论从修正主义蜕变成法西斯主义的理论和实际（双语 bilingual） 所有跟贴·加跟贴·论坛主页(分页) 送交者: 行不得也 于 November 19, 2002 20:44:41:[新观察/xgc2000.net] 《人民春秋》 2002 年 3 月 15 日 总第 23 期 http://maostudy.org-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 论从修正主义蜕变成法西斯主义的理论和实际 无套裤汉 https://www.xgc2000.net/xgc/02/11/24219.html https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDgxNzUw 
一篇发表在《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal, 02-22-02）题目叫 《从共产主义到法西斯主义？》的文章里，作者M A Ledeen认为中国正 在实行法西斯主义。这个看法当然不能说全部错误，但是，他至少错误地 混淆了修正主义和共产主义之间的严格区别。正确地说，不是所谓共产主 义而是现代修正主义蜕化为一种特色法西斯主义。（到现在为止，还没有 任何社会实现过人类的伟大理想－共产主义）。全世界到达共产主义社会 之后，国家消亡了，阶级斗争让位于新与旧、先进和落后、前进和保守之 间的矛盾和斗争，那时不但法西斯主义，即使科学社会主义也要让位，共 产主义又何以能够“到”法西斯主义？作者虽然勤于思考，但是他没有能 够正确掌握马克思主义的基本知识，这是一个在基本观点上的错误。
作者的第二个错误是把欧洲法西斯主义作为一个通属概念，而没有区别对 待现代修正主义本身特点所演化出来的特色法西斯主义，并加以分析异同 和相互联系。现代修正主义即右倾机会主义，是对于社会主义的否定和向 资本主义复辟倒退；但是否定和肯定是对立面的统一，互相联系和渗透并 互相依存，所以，修正主义不能完全和绝对地脱离社会主义的“束缚”， 而必然要受到后者残存物质一定程度的影响。所以蜕化自现代修正主义 的法西斯主义一方面具有通属性法西斯主义的许多规定，但是它又有自己 的特殊性，所以是一种具有自己特色的法西斯主义。在现代修正主义中， 中国社会主义被否定后出台的（邓赵江）修正主义所蜕化出来的特色法西 斯主义与前苏联社会帝国主义所演化而来的特色法西斯主义也不相同，这 是因为中俄两国的历史发展不同的缘故。列宁说：“大家都同意，机会主 义不是偶然的现象，不是个别人物的罪孽、疏忽和叛变，而是整个历史时 代的社会产物。”（《第二国际的破产》，《选集》2，第614－665页） 一 个重要历史特点和区别就在于19世纪俄国曾经是帝国主义国家，而中 国是几个帝国主义的半殖民地。苏联特色法西斯主义因此是内外同质的， 也就是对内、对外都是法西斯主义，也就是战争、侵略和霸权主义为其主 调；现实上的中国特色法西斯主义刚好相反，它是对内法西斯主义，对外 屈从和投降帝国主义，也就是半殖民地资本主义经济结构决定了它的对外 政治结构的非法西斯主义性质。在这里，当然谈不到什么战争、侵略和霸 权主义，体现着的倒是屈辱、投降和附庸买办等半殖民地一般规定性。
作者的第三个错误是把文化等上层建筑决定经济结构，没有从历史发展做 具体分析，因此对于中国法西斯主义的讨论表面化，不够深入，令人有浮 光掠影的感觉。社会阶级斗争是一切历史发展的根源，不从阶级分析入手 ，社会问题就会停止在社会现象阶段，得不到要领。另外，作者强调共性 过头，把个性抛在脑后，这当会然得出以偏概全的－欧洲法西斯主义在中 国复活的错误结论来。
根据毛泽东继续革命论，“修正主义上台，也就是资产阶级上台。”这是 千真万确的、适用于中苏两国的。他进一步指出苏修叛徒集团篡夺苏联党 政大权之后，迅速膨胀它的政治经济权力，形成一个掌握全部国家机器和 社会财富的官僚垄断资产阶级。它利用国家政权，全面推行反革命修正主 义路线，把无产阶级专政蜕变成官僚垄断资产阶级的专政，“德国法西斯 式的专政，希特勒式的专政。”即实现了资本主义复辟，从一个社会主义 国家蜕变成一个社会帝国主义国家，也就是“口头上的社会主义实际上的 帝国主义。”（毛泽东：1964年5月11日的一次谈话。转引自《列宁主义 ，还是社会帝国主义？》，见1970年4月22日《人民日报》。）
半殖民地资本主义中国虽然也和苏联一样复辟了资本主义，但是没有从社 会主义国家蜕变成一个社会帝国主义，而是蜕变成一个社会半殖民地国家 ，无产阶级专政蜕变成官僚买办资产阶级和帝国主义联合专政，而不是如 同前社帝那样蜕变成官僚垄断资产阶级，所以（至少到现在为止）还没有 完成“德国法西斯式的专政，希特勒式的专政，”这些都明显反映了恩格 斯所说：“唯物史观是以一定历史时期的物质经济生活条件来说明一切历 史事变和观念、一切政治、哲学和宗教的。”（《马恩选集》2，第537页 ）
中国修正主义虽然没有如同苏联修正主义那样，蜕变成一个德国法西斯式 专政，希特勒式专政，但是由于同样利用原有的革命的国家机器来全面推 行反革命修正主义路线，因而具有欧洲法西斯主义原生反革命的一般内容 。一个浅显的例子是中国特色和德国纳粹法西斯主义都不准工人罢工和拥 有群众民主权力－在中国这就是毛泽东极力提倡的、载在宪法的《四大》 权力。法西斯主义在掌权之前吸收工人，之后毁弃工会，并把工人阶级的 要求和利益置于国家意志，特别是对外政策之下。法西斯主义的最高目的 是把工人阶级重整到全国家主体内，并从而结束阶级斗争，办法是利用小 恩小惠政策，工人们直到战争后期都不曾反抗法西斯·纳粹主义。这些方 面可以作为中国特色法西斯主义的比较和参照系。法西斯主义的基本“教 义”是民族主义、社会达尔文主义（优胜劣汰、“砸三铁”- 铁饭碗，铁 交椅，铁工资等等资本主义剥削有理观点在内）、种族主义、反对群众路 线和观点等。法西斯主义一般不重视意识形态，属于“做了再说”式的实 用主义范畴。（见Walter Laqueur:"Fascism," Oxford Univ. Press, 1996）
中国特色社会主义自诩是一种思想解放，为社会主义开创了一个新纪元， 而且自己不承认修正主义这个提法，认为至多不过是一个理论问题而已。 这当然大部分是胡说。毛泽东首先指出了（现代〕修正主义与法西斯主义 的密切联系。另外，资本主义的国家形式是多种多样的，除了人们所熟知 的代议民主制（包含社会民主主义和老修正主义〕之外，还有封建王朝治 下的资本主义、所谓权威主义（强人〕制、波拿巴主义（即军事官僚独裁 制〕、法西斯主义、及现代修正主义（包含特色法西斯和社会帝国主义在 内〕。邓小平修正主义作为现代修正主义的集大成者（事实俱在〕与法西 斯主义加以比较，对于研究其走向是有用的。
一般而言，欧洲法西斯主义是从代议民主制蜕变而来，通常是经过煽动群 众进行骚乱而取得政权，修正主义是走资派背叛无产阶级革命、自己用和 平演变方式从堡垒内部以宫廷政变造成既成事实而夺权，它不需要群众参 加（１９７６年４·５天安门所谓“自发”事件是例外〕。法西斯主义的 主要群众基础，是既不满于资产阶级的独占又对工人阶级的力量日益强大 而不安的小资产阶级；修正主义的主要群众基础（以中国为例〕是国家和 党官僚、地主、富农、一部分干部子女及没有改造好的知识分子。法西斯 主义成长于市场经济发生困难的时期，这时资本家的利润率急速下降，于 是国家必须全面干预经济活动并取代运作失利的市场功能，走上国家垄断 资本主义的道路。修正主义则由于社会主义国家的高积累、低消费导致走 资派利用无产阶级的专政孔隙及积累过大的失误，和平演变为官僚买办资 产阶级专政，并用政府力量以“人工方法”培植（资本主义的〕市场经济 ，大刮资本风——利润挂帅，并把社会主义转变成官僚买办集团所有的半 殖民地资本主义。（我称之为中国今天由五百个资本大家族组成的统治集 团）。
法西斯主义与修正主义的共同点是很多的，在有些地方它们只是一纸之隔 。譬如它们都号称搞社会主义（在法西斯意大利叫黑色社会主义，在法西 斯·纳粹德国叫国家社会主义，在复辟后的中国叫特色社会主义〕，可是 事实上都是社会主义和马克思主义及无产阶级的最凶恶的敌人，其中修正 主义尤其心狠手辣，因为它除了恣意修正马克思主义的基本原则之外，目 的是要用伪装与欺骗根除马克思主义；它们都认为集体化官僚就是社会主 义，国家化与社会主义可以划等号；它们都是自上而下的、深信英雄史观 的精英主义，把群众当成会消费的机器人来支配着。法西斯主义制度的主 要特征之一，就经济来说，是唯生产力论。在政治领域里它固然与自由主 义不相容，尤其推行在阶级社会里搞超阶级及不准阶级存在的虚妄理论。 它公开承认人类的不平等（请与主张“先富”与“先贫”及把价值规律当 成灵丹妙药的有中国特色社会主义做一比较。〕对于政治上的平等与解放 也是不许可的。
