White Boy Summer is Upon Us
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
True but there is a big possibility that it *can* end up very badly when your ideology is too nebulous, especially concerning economics, which a lot of patriot front members will probably wildly disagree over particularly if it becomes a problem after taking power. Economics wasn't really a concern for the patriots because there weren't 500 different economic models when they came about. There was mercantilism, feudalism, and fledgling capitalism. That's pretty much it. And the third one was really the only option that actually existed to them, they werent a colonial power and so they couldn't enact mercantilism, and they weren't in charge of a country with a deep rooted aristocracy so the option of feudalism didn't exist to them either (though the south was semi-feudalist in an odd sort of way). The choice was pretty cut and dry.
And people will murder each other over economics, they'll fight, they'll splinter, there will be purges over it, etc. It happened to Germany, which is why the knight of long knives was a thing (it eradicated both the conservative capitalists and the more Marxian socialists from the party). Italy almost went into a full blown Civil War in the 20s because mussolini disagreed with the blackshirts on economics, and he almost resigned from the PNF entirely and rejoined the Italian socialist party. It was quite horrible for everyone involved. But the blackshirts were far too nebulous of an organization because it appealed to absolutely everyone in Italy that wasnt a bleeding heart communist or an ultra-reactionary monarchist (and even some of those too, Nicola Bombacci comes to mind). Same as the SA.
I also did not mention the utter fucking disaster that was the chinese kuomintang after sun Yat Sen died, the economic vagueness of that party led to the chinese civil war, the warlord era, and arguably led to an easy Japanese occupation. The KMT had almost no clearly defined goals whatsoever, so that kind of left everyone standing around with their hands in their pockets while Sun Yat Sen was alive, and then with a knife to each others throats after he died. Mao started as a KMT Cadre, this should be noted.
So while a political victory is definitely possible without clearly defined goals, particularly with economics it can turn into a severe issue later on down the line. Less so back then, much more so now. Germany mitigated it in comparison to Italy, or God forbid, nationalist china, because Germany already had the doctrine in place, but it still came with major friction, a splinter party (the black front), and political purges. Entirely because of disagreements on what the word socialism means (and also because of random judeo-capitalists that got lost and ended up in the wrong place). Patriot front should either come up with a more exclusionary vision for how to run the country or brace for the shock that could very well and probably will happen if they do not. The first option leads to less membership but less factionalism and violence down the road (but it certainly doesn't remove the possibility of those things entirely), the second option leads to much higher membership but with a good chance of violence and splintering down the road, possibly to the point of splitting the country in half if it goes really badly. It's definitely a weighty choice. But right now patriot front is a sort of "big tent" party for american nationalists. Hard to say what they'll do in the coming years though, they could adopt tenants with more specificity in the future. The NSDAP did under hitler, the original DAP was also extremely vague and unorganized too.
People will often tend to say that economics don't matter, but they absolutely do, and people care very adamantly about it. When you get to the point of running a country, you have to pick *something* to do it. You can't just have a country with no economy at all because that's impossible.
And this is just concerning economics. Patriot front doesn't really have a defined model of governance either. Authoritarian? Republican? Democratic? Quite hard to say. I would bet on some manner of republicanism because of their staunch belief in the founding values of America, but again they don't really say it so we're left to infer. Although this problem is lesser in comparison to the economics issue. People are a lot less likely to start shooting each other based off of what leadership style they choose vs their economics.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Western democracy: Inter-party competition is good. Thus, you need multiple political parties.
Chinese democracy: Intra-party competition is good. Thus, you need one big tent political party. That was the KMT and is now the CPC. Other parties exist but must accept that CPC is the party of government if they are to operate. Some might see this as Bolshevik logic because similar arrangements appear in East Germany, but it's also Asian logic (you can find it, for instance, under Suharto's New Order, under which Golkar was the ruling party and other political parties like PDI and PPP could only exist if they accepted that Golkar was the party of government). A similar thing holds true in North Korea (WPK as ruling party, other parties can exist only if they accept that the WPK is the party of government).
This is why Chiang was so insistent on defeating the CPC before the Japanese. It is because the CPC splitting from the KMT violated the Chinese intra-party democratic logic: only if China was united under one party could it really fight off the Japanese.
As for Mao, he was simultaneously CPC and KMT for a time, because the split between the two wasn't immediate, and so many persons were part of both organizations until relations between them soured to the extent that they were forced to choose sides.
This was a time when Chinese intellectualism had made something of a comeback: KMT members would go to Germany or Italy and return promoting their kind of systems, KMT and/or CPC members would go to the Soviet Union and become dissuaded from Marxism while there and become anti-Marxists after returning, small fascist groups became prominent in entire universities, academic journals are seriously looking at fascism to the point of devoting entire issues to it, etc.
The differences between Marxists on both sides were ultimately trivial. For instance, one side (probably CPC) thought that China was feudalist, whereas the other side thought that China was (early-stage) capitalist. One side simply sees China as slightly ahead in the Marxist social progressionist narrative, the other slightly behind.
To avowed anti-Marxists like myself, this is purely pedantic and essentially irrelevant, since the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism surely overlap from a Marxist perspective anyway: a typical case of people who are almost ideologically identical perceiving a world of difference between them while everyone else looks on and sees them as the same.
If I have to pick a side, it would be with the KMT Marxists, since liberal democracy is capitalism's political counterpart, not feudalism's. A 'true' Marxist reading might be that Yuan Shikai represented the last (destined to fail) attempt to revert from capitalism to feudalism, but China had already transitioned to capitalism because of Westernization, especially during the last decades of the Qing, a time which during which there was an enthusiasm for all things Western coupled with a general devaluing of all things Asian, a phenomenon which also seemed to have earlier overtaken Japan.
But at the same time that Chiang Kai Shek wanted to be a leninist superman, he also wanted to be a traditionalist confucian reactionary. Eventually the latter took precedence over the former for him, so he launched a military campaign against not only the CPC, but also the left-kuomintang. After this path, he decided to become enamored with mussolini and later hitler. But he could never make a full pivot to any type of fascism, so he eventually lost the support of both. Eventually he became an anti fascist, and then was invaded by Japan. But he remained an anti communist and an anti capitalist. Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-reactionary, and anti-capitalist. Chiang was anti everything, and so he found himself completely isolated with nobody willing to actually support him.
After he was kicked out, he became an authoritarian capitalist. Probably out of necessity, if there's one consistency he *did* have, it was hatred of capitalism, but he needed US support for Taiwan to be able to exist.
That being said, "Chiangism" is not on its own a dysfunctional belief system. Chiang Kai shek was just an inconsistent man who wanted to be everything and nothing all at once. Xi Jinping today can be considered to be a far less impulsive Chiang Kai Shek who actually saw his vision through to the end. China greatly benefits, more or less, from the system that Chiang Kai Shek (initially) thought of. The issue with the system originally was that Chiang was the man behind it.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed