their own wheat. So if that isn’t fascism then what
is? Later on Hitler and Mussolini are compared in a more direct way to
the “Chinese tyrants.” According to mr Ledeen because both Hitler and
Mussolini were expansionist and Chinese are not, but they could become.
So that settles that. Finally engaging with the Dalai Lama in talks is
still further proof of their inherent fascism. And so according to mr.
Ledeen the US must prepare for war with China, because that is the best
way peace can be maintained. As we have seen with Iraq, this logic works
well for these neocon believers in permanent war. However if China would
prepare for war with the US for the same reason, this could not serve
the same goal. The logic of the “great Roman“ would instantly collapse
and automatically change into it’s opposite. This type of factfree
agitprop rethoric in which mr. Ledeen excels isn’t helpful for anyone.
At best it is ignored because it contains nothing of value for those
interested in truth.
Lester Ness @ 2008-06-01 13:43:43
I've long suspected that the people who started the war in Iraq,
liberated a vast number of Iraqis of their lives and limbs would want to
do the same to China. Perhaps this is the first shot in a new war of
national vanity by US messianic nationalists
a Duoist @ 2008-05-31 14:24:54
It's understandable reading so many upset comments to Dr. Ledeen's
opinion that most of the commenters do not know anything about Dr.
Ledeen's expertise on the study of fascism. His scholarship on fascism
gives him a world-wide credibility. Disagree with his views on fascism
if you like, but know that he is extremely well-informed.
Love China @ 2008-05-31 00:20:47
Don't worry.
Give US$ 13 trillion to all Chinese folks, all money must be deposited
into Chinese folks' domestic accounts. Then provide 1-year election
theory and best practice sessions to all Chinese folks. Remember, you
must afford the training fees completely by yourself. China folks will
pay no penny for the training.
In the coming 2 years we will start the direct election first in a
county, then a city, then a province. if everything is ok we will have a
national discussion to decide whether we should have a plenary national
direct election.
In these two years all you must depost US$ 13*2 trillion to all Chinese
folks' domestic accounts again.
Remember again, US dollar can not depreciate in these years. US$ 13
trillion should be nearly equals to the total GDP of USA in 2007.
Life and living are the basic things. Give us enough money then we will
show what's democracy.
Yan @ 2008-05-30 10:38:03
Mr. Ledeen is a very good storyteller. The article is suitable for most
American who are brainwashed by one-sided media and don't have time to
do some research by themselves. China is rising both economically and
politically. Should the stronger necessarily means more dangerous? It
depends on many factors, and many are unpredictable. No experts can
safely be regarded as futureteller of a country's fate. One of best
evidence should be CIA's false predict on USSR. If hundreds of elites
specialized in predicting one country's future can be wrong, where can
you get the warrantty on Mr.Ledeen's eyecatching article? I have a
suggestion, please read more on China's history. Fascism is not the
natural birth of one country's economic rise and global influence. It
needs a culture root to justify it. In the history, China had once
become the most developed country in the world for a long time, how many
colonies had China ocuppied? How ambitious were the kings to expand
China's territory after their reuniting the country? I think these
answers could be very helpful to evaluate China's danger to the world
since many still think China is a authoritarian country like old times.
Mr. Wang @ 2008-05-29 16:04:35
i'm a chinese.i am surprise by the article. yes,china has many
shortcomings.we should try our best to improve people living standard.
and reforms should be carried on in many areas. but i do never know we
are treated as fasicism. we do never think of starting a war. we love
peace.all the people in the world are human beings. black,white and
yellow,etc,are all family members!
moom @ 2008-05-28 22:58:44
And yes, Russia is more fascist than either China or the US.
Josie Nguyen @ 2008-05-28 04:32:12
Americans see the rest of the World in terms of US politics but the
Chinese think that foreigners ought to mind their own business when it
comes to Chinese politics. This asymmetric behavior is called "Strategic
Culture" in international relations studies. Strategic culture basically
boils down to how a nation plans its defences according to their
historical experiences, with the most recent, or the most traumatic, or
both as the central references around which the country devices its
plan. From its World War I & II and 9/11 experiences, America sees
itself as the savior of the World and the leader of the free world.
Ordinary citizens outside the US scratch their head when American
presidents send US troops abroad to defend America. To them these acts
are not defensive but aggressive. But many (but not all) Americans
genuinely feel that they are doing the world a favor. The Chinese, on
the other hand, consider the Opium Wars, the Ba guo lian jun and partial
colonization of the country by Western powers. The Chinese people stood
helpless when they saw their country being cut-up for the enjoyment of
the Western Imperialists. They feel that they haven't done anything to
deserve this mistreatment, and the lingering anti-Western attitude among
the Chinese stems from those experiences. At a personal one-on-one
level, I don't think ordinary Chinese people are anti-Western, in fact
they embrace Western culture, especially the younger generation. At the
national level, I can only speculate that not many Chinese (I mean
ordinary Chinese) believe that Western powers would want to be kind to
the Chinese nation. It is unfortunate that incompetent analysts such as
Mr. Ledeen has ignored strategic culture considerations. I can only hope
and pray that people like Mr. Ledeen are kept far away from the
corridors of power in Washington, for the sake of world peace.
coldblooded3 @ 2008-05-28 00:35:38
Tibetan monks "modest" protests? I stoped reading there.