从历史上看，它们的相同处在于：它们都发生在资本主义和民族国家形式 出现较晚、比较落后、资产阶级力量薄弱的社会里。游·韦伯 (Eugen Weber，《法西斯主义面面观，Varieties of Fascism》，Van Nostrand 1964)是这样描写法西斯主义的：“法西斯主义不重视意识形态，主张做 了再说，执行先行动后发明理论与哲学的信条。法西斯主义从好处说是实 用主义，只要行得通就好办。目的是夺权。“伊·西龙(Ignazio Silone, 《公司与国家资本主义》，见David Beetham，编《对抗法西斯主义的马 克思主义者们》，Marxists in Face of Fascism , Barnes & Noble, 1984 )对墨索里尼的黑色社会主义给以如下的批判：“…它不是资本主义的超越 ，而是要把资本主义的外部特质巩固下来，以便击溃在资本主义母体妊育 着的倾向社会主义的各种力量。它要把拥有集体财产的国家的一切资源随 大资本家的意愿自行处置。主动权和利润虽然是私人的事情，可是一旦遭 到破产，…赔偿便由国家负担。法西斯主义要想把发展到现在的社会象化 石一样凝固起来，并把一小撮人控制大多数这样一个现存制度永久封存起 来。意大利法西斯政府禁止工人的阶级斗争，违者以叛国罪论处。唯一允 许的阶级斗争是资本家反对一般群众的阶级斗争。它帮助大资本掩饰其凌 驾于国家生活和财富之上的霸权。…因此国家被大资本在没有任何抵抗的 情形下所统治。…一切事务人民都无从控制。从根本上说它标志着回头走 向封建组织形式。…（尽管如此〕墨索里尼仍然宣布它是一个伟大的革命 ！…”（摘录自《四大广场》C部1995年10月。）
《华尔街日报》这篇文章的目的是要把帝国主义侵略中国的责任加到中国 自己的头上，但是这是徒劳的，因为中国修正主义对内是猛虎、对外变绵 羊，吃里爬外，人所共知，帝国主义才是战争的策源地，而不是中国这样 的半殖民地资本主义国家。参加“反恐”之后，中国的投降力度加大，但 是帝国主义并不假以好看的颜色，反而咄咄逼人、指责之声不绝于耳，布 什回美以后，舆论班子已经公开要把中国补进“邪恶轴心”，成为它的第 四个国家了。所以附庸国是绝对不好当的，只要一失足，就要成为千古恨 ，投降主义所付出的代价如同帝国主义的“反恐”“正义”一样，都是无 底限的！(但是，中国终于经过几乎半个世纪之久，脱离了半殖民地资本主 义的困境。见本文末尾的《补遗》。)
中国的党和国家往何处去？只要毛泽东继续革命路线如同现在这样地被压 迫和受迫害（蔡广业同志和其他毛泽东继续革命路线继承者们仍然被隔离 审查，甚至被捕入狱），中国的政治局势就不会好转，现在特色法西斯主 义就有蜕变成社会帝国主义的可能，而一切搞霸权的都不会有好下场，这 包括中国在内。历史的潮流滚滚向前，只有社会主义能够救中国并彻底打 败中国特色法西斯主义，也只有毛泽东继续革命路线能够救社会主义和处 于法西斯主义灾难和危险中的中国人民。（无套裤汉2002－02－24）
（附文）
《华尔街日报》22日发表Feb. 22, 2002 了美国民间研究机构“企业基金会”（AEI）研究员、“中美安全回顾委员会”（U.S.-China Security Review Commission）成员黎荻恩（Michael A. Ledeen）的文章“从共产主义走向法西斯主义？”（From Communism to Fascism?），指中国正走向法西斯主义。 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1014338118738159200 中国从共产主义到法西斯主义 布什在和中国的统治者们近距离的交往中，很可能会有矛盾心理，一方面，满足于那种中国在反恐战争中帮助了我们的说法；另一方面，中央情报局对中国军力的看法有相当改变，认为它在不远的将来会有大幅度提升，这点则令人担忧。在他思考中国到底是怎么回事儿，到底会怎么样的时候，他或许会得出这个“人民共和国”很特殊、很难懂的结论。 中国并不像人民一直所说的那样是一个从共产主义走向自由和民主的国家。 事实上，它是一个我们以前从没有见过的东西：一个成熟的法西斯政权。这种新的现象并不是很容易被认识到，主要由于两点原因：第一，中国领导人继续称他们自己为共产主义者；第二，由于法西斯产生在二十世纪初，是一个新兴的东西，它的领导人又非常具有革命者的特色，并在二战中被摧毁了。而中国则完全没有任何新意，它的统治者是没有任何特色的第三、第四代领导人。 从邓小平到江泽民这些中国的过去和现任领导人们或许摧毁了一些共产主义的经济制度，但是，他们并没有拥抱资本主义制度。国有制已经有所改变，有了私人财产，商人也被吸收入党，盈利不仅不是禁忌，而且是公有和私营企业都鼓励的。整个国家都成了一个商业公司：军队整个或者部份拥有企业、公司大股东同时是政府官员。 这既不是社会主义也不是资本主义，这是臭名昭著的“第三条道路”的“公 司国家”（corporate state），最早在二十年代有法西斯份子墨索里尼实行，然后被欧洲的其他法西斯主义者搬了过去。 就像最早的法西斯政权，中国残酷地实行一党专制。虽然和十多年前相比，在民间和媒体上都有了一些各种各样的观点，但是批评那个制度和支持西方式民主自由的声音是没有多少空间的。 就像最早的法西斯主义，中国政府利用民族主义去煽动它的大众，而不是用 共产主义的“全世界无产者联合起来”的口号。 就像最早的法西斯主义，“人民共和国”的统治者们悄然地利用个人的利益来达到国家的更大目的。就像我们最近所见到的，这个政府用关押和恐吓海外华人来表示它要主宰在任何地方的华人。中国统治者们相信他们统治的这群人并不是按地理划分的。 现在的中国领导人不是像过去那些共产主义领导人那样用纯粹的马列主义代替传统文化，而是用中国传统把他们自己的统治合法化。而正是这种对传统中国文化的拥抱令西方观察家们沉迷。很多人相信，像这样一个有深厚传统的国家一定会在社会和政治中证明他们深沉的人性。但是法西斯领袖们在二、三十年代做过同样的事情。墨索里尼重建了罗马，提供了一个用视觉回忆古代辉煌的机会；希特勒最欣赏的传统式建筑布满第三帝国。 就像他们的欧洲前辈，中国要在世界扮演重要的角色并不是靠他们现在的实力，或科技、文化成就，而是他们的历史和文化。正像德国和意大利在走向战争时期，中国感觉被欺骗和羞辱了，所以要发泄历史之怨气。中国甚至模仿早期法西斯的某些不可思议概念，比如要推行粮食自给制的项目。希特勒和墨索里尼都曾为这个想法著迷。 所以，那种认为由于中国一方面发展资本主义，一方面实行共产主义专制，所以是一个不稳定的制度的想法是错误的。尽管希特勒的德国和墨索里尼的意大利都曾疯狂，但法西斯主义也有可能成为一个稳定的制度。不管怎么说，法西斯主义并没有因为内部问题而垮台，它是被更强的军力摧垮的。 法西斯主义极为受欢迎。希特勒和墨索里尼横扫了民心得到权力，并天才地利用了大众运动，他们无论在德国还是在意大利，都没有面对任何反抗，直到他们在战争中开始失败。 由于法西斯主义的寿命太短，所以人们很难弄明白一个稳定、持久的法西斯国家是否可以长久。从经济上来说，公司国家比僵硬的的共产国家的中央计划经济要有弹性和适应性（虽然中国也很可能面临日本那种在国家指导下的资本主义经济所带来的麻烦）。我们和法西斯交往的短暂经历，也给我们判断其政治发展趋势带来困难。 虽然希特勒强调他和大家都是平等的，但是他无论如何不肯在他的“第三帝国”实行民主化，墨索里尼也同样不遵从意大利人民的自由意愿。“人民共和国”的领导人们也很难情愿在这方面做出改变。如果他们想的话，就不会那么担心人民期待像台湾那样往民主自由方面的发展。 当然，用历史解释未来并不可靠。中国在这么短的时间里的转变意见令世界吃惊。很多学者认为，中国加入世贸后，就必须遵守自由竞争的原则，于是会带来更令人刮目的变化。他们或许正确，但是我怀疑。在眼见的过去，当一个政权危机的时候，政治是赢得过经济的。中国的领导人经常说，他们无意效仿戈尔巴乔夫的样板。 布什目前必须考虑到现今中国的危险和挑战。传统的法西斯主义赞美战争，用军事进行扩张。虽然中国领导人声称他们追求和平，但是，他们清楚地在准备战争，并且已经准备了多年。乐观主义者强调中国不是扩张主义者，但是乐观主义也曾嘲笑过希特勒的帝国主义演讲。有很多中国的赞美者强调北京的历史角色，好像它有过开明的超级强国历史。 假设意大利在法西斯革命之后五十年，墨索里尼死了，被埋葬了，但那个“公司国家”没有损伤，它的党仍在强有力的统治中，这种对传统的法西斯主义的理解必须是我们理解中国的出发点。 国家被专职政治家和腐败的“精英”主导，但不是真正的信仰者。这个制度并没有特色，而是政治压迫，犬儒主义代替了理想主义，它的秘诀是“伟大的意大利人民”，无穷无尽地效仿他们古人的伟大之处。 这就是今天的中国。我们或许得在相当长的时间里与其共存。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 《人民春秋》 2002 年 3 月 15 日 总第 23 期 http://maostudy.org 补遗 这篇拙作写于二十二年前，由于中国与世界局势发展快速而且剧烈，所以有加以补充的必要。