You can't control society without having a death-grip on the economy. The ideologues in both countries were clear. And, ultimately, both had a societal side. "Everything within the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State." That's Mussolini. And Hitler.
Similarly, you can't enforce socialism writ large (as opposed to milquetoast European 'socialism' that's basically a social safety net and regulation with touches of corporatism surviving from Weimar and the Nazis) without authoritarianism because ultimately socialism is control over the economy. Having "the people" own everything has to devolve into the people's representatives, and if the people stay from the true path somebody's going to push to bring them back. Just look at how Lenin evolved. Ultimately you need to eliminate the "olds" (Chinese) or create a "new Soviet man" (USSR). Or re-educate the backward folk to see what's actually right. So you need to include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Xi, and Chavez and Maduro in with Mussolini and Hitler. Everything within the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State. Economic, political, social liberty = obedience to the state. Like some cultlike churches' "freedom in Christ."
"Communism" was nice US rebranding for authoritarian socialism. It suited both right and left, distinguishing many variety of socialists from the heavy-handed Leninist-Stalinist socialists and vice-versa, but remember that the USSR called itself a union of socialist republics and were very clear and very loud about their "building socialism" and not "living" it. The CP USA was clear on the point until it sort of lost a lot of people who liked to say they were "socialist" and joining those who drew a distinction between the two, Wobblies or Trotskyites or any of the spectrum of variants. The Soviet Communist Party had a nifty belief about communism, they called themselves "communists," but they didn't even suggest they had achieved communism--in the '30s they were "building socialism in one country". So not at all "communism". It was a nice conversation you'd be able to use to engage a Party member as an icebreaker, because the believers would be happy to explain their belief system, how eventually government would fade away and equality and peace and joy would prevail in a bright, shining future. It was a guaranteed "I know the vocabulary, phrases, and how the argument would be structured" discussion for decades. Neither right nor left liked the glaring distinction and it served well when "communism" fell but "socialism" had never been tried. (And, I'm told, still hasn't. Unless it's '60s Britain and Sweden.)
Xi isn't pushing "Communism with Chinese characteristics." No. And he doesn't mean just "socialism as a pure economic system" with no political, social, or legal consequences. He means what he says and knows what his words mean much better than most Americans, who have managed to say that nobody's actually tried "socialism" or that socialism is what the Europeans have (and often backed off from a bit). The redefinition is nice, but die-hards know what they mean and do a nice motte-and-bailey dance when necessary. For a lot of people, I accept that they really mean different things, but the die-hard running away from the strict classical definition to a mushy for-public-consumption definition shows that for some it's just branding. No, the Chinese Communist Party pushes, like the Soviet one did, "socialism," and both agree that to enforce it requires coercion until they can train their populations to be some version of "perfect" (Christian cult-like churches are the same ... Listening to one pastor explain why he left a horrible church was clear--"we just wanted to make the congregation perfect." And I bailed on that church when the pastors said that they'd given us time to improve, we didn't, and they'd start making sure we listened up became better people--they were frustrated, like Lenin and Mao and Chavez became frustrated.)
We try to tell them what they *really* mean, like we try to tell Evangelicals what their beliefs really mean, but that's just condescending to them and not listening. Like when (R) tell Democrats what "we really mean." I think each of us knows what we each mean, thank you.
Trump's industrial policy, hearkening back to some corporatist policies, is called "socialism". Socialism takes--we people already own it, we just seize it. That's not what Trump did. He bought it with the people's money. It's not really socialism, nor is it really corporatism. It's rather like some European countries have for large important industries, between those two prototypical ideals. Industrial policy is a way of having government control "lite."
= new reply since forum marked as read
)
