I agree that it is important to use the word fascist accurately, but it is also not not as well defined as you say. There is a reasonable case for calling China fascist. It has a cult of personality, state control of the economy, nationalism, racism, elimination of minority cultures. It is far more like Germany, Italy or Spain the in the 1930s than it is like Stalinist Russia.
All of those apply to Ancient Egypt too, only more so.
I did not give a definition for fascism. You can look ones up yourself. However, critically:
1. China is not right-wing. That's prerequisite.
2. China has very little fascist-style state / political violence, and virtually no paramilitary elements. You're at no risk of being beaten up or having your windows broken for having the wrong political views. Police officers didn't even have guns until recently. There aren't Brown Shirts and Black Shirts, are groups like the fascist right-wing militias in the US. Rather, the state violence you see there is institutionalized violence, through proper administrative and bureaucratic channels.
3. China has nationalism, but is very much not ultra-nationalist.
4. China does not try to eliminate minorities if they play ball. Indeed, China is very supportive of non-Han groups (who were, e.g. exempt from One Child). Rather, what you see is forceful "modernization" and cultural assimilation, leading up to violence if there isn't compliance. If the Muslim minorities in China decided to give up their religion, culture, and desire for freedom, and started to act like Han Chinese, they'd almost certainly be left alone. You saw the same directed at Han during the Great Leap Forward. For Jews in 1930 Germany, assimilating was very much not enough to be left alone.
5. Control of the economy is limited and directed. A lot of the Chinese economy is also like the Wild West.
.... and so on.
Note that I'm not passing a value judgment on which system of government is better or worse. However, "fascist" is not the same as "totalitarian."
One of the key things in China is that if you (personally and collectively) go along with the government, for the most part, you're very safe, and life is quite peaceful. Another is that most control is "soft." The wrong post online will simply be hard to find, load slowly, or not show up for other users. Or you'll have a harder time moving up in life.
It's very little like Germany, Italy or Spain the in the 1930s, where you had armed groups walking the streets, breaking windows.
Define right wing in this context. Its historically communist, but it not really so any more, as you your self admit "Control of the economy is limited and directed"
> China has nationalism, but is very much not ultra-nationalist.
It is very nationalist and believes its culture to be superior to minority culture which is why they are assimilating it.
> For Jews in 1930 Germany, assimilating was very much not enough to be left alone.
True, but I said "fascism" not "nazism" which are not the same thing.
> Rather, the state violence you see there is institutionalized violence, through proper administrative and bureaucratic channels.
is that a necessary trait? The Brownshirts were got rid of once the Nazis were in power. Once you control the state you no longer need the paramilitary.
> However, "fascist" is not the same as "totalitarian."
I agree, but I think China has a lot of traits in common with fascist states. it might not tick all the boxes in a definition, but it ticks far more than the typical dictatorship.
> I think China has a lot of traits in common with fascist states. it might not tick all the boxes in a definition, but it ticks far more than the typical dictatorship.
It's very hard for me to see how. Even taking everything you said about China at face value (some of which I might take issue with):
- Almost every dictator tries (with mixed success) to create a personality cult.
- Almost every totalitarian state tries to build nationalist fervor to keep people in-line
- Almost every totalitarian state uses state violence to maintain control
- Almost every culture believes itself to be superior, and most successful politician try to exploit that (with the exception of a few on the far left)
... and so on.
I think a necessary and requisite element for fascism is an army of thugs and a pervasive level of fear. That's different from, for example, an army of educated bureaucrats deciding to stick problem individuals in a gulag. The brownshirts were never gotten rid of, but rather were institutionalized into the SA and to some extent, the SS. They were still thugs and relatively indiscriminate violence.
China lacks thugs. If you don't stick your head up, I don't see many people fear the government. People generally keep their heads down, fall in line, and lead normal lives.
I don't know if it's core to fascism, but expansionism and imperialism is also rather lacking in China. There are some disputes, mind, you, about places which China thinks should belong, namely Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, a little bit of Russia (formerly Manchuria), a few mountains near India, and a few islands, but critically, those ambitions have not changed in nearly a century.
I would actually argue that China is closer to national socialism rather than fascism precisely because Han nationalism is such a strong element of their ideology. Pure fascism is "state above all", while CCP I think sees the state as more of instrument, a necessary means to another end, more like the Nazis. The difference with the latter is that they are pragmatic national socialists rather than the more rabid Hitlerite variety (which is also why their nationalism isn't so blatantly racial).