主要补充在于：中国特色党和国家从一个半殖民地法西斯党国进而“上升”与发展成为了一个内外具备的法西斯主义党国。这中间经过了近半个世纪之久（从1976年十月六日北京反革命军事政变算起），中间经过以不变应万变的策略，终于达到当前的霸权主义统治下的政治、经济与社会的新规定，脱离了原半殖民地的一般规定。其法西斯主义再也不仅止于对内而是扩展到对外。毛泽东主席对修正主义上台后的法西斯主义化的反修防修理论被证明是正确的，尤其是具有前瞻性的，成为了一盏指导革命人民前进的指路明灯。 此外，法团主义（corporatism, 由大型利益集团组成国家或组织进行控制的主张，往往与法西斯主义相联系，）可参看：Reza Hasmath著：《中国法团主义世纪》“The Century of Chinese Corporatism：” https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-century-of-chinese-corporatism/ 及陈艳芳（Anita Chan）: 《革命还是社团主义？ 后毛泽东时代中国的工人和工会》"Revolution or Corporatism? Workers and Trade Unions in Post-Mao China," https://www.jstor.org/stable/2949951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#Corporatism 事关全世界人民安危和前途的中国法西斯主义党国的运动与趋势成为了知识和舆论界人士们广泛讨论的题目，其中尤其以关乎党国与美国霸权主义这个太上皇双方互动的事态成为了重中之重。如果将美、中比作两个城堡，那么毛主席所首创的农村包围城市的伟大理论就是解决问题的枢纽。总之，第二次世界革命风暴的政治形势处于遍布城堡四周的人民群众点燃火把，投入战斗。城堡内部尽管灭火心切，但是在烽火燎原之势不可阻挡之下，被自己的革命力量攻破已经不可避免了。 (无套裤汉于2024-02-08补遗；Mark Wain https://www.youtube.com/@wtkh https://blog.creaders.net/u/12901/如果想看全文，请访问：https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDgxNzUw ) * 即将到来的中国革命(In English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=httM1osjGEk 假设另类历史(Whatifalthist) 2024 年 2 月 6 日
入脑入心入魂，只需两个步骤！操控群体，如此简单！纳粹洗脑大法，给了我们哪些警示？ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QndBTjs4srU Jan 26, 2024 #XiaoMingTalk #小鸣说 #小鸣说 #小鸣说历史 #XiaoMingTalk “你什么都不是，你的民族就是一切”——这是纳粹宣传部长戈培尔的名言。有些地方也翻译成：“没有祖国，你什么都不是”。我相信任何一个三观正常的人，听到这句话的时候，第一反应都是“去你大爷的”。但是，希特勒领导的纳粹党，却成功让德国人对这种民族主义的意识形态入脑入心入魂，把整个国家打造成了一个恐怖的极端共同体。那么纳粹到底是用了什么方法呢？这种方法在今天依然有效吗？接下来就让我们一起一探究竟。(无套裤汉于2024-02-08补遗) * Translation into English of my comments in Chinese on the original WSJ article which is attached following my comments: My comments: On the Theory and Practice of the Metamorphosis from Revisionism to Fascism, Sans-culottes https://www.xgc2000.net/xgc/02/11/24219.html An article published in the Wall Street Journal (02/22/2002) entitled "From Communism to Fascism?" "In the article, the author M A Ledeen believes that China is practicing fascism. Of course, this view cannot be said to be completely wrong, but at least he is wrong when confusing the strict distinction between revisionism and communism. To be precise, it is not the so-called communist but the modern revisionism has degenerated into a kind of a special-color or characteristic fascism. (Until now, no any society has ever realized the great ideal of mankind: Communism). After the whole world enters communist society, the countries will wither away and the class struggle gave way to the struggles, between old and the new, the advanced and the backward, the progressive and the conservative; then not only fascism, but also scientific socialism will have to give way, how would communism “reach” fascism? Although the author is diligent in thinking, he has not been able to correctly grasp the basic knowledge of Marxism. The author's mistake is about the basic viewpoints of Marxism. The author's second mistake is to use European fascism as a generic concept without distinguishing between the characteristic fascism evolved from the characteristics of modern revisionism itself, and analyzing their similarities and differences of these two. Modern revisionism, that is, right opportunism, is the negation of socialism and the regressive trend toward capitalist restoration; but negation and affirmation are the unity of opposites, interconnected and penetrating and are interdependent, therefore revisionism cannot completely and absolutely break away from the "shackles" of socialism, and it is bound to be affected to a certain extent by the remaining substances of the latter. Hence the characteristic fascism, on the one hand, degenerates from modern revisionism, it has many provisions of general fascism, on the other hand, it also has its own particularity, so it is