Ngụy Tiên Sinh @ 2008-05-27 19:42:55
"In modern history, it has not provoked nationalism ideology to invade
colonize as the US did." @ Do Thanh Hai: Your name suggests that you are
Vietnamese, or of Vietnamese descent, so I'ld like to remind you of a
few tidbits in recent history to point out that China had indeed done
so, as far as when her conflicts with Vietnam are concerned. 1. In 1974
The PRC invoked nationalism(propaganda posters abound, mind you) to
forcibly take the Paracel Islands from The Republic of Vietnam. 2. In
1979 The PRC invaded Vietnam(again, propaganda posters are abound, plus
a few jingoistic Hollywood style war movies,) laid waste to a few
northern provinces just to remind VN of its vassal status. 3. In 1988
The PRC again went on an territories grabbing expedition and took
several islands in the Spratly Archipelagos from Vietnamese control. For
all the people for took to an indignant righteousness reaction to this
article, I'ld like to point to the author's conclusion that it's in the
interests of those who embrace the value of Peace and Democracy(Chinese
or otherwise) to convince the ordinary Chinese citizen that Fascism is
not the way to go at it.
G. Hosf @ 2008-05-27 19:25:52
Mr. Ledeen's twisted mind has nothing better to do than to visualise as
negatively as historically justified to tarnish a nation struggling
economic development for her mass population that was lagging far behind
other third world countries only two decades ago, let alone the west.
freedomforasia @ 2008-05-27 15:11:57
There are so many excuses for a dictatorial Chinese regime based on what
the other Western countries did. WE have to see straight to the fact
that China is not willing to be a democratic country, and no matter what
the majority of the Chinese population wants, its government will not
allow democracy to happen. The author of this article raised a good
point about preparing for war to secure peace. It does not mean he wants
war on the Chinese people. But among China, there is no strong enough
force to improve its internal situations, then the international
community needs to care more. I disagree with the author that not just
only the so-called "the West", but first and foremost, the neighboring
ASIAN countries need to prepare for themselves in the worst case. To
communist Chinese sympathizers, you guys need to understand this is not
about the threat to the Chinese people particularly, but this is the
warning to the fear of a growing dictatorial menace in the region. Ask
around your Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or any other South East Asian
friends, if all of them tell you that the CHINESE GOVERNMENT is a
friendly one, I will be very surprised.
@ 2008-05-27 14:40:25
Mr. Ledeen is either stupid or stupid!
Tiger @ 2008-05-27 14:16:56
The history of china is the invasion and annexation. It conquered
neighbours and annexed them. Chinese people thougth that they are master
race, the others are inferior rank. They considered their country as the
center of the world and must be leader. Other countries as vassal.
Vassal must obey the orders from the master and contribute valluable
asset to the master country. The sino ethnic group assimilated others
ethnic group, the same thing are happening in Tibet nowaday. Chinese
leaders and chinese people nowaday have a same mind as their ancestor.
They want to control the world, they had a plan for this. That why they
became nuke-armed country and spent all income to armed. WWIII will come
sooner or later if chinese leader and chinese people still keeping
sino-centric minded.
Brian Kern @ 2008-05-27 03:32:05
Mr. Ledeen's comments on the nature of the current Chinese government
are very well-articulated and mordant. To look at the regime from the
perspective of fascism helps to illuminate many of its characteristics,
which Mr Ledeen enumerates so well. Indeed, apart from creating an
exceedingly corrupt, unjust, and sick society within China, the largest
country in the world lead by such a government could eventually become a
threat to peace both in the region and further abroad. Still, the end of
the article is rather disappointing, as it seems to fall back into
simply taking the perspective of US security interests, and that in a
rather narrowly defined way. There are many things that governments can
currently do to counteract the fascist tendencies Mr. Ledeen identifies
so well. First of all, they can put human rights much higher on their
agendas. For too long, business interests have been paramount in
diplomatic relations. In many respects, this emphasis on trade to the
detriment of human rights reinforces the fascist tendencies, rather than
necessarily leading to liberalization-- the "engagement" doctrine
preached in recent years with little evidence to support it. Another
thing to realize is that Chinese society today is indeed one with many
cracks. While the face that it has shown the world recently is that of
rabid nationalism, it is important to remember that within China today,
there are many individuals, groups and small organizations struggling to
develop a healthy civil society. They face great odds and persecution at
the hands of the authorities. These civil society forces should be
supported. For every rabid nationalist, there is another person who
detests the Chinese government for the injustices he has suffered at its
hands. Thirdly, China is already demonstrating its power, both within
the region and further abroad. Its alliances with other "fascist"
regimes such as those of Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe demonstrate that.
