Fascist Discussion Thread.

[Riasy]

So then your finding is that China is a Fascist nation?

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

Modern China isn't militaristic at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

And right now China not espouses the cult of charismatic leader, which is also important attribute of fascism.

No, not this. The Eastern Bloc was far from Fascist, it was pure Socialist. Especially in Yugoslavia.

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

In Warsaw Pact countries the workers were the owners of the state, therefore they also owned the means of production. Of course the absence of genuine democratic control over the state apparatus made such form of collective ownership quite immaterial. Still, the absence of emphasis on ultra-nationalism, anti-egalitarianism and Third Positionism removes the possibility for interpreting these states as fascist states. Placing the label "fascism" on everything remotely authoritarian and nationalistic is unscientific.

[The Scientific States]

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

Modern China isn't militaristic at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

And right now China not espouses the cult of charismatic leader, which is also important attribute of fascism.

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

In Warsaw Pact countries the workers were the owners of the state, therefore they also owned the means of production. Of course the absence of genuine democratic control over the state apparatus made such form of collective ownership quite immaterial. Still, the absence of emphasis on ultra-nationalism, anti-egalitarianism and Third Positionism removes the possibility for interpreting these states as fascist states. Placing the label "fascism" on everything remotely authoritarian and nationalistic is unscientific.

China isn't fascist, but it certainly is state socialist and authoritian.

Agreed. The Eastern Bloc certainty wasn't socialist, but they weren't fascist. They were a bunch of Left Wing Authoritarians.

[Grenartia]

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

1. In Warsaw Pact countries the workers were the owners of the state, therefore they also owned the means of production. Of course the absence of genuine democratic control over the state apparatus made such form of collective ownership quite immaterial. Still, the absence of emphasis on ultra-nationalism, anti-egalitarianism and Third Positionism removes the possibility for interpreting these states as fascist states. 2. Placing the label "fascism" on everything remotely authoritarian and nationalistic is unscientific.

1. Bullshit. They owned neither. If you think they did, you're misinformed.

2. Maybe if there were an actual objective definition of fascism. But there's not. Fascism was basically anything Mussolini wanted it to be, which usually changed faster than the weather. Also, where does science fit into this?

[Unio de Sovetaj Socialismaj Respublikoj]

There are videos "proving" world leaders are alien reptilians. Your point?
The holocaust did happen and it was worse than most people think it was, stop saying it didn't happen I find it very offensive.

well use your common sense to see what's real and what's fake. There are people that were in the concentrations camps that didn't see any of the things some jews claimed to have seen. The math also doesnt add up, and tbh we should stop it there, kind of getting off topic and the mods wouldn't bet very happy

I bet the people who "didn't" see the atrocities worked at the camps. How does the math not add up, could you explain and show some evidence please.

[Riasy]

1. Bullshit. They owned neither. If you think they did, you're misinformed.

Well, at least according to the Soviet Constitution the USSR was "a socialist state of workers and peasants", and all the power in it belonged to "the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies". And the state property was "the possession of the whole people". I suspect that similar provisions also existed in constitutions of other Warsaw Pact countries.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html

Even though the state apparatus exercised control over the means of production, the working people still continued to be the formal owners of the state property. But it is important to understand that ownership without control means very little, and due to rampant falsification of the democratic process in the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries the workers were unable to actually exercise control over the state apparatus and the state property.

Adequate legal and economic framework was already present, and only the absence of genuine democratic process has made socialism in Warsaw Pact countries dysfunctional. But dysfunctional socialism is not the same thing as fascism.

2. Maybe if there were an actual objective definition of fascism. But there's not. Fascism was basically anything Mussolini wanted it to be, which usually changed faster than the weather. Also, where does science fit into this?

I'm just saying that definitions shouldn't be used at random. Such excessively wide application of this term makes it absolutely useless for defining anything. Fascism is not another synonym for dictatorship, but the name for a quite specific branch of ideologies and political movements that were created as a right-wing reaction against the Communism and Liberalism, with specific intent to emulate the mobilizing potential of revolutionary left-wing movements. You cannot simply ignore such core characteristics of fascist ideologies as Third Positionism, ultra-nationalism and anti-internationalism, militarism, general cult of violence and cult of the leader.