a kind of fascism with its own characteristics. In modern revisionisms, this one of characteristic fascisms degenerated from the revisionism of Deng, Zhao, and Jiang introduced after the negation of Chinese socialism is also different from the characteristic fascism that evolved from the social-imperialism of the former Soviet Union. This is because China and Russia have different historical developments. Lenin said: "Everyone agrees that opportunism is not an accidental phenomenon, nor the sins, negligence and betrayal of individual characters, but the historical product of the entire historical period. "("The Bankruptcy of the Second International", "Selected Works" 2, pp. 614-665) An important historical feature and difference is that Russia was an imperialist country in the 19th century, while China was a semi-colony of several imperialists. Fascism with Soviet characteristics was therefore homogeneous internally and externally, the Soviet characteristic fascism held both internally and externally, or a fascism whose main theme were war, aggression and hegemonism are its main themes; the fascism with the Chinese characteristics in reality is just the opposite. It is a fascism internally and submission and capitulation towards imperialism externally. The economic structure of semi-colonial capitalism determines its non-fascist nature towards the exterior. Of course, it is out of the question of war, aggression, or hegemony here. On the contrary, it embodies the general stipulations of semi-colonies such as humiliation, surrender, and vassalage. The author's third mistake is to assume that culture and other superstructures determine the economic structure, without specific analysis based on historical development, as a result, therefore, his discussion of Chinese fascism is superficial, not in-depth enough, and is misleading. Social class struggle is the root of all historical development. Without starting with class analysis, social problems will stop at the stage of social phenomena and no solution will be obtained. In addition, the fact that the author over-emphasizes the commonality and leaves individuality way behind will inevitably lead to gross misrepresentation of a part for the whole and erroneous conclusion that European fascism resurrects in China. According to Mao Zedong's Theory of Continued Revolution, “The rise of revisionism means the rise of the bourgeoisie.” This is true and applies to both China and the Soviet Union. He further pointed out that after the Soviet revisionist traitor group had usurped the Soviet Party, gained the political power, it rapidly expanded its political and economic power, forming a bureaucratic monopoly capitalist class that controlled all state machinery and social wealth. It used state power to comprehensively implement counter-revolutionary revisionism line that transformed the communist line based on the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, or "a German fascism," a Hitler-style dictatorship. " That is to say, the restoration of capitalism was complete and the transition from a socialist country degenerated into a social-imperialist country, that is, ‘socialism in words but imperialism in practice.’ "(Mao Zedong: A conversation on May 11, 1964. Quoted from "Leninism", or Social Imperialism? ", see "People's Daily" on April 22, 1970.) Although semi-colonial capitalist China restored capitalism just like the Soviet Union, it did not degenerate into a social-imperialist country, but into a social semi-colonial country; its dictatorship of the proletariat degenerated into a joint dictatorship of the bureaucrat-comprador-bourgeoisie and imperialism, instead of becoming a socio-imperialist as the former Soviet Union did, rather, it transformed into a bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, so (at least until now) it has not completed "the German fascist-style dictatorship, Hitler-style dictatorship." These clearly reflect what Engel said: "Historical materialism is to explain all historical events and concepts, all politics, philosophy and religion, according to the material and economic living conditions, of a certain historical period. " ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels" Vol. 2, page 537) Although Chinese revisionism did not transform into a German fascist style like the Soviet revisionism, in terms of the German-style dictatorship, or Hitler-style dictatorship, but because it also uses the original revolutionary state machinery to comprehensively promote and follow a counter-revolutionary revisionist line and therefore has the general content of a native counter-revolution of European fascism. A simple example is that both the Chinese Special- Color (or the Chinese Characteristic) fascism and German Nazi fascism neither allow workers to strike and nor support the democratic power of the masses - in China this is the "Four Rights," i.e. to speak out loudly and openly, to post big-character posters, and to engage in great debate that Mao Zedong strongly advocated and are contained in the Constitution of the nation. Fascism co-opts workers before coming to power, then destroys trade unions and brings the working class's demands and interests under the yoke of the national will, especially of its foreign policy. The highest purpose of fascism is to reorganize the working class into the main body of the whole country and thereby end the class struggle. The method is to use the policy of giving small favors as charity, therefore, the workers did not resist Fascist-Nazism until the end of the war. These methods can be taken to be a comparison and frame of reference for the fascism with Chinese characteristics. The basic "teaching" of fascism is nationalism, social Darwinism (survival of the fittest, "smashing the three irons - the iron bowel, iron chair and the iron wage" and other capitalist viewpoints such as that of exploitation being justified), racism, opposition to mass lines and viewpoints, etc. Fascism does not pay attention to ideology and falls into the category of pragmatism such as the "do it and then talk about it later" style. (See Walter Laqueur: "Fascism," Oxford Univ. Press, 1996) The Chinese characteristic socialism prides itself on emancipating the mind and ushering in a new era for socialism. Moreover, it does not recognize the formulation of revisionism, believing that it is nothing more than a theoretical issue. This is of course mostly nonsense. Mao Zedong first pointed out the close contact between the (modern) revisionism and fascism. In addition, there are many forms of capitalist states. In addition to the well-known representative democracy (supported by both social democracy and old revisionism), there is also the capitalism systems supported by the feudal dynasty rule, so-called authoritarianism (strongman state), Bonapartism (i.e. military-bureaucratic dictatorship) systems, fascism, and modern revisionism (including characteristic fascism and social-imperialism) in the category. Comparison between Deng Xiaoping's revisionism, as the culmination of modern revisionism (the facts are all there), and fascism is useful for studying its direction of movement. European fascism evolved from representative democracies, and usually took power through inciting the masses. Revisionism took power by means of betrayal of the proletarian revolution by the capitalist roaders using peaceful evolution method to seize power from within the fortress through palace coup to create a fait accompli. It does not require mass participation. (The so-called "spontaneous" incident