Throughout Africa, it is building roads and other infrastructure. And
within Asia, mostly through its economic might, it has having diverse
influences which are less than liberal. Indeed, even Western governments
are often intimidated by China. Presenting an alternative model of soft
power based on human rights and just economic and trade policies would
go a long way to counteract the often negative influence China is
already having beyond its borders. Lastly, of course, the US can
counteract its own "fascist" tendencies such as illegal invasion of
other countries, creation of gulags like Guanatanamo, the practice of
torture, unthinking reflexes of victimization and nationalism, and
definition of "security" in such negative zero-sum terms, so that
criticism of China doesn't sound so much like the pot calling the kettle
black. On top of this, the US must help to construct an international
order based on rule of law rather than seeking to undermine it as has
been the tendency in recent years. Ultimately, it will be such actions
that both help China to become a more rights-respecting state and
contain its negative influences abroad. These are human rights issues
but they are also security issues. Ultimately, there is little
difference between the two.
Greg @ 2008-05-27 00:38:28
Great job ! China becomes dangerous !
Steven HU @ 2008-05-26 21:52:39
Totally shocked by the essay,which reveals nothing but the authour's
ignorant nonsense.i can't imagine that AEI has such an "expert".
bailoo @ 2008-05-25 17:05:07
Article rings true, and is definitely supported by the scary nationalism
displayed by overseas Chinese when they attacked protesting foreigners
(in foreign soil, where the Chinese are staying as foreign guests)
during the global Olympic torch relay, most especially in Korea and
Australia. Even a mock relay in NZ organized by the local Chinese
community had problems with "peaceful Chinese participants" turning
violent. Add to that their burning hate for Japan, with some even
relishing the thought of annexing it some time in the future, their
territorial disputes with a lot of their neighbors, and their belief in
the greatness (supremacy?) of the great Han race (local Chinese where I
stay insist that their children only marry "pure" Chinese), the future
doesn't look too encouraging. All the money being pumped into military
spending isn't reassuring as well. But hey, what's a single person from
a poor Asian neighbor to do? No way we can stand up against the economic
Chinese prowess. Even our military can't stop an invasion if they wanted
to overrun us. Next thing you know the PRC will be dictating what TV
shows we can and cannot watch. Oh well. Anyway, to all the previous
commenters, PRC sponsored thought police or not, kindly tone down the ad
hominem attacks. It's lame, see. Please attack the merits of the
article, not the person who wrote it. Stop pointing at other countries
as well. And to that person who lumped all of us Asians with the
Chinese, please don't do that. It's not flattering. Our people will
never go around the world to "peacefully protest" something, and then
suddenly attack any foreigners who we think don't agree with us.
jacob @ 2008-05-25 13:22:46
It is an embarrassment to the entire American government to have Mr.
Ledeen represent anybody but himself. It is a disgrace for Far Eastern
Economic Review to sponsor such an inflammatory piece. As an American, I
am again shocked and ashamed of my government's "advisers" such as him.
How can anyone make a statement: "It follows that the West must prepare
for war with China, hoping thereby to deter it." That is exactly how
wars are started! I am sorry, reading this essay and this journal is a
total waste of my time. It is people like Mr. Ledeen that incite all the
wars while sending their neighbor's kids to harms way.
Betty @ 2008-05-25 00:31:08
Fascism? What terrible demonization! Is it wrong to love and be pride of
one's own country? Don't Americans do so as well? Talking about history,
I don't think most Chinese people know enough about its own history, or
have proper respect to it.
Josie Nguyen @ 2008-05-24 23:39:09
I think the cause of the problem that we see on this discussion forum
stems from FEER's bad editorial practice. When you publish an article
such as Mr. Ledee's you know for sure that will stir up a great deal of
raw emotions among ordinary people, your editor should have anticipated
that and provided a counter-point article, instead of relying on
reader's comments because most readers do not write for a living. And
this is not the only article in the same issue that targets China and
the whole edition has absolutely no counter-point balance. One can
understand why (at least some) people are angry. And I am proud to be
one of those angry people. In the age of mass media, perception is
reality, FEER should have known this. I'm not advocating
self-censorship, I am advocating balance, fairness and responsible
editorial practice.
chill head to feet @ 2008-05-24 02:44:41
For those who believe US experience of great democracy is great, such as
expressed "The U.S. allows both sides to express their points of
view....", how can they take it for granted, that this great country is
built on the foundation of enslaving "negros" and slaughtering native
"indians" and squeezing them into pockets of human zoos, and is still
inflicting so much more injustice around the world, and "the two sides"
or many sides in the U.S.A, did not seem to help much, what need to
happen in terms of suffering still happen. Being able to debate about is
one thing, being able to be unmistaken in acts and stopping the
consequence do not necessarily correlate to merely freedom of speech. At
the most, mist Ledeen represents one opinion, as unscholarly as this
opinion can be. What made me angry is not about how China was treated as
a Fascist state, but the kind of views exchanged here seems to remind me
that human being do not learn from the larger pattern of the history:
why human kill human, human humiliate human? What happened could happen
again because of exactly the kind of unfriendliness and ignorance and
bigotry such discussion have demonstrated. Come on, show some faith in
yourself!