[Old Tyrannia]

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

Nationalism? Always been a part of Chinese society, that's nothing new.

Nationalism as a concept only became part of Chinese society in the late 19th century. Imperial Era Sinocentrism isn't really the same thing as nationalism; the Chinese regarded themselves as civilized, while other nations were "barbarians" or, at best, tributary states to the Empire; however the concept of China as a nation-state is a relatively new one among the Chinese. China has only officially been known as "China" since the Xinhai Revolution; previously it was known as the Empire of the Great Qing, after the ruling dynasty, before that as the Great Ming after the then ruling dynasty, etc. If anything, sinocentrism was opposed to nationalism in that it denied the existence of the nation-state at all- all lands were ruled by the Emperor, the Son of Heaven; "China" was just the centre of a global empire, populated both by loyal subjects and barbarians who were in denial of the fact that they were ultimately subject to the ruling Imperial dynasty.

Militarism? Please, if they were Militaristic then their military wouldn't be such a joke in terms of equipment and technology.

"Militarism" is more about the role of the military in society than how powerful the military was. Sparta was a highly militaristic society, but its military was inferior to that Rome and Macedon. The Zulus were militaristic- the British still had every advantage in war. The People's Republic of China's military isn't "a joke," it is less advanced than those of the Western powers but that's not because they don't care. It's because they're behind in terms of military technology. North Korea's army is a joke, yet it's probably the most militaristic nation on the planet.

Authoritarianism? Yeah, that kinda comes with being a corrupt Hell-hole.

Funny, coming from a fascist.

Revolutionary? That's not a part of Fascism, that's a part of Socialism.

Fascism is a revolutionary ideology. It seeks to seize power and radically reorganise society along ideological lines; the fact that fascists have a different idea of what the result of the revolution should be to socialists doesn't change the fact that they are both revolutionary ideologies, opposed to the "establishment".

Mixed economy? No, Fascism is Totalitarian alone, while China is State Capitalist.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

[Grenartia]

1. Bullshit. They owned neither. If you think they did, you're misinformed.

1. Well, at least according to the Soviet Constitution the USSR was "a socialist state of workers and peasants", and all the power in it belonged to "the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies". And the state property was "the possession of the whole people". I suspect that similar provisions also existed in constitutions of other Warsaw Pact countries.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html

Even though the state apparatus exercised control over the means of production, the working people still continued to be the formal owners of the state property. But it is important to understand that ownership without control means very little, and due to rampant falsification of the democratic process in the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries the workers were unable to actually exercise control over the state apparatus and the state property.

Adequate legal and economic framework was already present, and only the absence of genuine democratic process has made socialism in Warsaw Pact countries dysfunctional. But dysfunctional socialism is not the same thing as fascism.

2. Maybe if there were an actual objective definition of fascism. But there's not. Fascism was basically anything Mussolini wanted it to be, which usually changed faster than the weather. Also, where does science fit into this?

I'm just saying that definitions shouldn't be used at random. Such excessively wide application of this term makes it absolutely useless for defining anything. Fascism is not another synonym for dictatorship, but the name for a quite specific branch of ideologies and political movements that were created as a right-wing reaction against the Communism and Liberalism, with specific intent to emulate the mobilizing potential of revolutionary left-wing movements. You cannot simply ignore such core characteristics of fascist ideologies as Third Positionism, ultra-nationalism and anti-internationalism, militarism, general cult of violence and cult of the leader.

1. Yes, and North Korea's constitution says that its citizens have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Just because a country's constitution says something, doesn't really mean its true. Also, if you have no rightful control over something, you by default, cannot be considered to own it. The workers, therefore, had no ownership of the means of production and no ownership of the state.

2. Lets go with the dictionary definition of fascism, shall we?

1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Sounds like the description of literally every Soviet-backed nation (and the Soviet Onion itself) to me.

[Seaxeland]

1. It wasn't anything like Fascism, it's not a fact. 2. Just because the workers didn't own the means of production doesn't mean it wasn't Socialist. 3. That's one aspect of an entire ideology.

1. Bullshit. They pulled their operating procedures right out of the Fascist Playbook.

2. Actually, it rather does. Because that's literally THE FUCKING DEFINITION of socialism.

3. Not just "one aspect" but the DEFINING ASPECT of the ideology. In the same way that a lizard is not a cow, no matter how much you paint it white with black spots, the Eastern bloc was not socialist.

I honestly forgot about the Paris Commune. Lenin and Marx held it up as a good example. Soviet citizens where conscripted for two-three years. That's integrating the military into society.

Soviet propaganda is enough of a source. Just look at the shit they put out and you'll see what I mean. You may be right about the Warsaw Pact, but they still didn't like foreigners very much.

Actually, the Warsaw Pact states were to the USSR what the various occupation governments under the Third Reich were to Nazi Germany.

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

FASCIST BINGO!

I do deny it happened

Then you're severely misinformed. The Holocaust is undeniable fact. Just like the Earth isn't flat, the Holocaust isn't faked. There does not exist enough money in the world to buy the literally millions of people necessary to keep up such a charade. And don't tell me they're all kept in check by fear, because they'd still require multiple metric shittons of money to buy whatever methods of intimidation they're using.

I'm sorry, but you don't honestly expect me to believe this complete bullshit do you? Just because a country is Authoritarian doesn't make it Fascist.

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

Modern China isn't militaristic at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

And right now China not espouses the cult of charismatic leader, which is also important attribute of fascism.

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

In Warsaw Pact countries the workers were the owners of the state, therefore they also owned the means of production. Of course the absence of genuine democratic control over the state apparatus made such form of collective ownership quite immaterial. Still, the absence of emphasis on ultra-nationalism, anti-egalitarianism and Third Positionism removes the possibility for interpreting these states as fascist states. Placing the label "fascism" on everything remotely authoritarian and nationalistic is unscientific.

Fascism is about the state, not the leader. Cults of Personality are not important attributes to Fascism.

1. In Warsaw Pact countries the workers were the owners of the state, therefore they also owned the means of production. Of course the absence of genuine democratic control over the state apparatus made such form of collective ownership quite immaterial. Still, the absence of emphasis on ultra-nationalism, anti-egalitarianism and Third Positionism removes the possibility for interpreting these states as fascist states. 2. Placing the label "fascism" on everything remotely authoritarian and nationalistic is unscientific.

1. Bullshit. They owned neither. If you think they did, you're misinformed.

2. Maybe if there were an actual objective definition of fascism. But there's not. Fascism was basically anything Mussolini wanted it to be, which usually changed faster than the weather. Also, where does science fit into this?

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed, right?

As for that second statement, which is horseshit by the way, now I know I can't believe anything that comes out of your mouth since it's backed up by your opinion and your opinion alone, and completely disregards the facts. Have a nice day.

Nationalism? Always been a part of Chinese society, that's nothing new.

Nationalism as a concept only became part of Chinese society in the late 19th century. Imperial Era Sinocentrism isn't really the same thing as nationalism; the Chinese regarded themselves as civilized, while other nations were "barbarians" or, at best, tributary states to the Empire; however the concept of China as a nation-state is a relatively new one among the Chinese. China has only officially been known as "China" since the Xinhai Revolution; previously it was known as the Empire of the Great Qing, after the ruling dynasty, before that as the Great Ming after the then ruling dynasty, etc. If anything, sinocentrism was opposed to nationalism in that it denied the existence of the nation-state at all- all lands were ruled by the Emperor, the Son of Heaven; "China" was just the centre of a global empire, populated both by loyal subjects and barbarians who were in denial of the fact that they were ultimately subject to the ruling Imperial dynasty.

Militarism? Please, if they were Militaristic then their military wouldn't be such a joke in terms of equipment and technology.

"Militarism" is more about the role of the military in society than how powerful the military was. Sparta was a highly militaristic society, but its military was inferior to that Rome and Macedon. The Zulus were militaristic- the British still had every advantage in war. The People's Republic of China's military isn't "a joke," it is less advanced than those of the Western powers but that's not because they don't care. It's because they're behind in terms of military technology. North Korea's army is a joke, yet it's probably the most militaristic nation on the planet.

