Authoritarian: Elections in the People’s Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Direct elections, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, occur only at the local level people’s congresses and village committees, with all candidate nominations preapproved by the CCP.
Authoritarian is a meaningless buzzword, communism isn’t opposed to authority and the use of authority to suppress counter-revolutionaries and the still existing bourgeoisie in the transitional phase isn’t only materially necessary, it’s use is prerequisite for any revolutionary organisation. If you’re unwilling to suppress the exploiter-class of capitalists, you are not waging class war against that class, you are therefore not building socialism and you’re most definitely not working towards the abolition of said exploiter class and therefore class society itself. You are therefore not a communist.
Hence saying ‘authoritarian’ and ‘communist’ exist on opposite ends of the spectrum betrays simply your total lack of understanding of both terms. Insinuating the working class and its organization suppressing the exploiter class is equivalent to the most violent forms of the exploiter class suppressing the exploited, is legitimization of that violence. In its ultimate consequence it’s just literal horseshoe Nazi apologia.
Ultranationalist: Using Chinese nationalism, the CCP began to suppress separatism and secessionist attitudes in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and among the Uyghurs, a Turkic minority in the far-west province of Xinjiang, an issue that persists. (Also: Taiwan.)
Nationalism isn’t per se right-wing. If you had any understanding of people’s liberation struggles in history you’d understand this. Nationalism of the victims of colonialism and imperialism isn’t equivalent of the nationalism of the colonialists and imperialists. Nationalism as a tool to suppress the actual counter-revolutionary ethno-nationalist movements isn’t right-wing in any way and simply linking a Wikipedia article, as if that were an argument, is embarrassing.
Also: Taiwan is the product of the literal fascist, reactionary movement in China fleeing the successful revolution of the people it was opressing and only still exist due to the US imperialists protection of said reactionary tendency. Using that counterrevolutionary tendency’s existence as an argument to…show that China is - right-wing somehow is ludicrous.
Dictatorial leader: China’s Xi allowed to remain ‘president for life’ as term limits removed
There are no term limits in Germany. Was Merkel therefore a dictatorial leader?
Centralized autocracy: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Yes, communists don’t allow reactionaries and capitalists in their countries. How you thought not allowing right-wingers in China’s political system is a good argument for China’s supposed right-wing character, is beyond me. ‘right-wing’ isn’t defined by ‘have many party or no’, but by the class character of the tendency, movement, organization or state. China being a dictatorship of the proletariat, which your own point proves since it oppresses the bourgeoisie, is the single best argument for its communist character. You not understanding this simply means you do not understand class, class struggle or what states are and this honestly simply disqualifies you from talking about this in any serious capacity.
Militarism: Chinese coastguard and navy ships intruded into Malaysian waters in the disputed South China Sea 89 times between 2016 to 2019, and often remained in the area even after being turned away by the Malaysian navy. (See also: Taiwan.)
Militarism is when navy in contested water. Not that a wikipedia-citing liberal is expected to argue on a higher level than this…but come on.
And again, the militarism of communists to struggle against imperialism is not only not right-wing, it is in fact tantamount to anything revolutionary and communist. Militant struggle against capital and imperialism and the struggle of capital and imperialism to exploit are not the same, believe it or not. The armed struggle of the slave against his master isn’t the same as the threat of that master’s whip.
See also: Taiwan. China not allowing the imperialists to arm a secessionist movement within its own recognized borders isn’t right-wing. Imperialism arming reactionary, secessionist movements within socialist countries, however, is. So too, if you want to talk about reactionary militarism, is the encroachment, encirclement of China and the countless provocations in its waters and on its land by the imperialists.
You don’t even know the proper name of the Communist Party of China, but somehow are qualified to talk about the nature of this state and, again, as argument you link a wikipedia article? Linking an article isn’t an argument.
And again, suppression of capitalist and counter-revolutionary movements is inevitable in class struggle. You can’t be a revolutionary if you can’t defend your revolution. You can’t be a communist if your refuse to suppress and fight your exploiters. China engaging in this class struggle makes the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.
Also le ebin funni CPC will arrest you for reading Tinyman link meme. +500 FICO score for your incredible wit and ingenuity.
Ignore btw the absurd violence the imperialist subject the world to in their neocolonial holdings. Those millions upon millions, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that get brutalized at home for such existential things as “please police don’t kill us” or “we don’t want to work till we’re dead”, sacrifized on the altar of profit in the name of capital pale in comparison to those peaceful, soldier burning reactionaries surrounding the 1989 events. Bashing thousands of heads when the actually suppressed minority in the US rises up against the permanent violence inflicted on it by liberals like you, is a fact of life. The governments committing this violence totally wouldn’t crack down on subversive movements murdering the representatives of that government. Never.
Saying something exists isn’t proof of that thing existing as a policy of a state. Me linking your a Wikipedia article to Nazi apologia and White Supremacy, isn’t a proof that you’re a white supremacists or Nazi apologist. Though your chauvinistic, reactionary comment is making that argument perfectly fine.
See also: Exemptions for the 1 child policy of non-Hans, the birthrates of those non-hans. The genocide that has no victims, isn’t traceable, not filmable, not provable, but totally exists and isn’t simply another cooked-up non-story for chauvinistic Western liberals in their endless quest to render the word genocide entirely meaningless and therefore to minimize the singular horror of the Holocaust.
Again, linking an article to a singular alleged cases of labour abuses are not proof of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’. These to do not follow from each other. Me linking you an article of child labour abuses in the US wouldn’t be an argument for the US operating under a paradigm of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’.
That you’re even attempting this argument only, again, shows that you don’t have a clue about the character of either ‘rightwing’ nor ‘leftwing’. The right-wing does not subordinate the individual interest for the perceived good of the nation and race. It very much subordinates the national interest, the interest of the majority, that of the working-class under that of the individual interest of the power-wielding exploiters ie capitalists. So you’re not making the point China is right-wing, because you do not understand what right-wing even is.
So either China is right-wing or it subordinates individual material interests for the good of the majority.
If it does the later, congratulations, you again made the point that China is engaging in class struggle against the individual interests of the exploiter class, which is the defining characteristic of ‘left-wing’. If you don’t engage in class struggle against that class, you’re not a communist.
Not to mention you do not understand the relationship of the individual and the collective in left-wing thought. Which is fine, but disqualifies you from talking about left-wing thought.
I’m not sure what your point even is. China isn’t a neoliberal capitalist economy…therefore it is right-wing?
Yes, socialist countries regiment society and the economy. What is your point?
Also imagine taxation is the only way of remitting social gain. “How does that cheap, reliable, widespread high-speed rail benefit society without taxation???” It remits profit by the very fact of existing.
Not sure either how this non-remitting point supports the claim that China has strong regimentation of society and the economy. It’s making the exact opposite point.
You do not understand what fascism is. You don’t understand what communism is. You don’t even understand the useless, vague labels like “left-wing” or “right-wing”. So I’ll go on: That’s not fascism.