Bruce @ 2008-05-23 19:39:57
The tone of this discussion is dismaying. Mr. Ledeen has made a
provocative argument, although one that I think is fundamentally wrong.
In response he, along with all Americans, nay all Westerners (even
Swedes?), is attacked in a series of racist farragos. Isn't the tone of
such responses providing evidence for his main point? I suppose someone
will shortly accuse Mr. Ledeen of being Jewish. Fortunately, I think
most people familiar with China would respond to his views by
challenging the argument on its own merits (or lack thereof) rather than
launching into such bigotry. But please don't prove me wrong!
Do Thanh Hai @ 2008-05-17 15:21:55
(With little correction) That is the monstrosity of extreme freedom of
speech, Western-styled mass media crap and American arrogance. It is not
a big problem if you guys make fun / humiliate an Asian individual, but
it is huge mistake to insult the his/her family, nation, and belief.
What is the consequence then? Many Western people are instilled with
that shit and then believe that China is really the curse of the world.
And China becomes more suspicious, feels humiliated, and more reserved.
Nobody knows how one Chinese and billion of them feels when reading
morally irresponsible piece. It is unfair because China is showing its
willingness, and striving for the better. It has its own problems but
only it can solve evolutionarily its problems. In modern history, it has
not provoked nationalism / ideology to invade / colonize other countries
as US did. The West is proud of democracy, human rights and liberty.
Yeah, that is fair and I appreciate those ideals. But, please look into
history to see those ideals have been partly achieved by what, guns,
fights, and unparalleled destruction. Western people may feel the same
way, 'PROUD, with devastating consumerism and the two notorious World
Wars. Those civilized people killed, at the most atrocity and with the
most advanced weapons, millions of people at a stroke. I personally
think nobody except the West may be the cause of the Third World War if
there is and if they continue to think their own way could be a panacea.
Josie Nguyen @ 2008-05-15 22:34:40
To Mr. Gee who wrote: "...by those who obviously have never studied what
fascism was." and "... If the answer is yes they would allow these
abuses, then we surely do not understand "Asians" ( whoever those are in
that broad canvas) as Ms. Nguyen means them and I am not sure that, on
those terms, one would want to." Mister, you are putting a lot of words
into people's mouth is my answer to you in a nutshell. As to what
fascism is, may I suggest that you read [Carlo Levi, Christ Stopped at
Eboli: The Story of a Year Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve
Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland]. Mussolini and
Hitler mesmerized entire populations into fanatical devotion, seducing
them to forfeit democracy and freedom for an eternal state of war and
genocide. Are you saying that China is doing that? Also, I would bet my
next cup of coffee that most learned observers on China would agree that
Chinese citizens have significant freedom but limited democracy. These
two concepts are different. But then again, China has been singled out
by Western media as being non-responsive to the Burma relief effort on
the Security Council but NOT A SINGLE WORD mentioning Russia who has a
similar position as China. As to Darfur, do you know which countries are
providing most of the arms to the current regime? I bet you're going to
say China and I say, check again and you would be surprised. As said
earlier, I'm not a fan of the Chinese regime, but I am angry at Western
media nowadays that is very trigger happy blaming China for all the ills
in the world. Remember this from your parents: "broccoli is good for
you, eat it" and ask how many kids resent this attitude from their
parents. The West is doing exactly this to China, Asia, Africa and many
developing countries around the globe. Remember what Marshall McLuhan,
arguably the most influential media theorist of the 20th century, said:
"the medium is the message". Think about it, and think a little bit
more; especially Mr. Ledeen.
Dab @ 2008-05-14 17:53:57
Nice shot August! You sound quite reasonable. But I think you should
read the whole article more carefully. It is admirable precisely for
daring to use the 'F' word in a meaningful sense, and not just as a term
of abuse (which nowadays is the most usual). China's 'Liberation' of
Tibet is no doubt the imperialism you have in mind when you speak about
"liberating." US out of Iraq! China out of Tibet! Long live French
Fries! Long live moral indignation!
al @ 2008-05-13 13:16:43
You 've really understood it.