Authoritarianism? Yeah, that kinda comes with being a corrupt Hell-hole.

Funny, coming from a fascist.

Revolutionary? That's not a part of Fascism, that's a part of Socialism.

Fascism is a revolutionary ideology. It seeks to seize power and radically reorganise society along ideological lines; the fact that fascists have a different idea of what the result of the revolution should be to socialists doesn't change the fact that they are both revolutionary ideologies, opposed to the "establishment".

Mixed economy? No, Fascism is Totalitarian alone, while China is State Capitalist.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

Fine, it's always been a part of modern China, happy now?

North Korea is the only Militaristic country on the planet, and it's military is a joke because it doesn't have the money to make it what it claims to be. China is the same way, only they're too busy lining their own pockets to give a shit. They figure numbers win wars, not equipment, and I know of several different historical leaders that would love to smack them upside the head and prove them wrong.

Funny? How? Corrupt Hell-holes, like China, are always Authoritarian. It's so they can keep their money and power. I didn't say all Authoritarian states are corrupt Hell-holes.

Fascism is radical, Socialism is revolutionary. There's a difference.

Totalitarianism =/= State Capitalism

[Neo Philippine Empire]

Actually, he slaughtered:

-Serbs

-Russian Slavs

-Roma

-Sephardic Jews

-Poles

-Ukranians

-Czechs


His forces also targeted LGBTWQ individuals, Communists, Esperanto speakers, political enemies, and almost anybody else that his paranoid mind could summon up.


Do you deny that the Holocaust happened?

I do deny it happened

I was a Fascist before, but the Holocaust did happen.What book are you always reading dude or perhaps you just saw a barrage of Neo-Nazi comments that declare that it was fake. If it was fake then explain the the pictures and the nearly dying survivors, are you going to say that the Zionists was the one who starved them to death and made the camps to destroy the entire Fscist ideology?

[Riasy]

Fascism is about the state, not the leader. Cults of Personality are not important attributes to Fascism.

Historically, the cult of strong leader that would be able to personify the will of the nation was important trait of many fascist movements.

1. Yes, and North Korea's constitution says that its citizens have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Just because a country's constitution says something, doesn't really mean its true. Also, if you have no rightful control over something, you by default, cannot be considered to own it. The workers, therefore, had no ownership of the means of production and no ownership of the state.

I think that you don’t understand the difference between the ownership and control. These things weren't separated only in some early forms of capitalism. I guess, now you will also assert that in Nazi Germany the private ownership over the means of production hasn't existed because the state had nearly absolute control over the private corporations. But even in the modern Western democracies the ownership and control over the means of production became more and more divided. Soviet society simply experienced more extreme form of separation between the ownership and control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Corporation_and_Private_Property

2. Lets go with the dictionary definition of fascism, shall we?

1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Sounds like the description of literally every Soviet-backed nation (and the Soviet Onion itself) to me.

Oh yeah, and according to the same dictionary USSR was a proper socialist society because it had:

1. governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2b. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think it isn’t very good idea to use dictionaries as a source of accurate definitions for political ideologies.

[Greater Mackonia]

North Korea is the only Militaristic country on the planet

Militaristic does not necessarily have to mean an entire society built around the military in the same way socialist does not always mean a country where the workers control the means of production.

I would say quite a few places around the world have militaristic tendencies, places where the military is greatly respected by society and is generally given a fair bit of importance in the government, the United States of America is one that comes to mind.

[Grenartia]

Fascism is about the state, not the leader. Cults of Personality are not important attributes to Fascism.

Historically, the cult of strong leader that would be able to personify the will of the nation was important trait of many fascist movements.

1. Yes, and North Korea's constitution says that its citizens have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Just because a country's constitution says something, doesn't really mean its true. Also, if you have no rightful control over something, you by default, cannot be considered to own it. The workers, therefore, had no ownership of the means of production and no ownership of the state.