in Tiananmen Square on April 5, 1976 is an exception]. The main mass base of fascism is the restless petty bourgeoisie dissatisfied with the monopoly of the bourgeoisie and is also with the growing power of the working class. The main mass base of revisionism (taking that in China as an example) is the state and party bureaucrats, landlords, rich peasants, some children of cadres and intellectuals who have not been reformed. Fascism grew up when difficulties arise in the market economy, as a result, capitalists' profit margins fell sharply, and the state must comprehensively intervene in economic activities and replace failed market functions and embark on a path of state-monopoly capitalism. Revisionism, on the other hand, takes advantages of the high accumulation and low consumption in socialist economy as a means to lead the capitalist roaders to take advantage of careless omissions of the dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the mistakes of excessive accumulation, to peacefully evolved into a dictatorship of the bureaucratic and comprador bourgeoisie. Furthermore, revisionism utilizes the government power to cultivate a (capitalist) market economy through "artificial methods" and blows a big wave of capital - profit-led everything, and transforms socialism into a semi-colonial capitalism of, by and for the bureaucratic comprador group. (i.e., what I called the group of five hundred big capitalist families in China today.) Fascism and revisionism have a lot in common, and in some aspects， they are just a thin layer of paper apart. For example, they all claim to practice socialism (called Black Socialism in fascist Italy, National Socialism in Nazi Germany, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in post-restoration China), but in fact, they are all the most ferocious enemies of socialism, Marxism and the proletariat. Among them, the modern revisionism is particularly ruthless, because in addition to arbitrarily revising the basic principles of Marxism, it aims to eradicate Marxism through disguise and deception; they all believe that collectivized bureaucracy is socialism, that nationalization and socialism can be equated; being superincumbent social layers they firmly believe in elitism under the heroic view of history and treat the masses as consuming robots. One of the important characteristics of fascist system, as far as the economy is concerned, is the theory of the omnipotence of productive forces. In the political field, it is, of course, incompatible with liberalism but nonetheless it especially promotes the false social theory of transcending social classes and denying the existence of classes in a class society. It openly approves the inequality of human beings (please compare it with the act of affirming or asserting "let you being rich first," "let him being poor the same time" and the law of value as the panacea of the socialism with Chinese characteristics.) That it allows no political equality and liberation. Historically, they are similar in that they both occurred in those societies that the form of capitalism and the nation-state appeared relatively late, backward, and the bourgeois power was weak. Eugen Weber's "Varieties of Fascism," Van Nostrand 1964, described fascism like this: “Fascism does not pay attention to ideology and advocates doing things before talking about and implement the tenet of acting first and inventing theory and philosophy later. Fascism is pragmatism on the plus side Anything goes if it works. The purpose is to seize power. " Ignazio Silone's "Corporations and State Capitalism”in David Beetham, ed. "Marxists in Face of Fascism," Barnes & Noble, 1984 criticized Mussolini's black socialism as follows: “…it is not the transcendence of capitalism, but to