Concerned Citizen @ 2008-05-13 07:27:21
August, I think most people would agree that China has moved from
communism to fascism. Everyone has the utmost respect for the hard work
and sincerity of the Chinese people -- we want them to enjoy the fruits
of their labors and welcome the economic development they have
experienced. However, we don't abide by the lack of basic human rights,
namely freedom of speech and religion, that are enjoyed in many parts of
the world outside of China. The recent crackdown on Tibetan protestors
and the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong, where hundreds of thousands
have been imprisoned and thousands murdered, are some of the many
examples. Our concern is that countries that lack these basic freedoms
eventually become a problem for everyone else. As Mr. Ledeen implies "Is
there a single example of a fascist government ending well?"
Peter Gee @ 2008-05-13 03:01:39
All this anguish from Miss Nguyen, August and others but there is a
problem. The Chinese regime is obviously not communist and certainly not
democratic, so just what is it? Mr.Leeden is immediatly accused of
heaping insult upon China by speculating on it's "fascism", by those who
obviously have never studied what fascism was. They think it merely an
all purpose insult. Rather, it is a political situation with noticeable
features. Tose include hypernationalism (with or without various filters
of racial purity), private enterprise rigidly controlled by the state
(privatized socialism) and severe abscence of, and hostility to,
democracy. One might also add the worship of a mythical, and deeply
"wronged", past which, if allowed to bloom anew, would prove the
superiority that has always been inherent in the genius of the people in
question. Looks like China, sounds like China, tastes like China, though
of course I may be wrong. Miss Nguyen needs to be asked, if China
possessed democratic insitutions, would the Chinese people allow the
forms of abuse they are hidden from at present in Tibet, in the Chinese
non-response to the Burma crisis, Dafur and other events where even the
humanitarian instinct is masked in the obsessive need to make primary
the national interest, as seen by the ruling clique? If the answer is
yes they would allow these abuses, then we surely do not understand
"Asians" ( whoever those are in that broad canvas) as Ms. Nguyen means
them and I am not sure that, on those terms, one would want to. However
I believe that giants like China, when they have broad access to
denocratic rights, will be forced by their masses to act differently to
the loud drum of their current nationalist frenzy.
@ 2008-05-09 09:22:27
Let's suppose that the government can't be more repressive, but the
people like it, love it, be pleased with it as long as long they can
gain economic benefits, what you are gonna do? what's the gnikcuf of
your business? Chinese leaders made promise to the world that China will
follow a path of peaceful development(rise), and never use nuclear
weapons in the first place! Can any of other countries make such promise
to the rest of the world? Most importantly, China is a developing
country, and it is economically, culturally weak comparing to the West,
even China wants to be a Classical Fascism, but there is no chance for
it to be in that you have to be very powerful at least. Also note that
the writter comes from American Enterprise Institute. "American
Enterprise Institute"-huh, what all they sold is all about war,
sanction, confrontation. It is a tragedy that human nature have such a
conservative think tank.
_007 @ 2008-05-09 09:00:10
"Classical Fascism"? If it really is, I think Chinese government will
just close the door to the rest world to disguise how repressive they
are. But as a matter of fact, China is becoming increasingly open. On
the other hand, let's suppose that the government can't be more
repressive, but the people like it, love it, be pleased with it as long
as long they can gain economic benefits, what you are gonna do? what's
the gnikcuf of your business? Chinese leaders made promise to the world
that China will follow a path of peaceful development(rise), and never
use nuclear weapons in the first place! Can any of other countries make
such promise to the rest of the world? Also note that the writter comes
from American Enterprise Institute. "American Enterprise Institute"-huh,
what all they sold is all about war, sanction, confrontation. It is a
tragedy that human nature have such a conservative think tank.
David in China @ 2008-05-08 12:52:54
This article reads like the author has never been to China. First of
all, he conviently forgot to mention an even stronger argument for why
Japan would be more properly considered a mature fascist state than the
economic argument - though there is something to this argument alone.
There is a small contingent in Japanese politics which would, in a
European context, be considered neo-Nazi, through their historical
revisionism which justifies their WWII conduct. (China has historical
revisionism which unfairly glamourizes their past as well of course, but
the difference is that they don't have fascism in their past. So we're
back to classical Communism here.) A second fact that the author
conviently underplays is China's anti-Japanese sentiment at all levels
of society, which will prevent China from developing along the path that
Japan did. This is not like Russia's anti-Naziism, which didn't really
restrain their behavior at all. How do I know this? The time I've spent
here in China. The Chinese really are more concerned with not being
Japan than with not taking advice from foreigners. If China ever did go
down the path of Japan, a simple rhetorical device could put a brick
wall in their path. It's hard to explain to someone who's never been to
China how this would work, but I think few people with experience here
would doubt it. What else? The Carrefour protests were actually
repressed by the government. Chinese have fairly modest tastes in things
like houses, no conspiracy theory there. And Japan manages to have some
pretty unique political views without the need for information
repression - it's just their anti-foreigner attidues that accomplish
that. Many of these aspects of Chinese political culture which people
tend to pick on are actually shared by the benevolent Japanese. It's
hard to take anyone seriously who doesn't understand these aspects of
Confucian culture, which has thousands of years of develpment mostly
isolated from the west. (And though this particular article didn't go
down this road, one shouldn't criticize Confucian culture for its
shortcomings compared the West, because it also has some strengths.