I think that you don’t understand the difference between the ownership and control. These things weren't separated only in some early forms of capitalism. I guess, now you will also assert that in Nazi Germany the private ownership over the means of production hasn't existed because the state had nearly absolute control over the private corporations. But even in the modern Western democracies the ownership and control over the means of production became more and more divided. Soviet society simply experienced more extreme form of separation between the ownership and control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Corporation_and_Private_Property

2. Lets go with the dictionary definition of fascism, shall we?



Sounds like the description of literally every Soviet-backed nation (and the Soviet Onion itself) to me.

Oh yeah, and according to the same dictionary USSR was a proper socialist society because it had:

1. governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2b. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think it isn’t very good idea to use dictionaries as a source of accurate definitions for political ideologies.

1. I understand the difference between ownership and control. However, you can't have ownership of something unless you rightfully control it. Because that's exactly what ownership implies.

2. Granted.

[The Grey Wolf]

No, not this. The Eastern Bloc was far from Fascist, it was pure Socialist. Especially in Yugoslavia.

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

No true Scotsman, eh?

[Duvniask]

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

No true Scotsman, eh?

Not this stupid shit again.

You obviously don't know what "no true Scotsman" is. It requires a shifting of the goal posts, and no such thing has been done here.

[Seaxeland]

North Korea is the only Militaristic country on the planet

Militaristic does not necessarily have to mean an entire society built around the military in the same way socialist does not always mean a country where the workers control the means of production.

I would say quite a few places around the world have militaristic tendencies, places where the military is greatly respected by society and is generally given a fair bit of importance in the government, the United States of America is one that comes to mind.

You clearly don't know what Militarism is.

No true Scotsman, eh?

Not this stupid shit again.

You obviously don't know what "no true Scotsman" is. It requires a shifting of the goal posts, and no such thing has been done here.

He apparently does know what it means since he's using it correctly.

[Duvniask]

Not this stupid shit again.

You obviously don't know what "no true Scotsman" is. It requires a shifting of the goal posts, and no such thing has been done here.

He apparently does know what it means since he's using it correctly.

He's not, and I just explained why in the simplest way possible.

[Grenartia]

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

No true Scotsman, eh?

No, not really. Words have meaning. And by the very definition of socialism, the Eastern bloc was not socialist, and had more in common with fascism than any other system.

[Riasy]

1. I understand the difference between ownership and control. However, you can't have ownership of something unless you rightfully control it. Because that's exactly what ownership implies.

Corporate shareholders in some cases may possess only limited control over their corporation, but they are still the only owners of this corporation. On the other hand managers of this corporation may have much greater degree of control over the corporation, but so long as they don't own its shares they aren't its owners. Government in some cases may decide to directly intervene into the affairs of the corporation, but this alone doesn't make government the owner of this corporation.

Owning something doesn't necessitate the ability to control this thing, and control over something doesn't make it necessary to become the owner of this thing. These two conceptions never were completely united, and it is definitely possible to completely disconnect them from each other.

USSR de facto was an example of society in which the ownership and control were completely disconnected. Soviet working people owned the state property, but had no control over it, and Soviet bureaucrats had full control over the state property, but weren't its owners. Such situation made Soviet socialism dysfunctional, but it hasn't transformed it into fascism.

[Grenartia]

1. I understand the difference between ownership and control. However, you can't have ownership of something unless you rightfully control it. Because that's exactly what ownership implies.

Corporate shareholders in some cases may possess only limited control over their corporation, but they are still the only owners of this corporation. On the other hand managers of this corporation may have much greater degree of control over the corporation, but so long as they don't own its shares they aren't its owners. Government in some cases may decide to directly intervene into the affairs of the corporation, but this alone doesn't make government the owner of this corporation.

Owning something doesn't necessitate the ability to control this thing, and control over something doesn't make it necessary to become the owner of this thing. These two conceptions never were completely united, and it is definitely possible to completely disconnect them from each other.

USSR de facto was an example of society in which the ownership and control were completely disconnected. Soviet working people owned the state property, but had no control over it, and Soviet bureaucrats had full control over the state property, but weren't its owners. Such situation made Soviet socialism dysfunctional, but it hasn't transformed it into fascism.

What's the purpose of owning something you don't control?