consolidate the external characteristics of capitalism to defeat the various forces tending toward socialism. It wants to allocate all the resources of a country with collective property according to the wishes of the big capitalists. Although initiative and profit are private matters, once encountering bankruptcy...the compensation will be borne by the state. Fascism wants to visualize the society that has developed to the present and to solidify it like a fossil and to permanently seal the existing system in which a small group of people control the majority. The Italian fascist government banned workers' class struggle and punished violators with treason. The only allowed class struggle is that between capitalists and the public. It helps big capital covering up its hegemony over national life and wealth. …Therefore, the country is dominated by big capital without any resistance… The people have no control over all affairs. Fundamentally it marks the turning back to the feudal organizational form. …(Nonetheless) Mussolini still declared it a great revolution! …" (Excerpted from Part C of "Four Big Squares" in October 1995.) The purpose of this article in the Wall Street Journal is to put the responsibility for imperialist aggression against China on China's own heads, but this is in vain, because the Chinese revisionism is a tiger internally and a harmless sheep externally. It lives on someone, while helping others secretly. As we all know, imperialism is the source of war, not China, or the semi-colonial capitalist countries. After participating in "anti-terrorism", China's surrender intensity increased, but the imperialism does not pretend to return goodwill, on the contrary, it becomes even more aggressive and accuses China endlessly. After Bush, Jr. returned to the United States, the public U.S. opinion team has openly wanted to add China to the "axis of evil" as its fourth country. Therefore, it is not easy to be a vassal state, because if one makes a mistake, one will become an object of eternal hatred. The price paid by capitulationism is just like the imperialist "anti-terrorism" and "justice", which are without limit! However, after almost half a century, China finally got out of the predicament of semi-colonial capitalism. See the "Addendum" at the end of this article. Where is China's party and state headed? If Mao Zedong's continued revolutionary line will be suppressed as it is now and oppressed and persecuted (Comrade Cai Guangye and other successors to Mao Zedong's revolutionary line are still quarantined for investigations or even arrested and imprisoned), China's political situation will not improve, and it is possible that the characteristic fascism will degenerate into social imperialism, and anyone seeking hegemony will not end well, China included. The trend of history is rolling forward; only socialism can save China and completely defeat the Chinese characteristic fascism, and only Mao Zedong's continued revolutionary line can save socialism and the Chinese people falling into the disaster and danger of fascism. (Sans-culottes 2002-02-24) * From Communism to Fascism? ________________________________________ By Michael A. Ledeen Feb. 22, 2002 12:01 am ET https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1014338118738159200 As President Bush, now in Beijing, gets up close to the rulers of China, he must have 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 upwards 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. Il Duce 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 scientific or cultural accomplishments. Just like Germany and Italy in the inter-war 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 an 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. No longer a system based on