There are few religious wars in East Asian history.) In short, this is a
propaganda article meant to reinforce Western stereotypes about China,
and maybe a good place to go to get ammunition for your next political
debate. But if you want to actually learn more about the way things work
in China, if not going there yourself you might want to at least check
out some other sources. ... I can't believe I just went to the effort to
write all this.
Kelly @ 2008-05-08 03:51:04
Mr. Ledeen is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a NeoCon
think tank whose members include Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the
very group that engineered the disastrous Iraq invasion. Further,
according to AEI, Mr. Ledeen's expertise lies in "Italy; Africa
(Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe); Europe; Intelligence; Middle
East; U.S. foreign policy; Iran; Leadership and the use of power;
Terrorism; U.S.-China relations." Mr. Ledeen may be stretching himself a
little too thin; one cannot be expert in everything. It takes years,
even decades, to learn the Chinese language not to mention Chinese
classics and history to provide proper framework for ones analysis on
China. And yet Mr. Ledeen appears to cover the entire world. So I
question whether he is the best person to write such an article and how
much weight we should give to his theory.
Tian Li @ 2008-05-08 01:21:12
Anyone in China morally strong enough to say that Tibet should not be a
part of China will be marched in front of a firing squad and executed.
That, my freedom loving June 4th Tiananmen Sq. friends, is fascism -
period! NEXT!
Tygr @ 2008-05-08 01:03:14
The Chinese people historically have overthrown more of its own
governments than you can shake a stick at. Has anybody in the West and
its media bothered to realise that maybe, just maybe the Chinese people
on average ACTUALLY support the Chinese governments' policies on many
issues. Frankly I rather have a domestically insecure authoritarian
government that is increasingly sensitive to domestic public opinion
than a democratically elected one that pretty much ignores or pays
superficial lip service to public opinion once in office and then rolls
out the party political marketing machine comes next presidential
election circus. I rather have an authoritarian China that stays in
China than a free and democratic America that goes rampaging around all
the continents of the world like there is no tomorrow. What good is
American domestic freedom of speech to the Iraqi men, women and children
dying because of American "liberation"? Typically selfish narrow minded
American worldview that is always on the lookout for number one and
self-deluded into thinking that everybody shares their ethos and
priorities and must therefore acquiesce to the US' bollocks manifest
destiny.
Augo Knoke @ 2008-05-07 18:04:47
The need to stuff new phenomena into already known little conceptual
boxes and thus reduce our fear of ambiguity seems to be at the bottom of
Mr. Ledeen’s argument. Of course there are similarities in all
authoritarian regimes, because, well, they are authoritarian. But that
would qualify the Soviet Union as a fascist state, too – a large
majority of the Russian citizenry was (and, alas, still is xenophobic),
their somewhat insecure feeling about international status led to
chairman Khrushtshev’s attempt at atomic blackmail against the US during
the Cuban missile crisis, and so on. But Ledeen is trying to
differentiate China from the USSR, and indeed the organisation of the
economy is very different in China. But there are important differences
between China today and Nazi Germany, too. I suspect that is also true
for fascist Italy. The background to Nazism in Germany was the lost war
(WWI) and the economic downturn in the depression. There can be little
doubt that the backbone of the aggressive stance of the Nazi movement
was the very real or feared dispossession of the lower middle classes –
of which Hitler himself was the prime example. Relative prosperity was
evaporating fast and cruelly. Hitler’s economy was expanding because of
massive investments in an infrastructure geared towards and only
sustainable in the expansionist war that finally came about. Now compare
this to China, today. The economy is expanding because of the production
of eminently sellable goods (ask American Unions about it). There are
dangers when growth slows down, as it seems to start to do, and there is
a lot of social upheaval going on in China, right now, already. There
are quite a few people left behind in the countryside, and the
temptation for the rulers might very well be to seek escape valves in an
aggressive external policy. But then, all the winners, the expanding
middle classes of today as well as the princelings would lose a lot in
an aggressive external policy. At the core of the Deng policy was and is
to attain wealth for as many people as quickly as possible in whatever
way, the core of Nazism was to restore, if there ever was, national
greatness. If Chinese development should stall, temptation might grow
for a “fascist” solution. But it is very unwise to confound what might
be with what is because you rob yourself of viable political
alternatives in dealing with powerful authoritarian rulers.
hengyi.zhuang @ 2008-05-07 10:55:11
i want to show all of you this: feer's manager says:" my dear wokers,
let's write sth bad about China" pupil A say:"but China is good" feer's
manager answers:"come on~where is your creation?? and you know what? if
we write such things, more people will come to read, that is money!!"