[Glasgia]

Nationalism? Check.
Militarism? Check.
Authoritarianism? Check.
Revolutionary? Check.
Mixed economy? Check.

1) Nationalism? Always been a part of Chinese society, that's nothing new.
2) Militarism? Please, if they were Militaristic then their military wouldn't be such a joke in terms of equipment and technology.
3) Authoritarianism? Yeah, that kinda comes with being a corrupt Hell-hole.
4) Revolutionary? That's not a part of Fascism, that's a part of Socialism.
5) Mixed economy? No, Fascism is Totalitarian alone, while China is State Capitalist.

1) True, still exists. Perhaps you could say that's adherent to the traditionalist sector of Fascism
2) They are militaristic. However, due to the costs associated with such a large military and general poverty within the nation, they cannot afford to equip their massive army with good equipment
3) Again, still exists.
4) Fascism is, always has been and, for the foreseeable future, always will be a revolutionary ideology. However, there are two major sects of Socialism of which only the more minor sect is revolutionary and the other reformist
5) Fascism advocates a mixed economy, where parts are owned by the state and other parts privately. Whether or not the government then chooses to indirectly control those other parts, is a different matter.

Bullshit. It was fascism in socialism's clothing. IF it were truly socialism, then where was the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the state is not the workers. The simple fact is, the Eastern bloc was fascist.

No true Scotsman, eh?

No true Scotsman? Come here mate, I'll show you what a true Scotsman is and what he can do with his fists

[Riasy]

2) They are militaristic. However, due to the costs associated with such a large military and general poverty within the nation, they cannot afford to equip their massive army with good equipment

Right now China is less militaristic than even Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

What's the purpose of owning something you don't control?

Of course preservation of such situation didn't have any constructive purpose, that's why Soviet socialism was dysfunctional. The only positive moment was the fact that theoretically it was easy to cure such disconnection by gradual democratization. But unfortunately Stalin was a violent tyrant with unstoppable power lust, and leaders after him were very conservative and stupid. As a result such a perfect opportunity to achieve important psychological victory over capitalism was botched. And by the time when someone sensible finally has come to power everything already became so rotten that it was extremely hard to save the situation.

But this situation has nothing to do with fascism. It was a tragedy of the society that has frozen right in the middle of revolutionary transformation out of capitalism into socialism and as a result became victim of internal contradictions caused by such attempt to put revolutionary process on pause.

[Glasgia]

2) They are militaristic. However, due to the costs associated with such a large military and general poverty within the nation, they cannot afford to equip their massive army with good equipment

Right now China is less militaristic than even Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

"◾comparison of military expenditure with its health expenditure;" Would you not agree that this is strange to include in such an index? Especially considering China's massive healthcare budget in order to provide universal healthcare for a population of two billion. Either the index is purposely biased or just majorly flawed.

[Alyakia]

Right now China is less militaristic than even Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

"◾comparison of military expenditure with its health expenditure;" Would you not agree that this is strange to include in such an index? Especially considering China's massive healthcare budget in order to provide universal healthcare for a population of two billion. Either the index is purposely biased or just majorly flawed.

gonna take a wild guess and say they also have a massive military budget to protect that population of 1.3 billion. indeed, perhaps something could be gleamed from how much they spend on their military compared to their healthcare, hmm...

[Riasy]

Right now China is less militaristic than even Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

"◾comparison of military expenditure with its health expenditure;" Would you not agree that this is strange to include in such an index? Especially considering China's massive healthcare budget in order to provide universal healthcare for a population of two billion. Either the index is purposely biased or just majorly flawed.

I don’t see anything strange in such approach. It is absolutely reasonable to measure the level of militarism by comparing the readiness of government to pump money into its military with its readiness to spend money on healing its own population.

But you always can look at other ratings. Chinese ratio of military expenditures to its GDP is smaller than in countries like UK, France and India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Its military expenditures per capita are also reasonable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures_per_capita

And its number of military and paramilitary personnel per capita is very modest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Unlike USA and Russia modern China isn't militaristic.

[The De Danann Nation]

No true Scotsman, eh?

No true Scotsman? Come here mate, I'll show you what a true Scotsman is and what he can do with his fists

Making threats on the internet I see.