charisma, but on political repression, cynical not idealistic, and 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. * Addendum This humble article was written twenty-two years ago. Due to the rapid and violent development of the situation in China and the world, it is necessary to supplement it. The main supplement is that the party and country with Chinese characteristics have "risen" and developed from a semi-colonial fascist party-state into a fascist party-state with both internal and external capabilities. It took nearly half a century (counting from the counter-revolutionary military coup in Beijing on October 6, 1976), and through the strategy of adapting to the ever-changing situation, we finally reached the current political, economic and political situation under hegemonic rule. The new social regulations were divorced from the general regulations of the original semi-colonial society. Its fascism no longer only stops at home but extends to the outside world. Chairman Mao Zedong's theory of anti-revisionism and prevention of revisionism after the revisionists came to power proved to be correct, especially its foresight, and had become a guiding light for the revolutionary people to move forward. In addition, corporatism (corporatism, the idea of large interest groups forming states or organizations for control, often associated with fascism,) can be found in: Reza Hasmath: “The Century of Chinese Corporatism：” https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-century-of-chinese-corporatism/ and Anita Chan: "Revolution or Corporatism? Workers and Trade Unions in Post-Mao China," https://www.jstor.org/stable/2949951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#Corporatism The movements & trends of the Chinese fascist party-state, which are related to the safety and future of people all over the world, have become a subject of extensive discussion among intellectuals and public opinion circles. Among them, the interaction between the party-state and American hegemony, or the emperor, has become a top priority. If the United States and China can be likened to two castles, then the great theory of rural surrounding cities pioneered by Chairman Mao is the key to solving the problem. In short, the political situation of the Second World Revolutionary Storm was such that the people all around the castle lit torches and went into battle. Although the castle was eager to have the fire extinguished, it was inevitable that it would be breached by its own revolutionary forces due to the power of the prairie fire.(Added by Sans-culottes on 2024-02-08; Mark Wain https://www.youtube.com/@wtkhhttps://blog.creaders.net/u/12901/If you want to read the full text, please visit: https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDgxNzUw ) *
The Coming Chinese Revolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=httM1osjGEk Whatifalthist Feb 6, 2024
Enter your brain, your heart, your soul, just two steps! Controlling a crowd is so easy! What warnings does the Nazi brainwashing method give us? (In Chinese) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QndBTjs4srU Jan 26, 2024 “You are nothing, your nation is everything” - this is the famous saying of Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels. In some places, it is also translated as: "Without the motherland, you are nothing." I believe that when anyone with normal views hears this sentence, his first reaction is "F*ck you uncle". However, the Nazi Party led by Hitler succeeded in instilling this nationalist ideology in the minds and souls of Germans, and turned the entire country into a terrifying extreme community. So, what methods did the Nazis use? Is this approach still valid today? Let us find out next. (Added by Sans-culottes on 2024-02-08) End
| 