August @ 2008-05-06 10:00:34
True, most Chinese have zero tolerance for territorial secession, but
most Americans do the same. The American Civil War was fought primarily
not for emancipation but for preserving the union, and was remembered in
that way even well into the middle of the twentieth century. The
Emancipation theme was a later projection largely as a result of civil
rights movement (please read Barry Schwartz's Lincoln book). So it's
inappropriate to liken the Tibet issue with American occupation of Iraq.
Can you imagine how horrible it would be for an ordinary Chinese to
envision his country being broken apart and a lot of his fellow
citizens, either Tibetans, or Muslins, or Hans, driven away from their
home (these people have lived together with each other for centuries--do
not tell me that Tibetan exiles will be lenient angels when they come to
power because Buddhism is intrinsically peaceful)? The Chinese, just
like any people living in a rapidly changing society and already having
experienced a lot of social dislocation and dizziness, are extremely
hungry for social stability. That's why they are so horrified by the
riots. So yes, most Chinese are quite unanimous in terms of the
sovereignty issue. But apart from that, there are a lot of public
debates and discussions going on in China in terms of Tibet policies as
well as other policies. However constrained Chinese media freedom is,
remember the civil society there is every growing and vibrant. Such
public debates and discussions you can read in many national newspapers
and journals. People in the U.S. and the West simply do not know about
all these things because Western journalists and academics are too lazy
and arrogant to read them. They only want to see what they wish to see.
Western journalists only read People's Daily and say, "this is too bad.
let's go listen to the authentic Chinese voice." So they go to interview
the Chinese "dissidents" who have already approached them and made
friends with them, yet who are extremely marginalized and unpopular in
China. These lazy journalists never listen to the middle stratum and
never bother reading Chinese newspapers, etc. American scholars do not
talk to Chinese intellectuals except those who would like to talk to
them. That's why they always end up knowing nothing new and real. To be
honest, the way that Americans learn to know things in China today bears
striking similarity with the way the Chinese learned to know things in
the U.S. four decades ago, when they just approached their communist
friends in America and asked："tell me what's going on in your country"!
It is a strategic failure for the Americans just it was for the Chinese.
Josie Nguyen @ 2008-05-06 02:28:47
I'm not a fan of the current Chinese regime in China but I have to say I
find Mr. Ledeen's characterization of China as a fascist state
intellectually dishonest, war provoking and underneath it all is a
manifestation of a deep sense of moral self-righteousness. If this piece
of writing represents the view of a state, it can safely be
characterized as a declaration of war on China and Mr. Ledeen will
deserve to be recorded in the history book as the devil who started it
all. If I were Chinese, it certainly would make my blood boil.
Westerners just don't understand Asians and frankly Chinese are not
unique in their reaction to Western media in regards to the Tibet issue.
Try to find an issue and invite those well-paid Western journalists do
the same thing to Vietnam, Japan, South/North Korea, India, Burma
etc...or Russia for that matter and they soon will find out what
nationalism means on the streets and among ordinary people.
@ 2008-05-04 15:59:55
i agree with him.
@ 2008-05-04 06:11:50
To the person who made the 1st comment: Yes you have a good point. But
with a country that is ranked one of the lowest in media freedom I find
something dangerous. American's are complacent...true...but we have
political fights back and forth. It's not like either the anti-war or
pro-war movements have been politically silenced. The U.S. allows both
sides to express their points of view. As far as I know...there are no
protests for pro-Tibetans in the mainland (maybe only Tibet). Where do
Chinese people express their grievances? China also "liberated" Tibet.
The U.S. "liberated" Iraq. Are powerful states really so different?
Yes...American's were on both sides. Some wanted war some didnt. I don't
know any movement in China strong enough to say that Tibet should not be
a part of China. The PRC "liberated" Tibet with no political opposition.
I do agree that maybe the author took it a little bit too far...I don't
think that Hu Jintao is a Hitler or a Mussolini. However, you can't
ignore the fact that the Chinese have been bringing out the rhetoric
that all these disputed lands have always been a part of China.
Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Spratley Islands....Why are the Chinese so
quick to say "Is and always will be part of China." Wheres the dissent?
There should be people out there who can express their grievances with
the government. Modern western governments allows political dissent.
China does not. When a country of 1.3 billion has no political
dissent...something is wrong.
August @ 2008-05-04 01:13:47
I am curious why when it comes to the U.S., you call it patriotism
whereas when it comes to China, you call it nationalism and even
fascism? Of course, the Chinese want political freedom but doesn't that
freedom we all agree on include the freedom from the interference from
foreign powers? Why, did you rename French fries to freedom fries when
the French try to "interfere" your invasion of Iraq? Tell me what did
you mean by freedom fries? The freedom to invade other countries
according to your wishful thinking of "liberating" them without asking
them if they really want your "liberation"? Mr Ledeen definitely has no
tolerance for people of other countries to have the freedom from
American arrogant imposition and denial of their voices. Well, if all
the people around the world have their political representation in
Washington D.C., they might not mind losing such a freedom. Then, let
America blow up! Otherwise, please do not denigrate people in other
countries who have different views from yours as fascists. Nobody in
this world lacks moral self-righteousness.
