this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
101 points (71.1% liked)
Memes
54190 readers
1572 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All modern economies have some degree of a public/private split, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason. The difference between capitalism (which fascism is a derivative of) and socialism is which aspect of the economy is principle, private or public, and which class is in control of the state, capitalists or workers. In China, public ownership is principle and the state is under the control of the working classes.
The PRC does use nationalized industry and resources for their own benefit, as does every single country, with the partial exception of colonized and imperialized countries that are exploited by the west. Xi Jinping is popular, but doesn't have a cult of personality. I don't know what textbook you're reading, but if it's telling you that public ownership is fascist you should probably discard it.
I'm saying "if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." You're saying "if it says it's not a duck, it's not."
How is the Chinese economy not fascist corporatism? Because they call it "public ownership"? The CCP mandates all corporations have CCP cells that align with their national interests. They still defer to private property owners who often become very wealthy. (see: Jack Ma). How does a socialist country have people worth almost $30 billion? This is no more socialism than Nazi's Nat Socs (or rather, it's equally socialism).
No, I'm saying that tigers are not ducks, and I explained clearly why. No matter how much you point to ducks and tigers both having feet, they aren't the same in any capacity. The PRC has a publicly driven economy, with the working classes in control of the state. It's funny that you bring up Jack Ma, because he was punished by the state for acting against socialism. Nazi Germany was driven by private ownership as principle, and a strong state, the fundamental differences lie in whether public ownership or private ownership is principle and which class is in control.
Jack Ma was punished for speaking out against the government's bank lending policy which prevented people without capital from getting it. Almost the exact opposite of "acting against socialism". And again, he's still worth almost $30 billion. Yet you maintain this is somehow socialism, which would require rejecting the private property and capitalism which cornerstones China today.
His punishment further highlights the other tenet of fascism which permits such authoritarian control. If Trump seized all corporate control (citing their usage for "national interests" or for "the people"), then punished corporate leaders for disagreeing with public policy, would you also say this is somehow not fascism? I imagine you would say he's very much more fascistic than he is today.
Jack Ma was punished for suggesting that the CPC needed to relinquish control, and privatize more. He wasn't a billionaire fighting for the working classes, but instead a billionaire fighting for the free movement of capital and liberalization. The fact that the CPC humiliated and punished Jack Ma for trying to undermine the publicly driven economy is precisely evidence of the weakness of private capital within the PRC.
As for Trump, he's nakedly fascist already. Private ownership is what drives the US economy. Nationalization in such a context strengthens the bourgeois state and facilitates the control of private capital.
At this point I'm not sure why you genuinely don't seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.
This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I'll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:
A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).
Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn't mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.
China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.
This isn't corporatism. Corporatism refers to corporations having control over the state, and using it against the working classes. You're confusing corporatism for its very opposite.
This is extremely confused. Jack Ma is an owner of Alibaba, not publicly owned industry like China's SOEs. The public does not own Alibaba, the public owns SOEs, which eclipse Alibaba in size and scope. Alibaba is small compared to the huge SOEs in China.
China thrives on public ownership of the large firms and key industries, and private ownership of sole proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and small and medium firms. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector.
Throw away that textbook you mentioned earlier.
Actually, on second thought, link it here, I want to see whoever is publishing that nonsense.