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Michael Ledeen calls China a fascist state and the Chinese
government proves him right by censoring him!
<http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html>
The following note appears in the May 30 entry on Michael Ledeen's blog
<http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/>:
Modern life offers many happy moments, but I’m particularly indebted
to the People’s Republic of China for censoring the latest issue of
the Far East Economic Review, which featured an article of mine on
the cover. As Rowan Scarborough was kind enough to point out, the
folks at FEER had asked me to update an old think piece, in which I
had argued that contemporary China is difficult for us to
understand, because it is something we haven’t seen before: the
world’s first mature fascist state....
And here is the beginning of his censored piece in the /Far Eastern
Economic Review/
<http://feer.com/essays/2008/may/beijing-embraces-classical-fascism?searched=ledeen&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1>:
*Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism*
In 2002, I speculated that China may be something we have never seen
before: a mature fascist state. Recent events there, especially the
mass rage in response to Western criticism, seem to confirm that
theory. More significantly, over the intervening six years China’s
leaders have consolidated their hold on the organs of
control—political, economic and cultural. Instead of gradually
embracing pluralism as many expected, China’s corporatist elite has
become even more entrenched.
Even though they still call themselves communists, and the Communist
Party rules the country, classical fascism should be the starting
point for our efforts to understand the People’s Republic. Imagine
Italy 50 years after the fascist revolution. Mussolini would be dead
and buried, the corporate state would be largely intact, the party
would be firmly in control, and Italy would be governed by
professional politicians, part of a corrupt elite, rather than the
true believers who had marched on Rome. It would no longer be a
system based on charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on
political repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical,
not idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals
to the grandeur of the “great Italian people,” “endlessly summoned
to emulate the greatness of its ancestors.”
Substitute in the “great Chinese people” and it all sounds familiar.
We are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either
politically or economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who
followed the radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all
interested in treading the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism
to democracy. They know that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to
control the economy while giving political freedom. They are
attempting the opposite, keeping a firm grip on political power
while permitting relatively free areas of economic enterprise. Their
political methods are quite like those used by the European fascists
80 years ago.
Unlike traditional communist dictators—Mao, for example—who
extirpated traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile
Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese now enthusiastically, even
compulsively, embrace the glories of China’s long history. Their
passionate reassertion of the greatness of past dynasties has both
entranced and baffled Western observers, because it does not fit the
model of an “evolving communist system.”
Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s used exactly the same
device. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder
of ancient glories, and he used ancient history to justify the
conquest of Libya and Ethiopia. Hitler’s favorite architect built
neoclassical buildings throughout the Third Reich, and his favorite
operatic composer organized festivals to celebrate the country’s
mythic past....
Later in the piece, he discusses the delusion that China's growing
wealth makes it more Democratic and less dangerous. The opposite is
true. He wrote:
How, then, should the democracies deal with China? The first step is
to disabuse ourselves of the notion that wealth is the surest
guarantor of peace. The West traded with the Soviet Union, and gave
them credits as well, but it did not prevent the Kremlin from
expanding into the Horn of Africa, or sponsoring terrorist groups in
Europe and the Middle East. A wealthy China will not automatically
be less inclined to go to war over Taiwan, or, for that matter, to
wage or threaten war with Japan.
Indeed, the opposite may be true—the richer and stronger China
becomes, the more they build up their military might, the more
likely such wars may be. It follows that the West must prepare for
war with China, hoping thereby to deter it. A great Roman once said
that if you want peace, prepare for war. This is sound advice with
regard to a fascist Chinese state that wants to play a global role.
Senator Obama has stated that he is pleased that United States trade
policy is stabilizing this fascist regime. Specifically, here is a
selection from his remarks when he spoke to the Alliance for American
manufacturing in Pittsburgh on April 14 2008
<http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/14/remarks_for_senator_barack_oba_5.php>:
Seeing the living standards of the Chinese people improve is a good
thing - good because we want a stable China, and good because China
can be a powerful market for American exports. But too often, China
has been competing in ways that are tilting the playing field.
Senator McCain was more realistic about China's fascist government in a
column that he wrote with Senator Lieberman on May 27
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121183670827020887.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>.
They wrote:
China's rapid military modernization, mercantilist economic
practices, lack of political freedom and close relations with
regimes like Sudan and Burma undermine the very international system
on which its rise depends. The next American president must build on
the areas of overlapping interest to forge a more durable U.S.-China
relationship. Doing so will require strong alliances with other
Asian nations and a readiness to speak openly with Beijing when it
fails to behave as a responsible stakeholder.
Howard
Posted by Howard Richman at 1:24 PM
<http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/2008/06/michael-ledeen-calls-china-facist-state.html>