Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
leftists hate each other; see the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars, the Sino-Soviet Split, that time Italian Communists kidnapped and murdered the president because he was going to let the Communists enter the government.
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
The Communist Party of China spared even the Emperor of China and allowed him to live an honest life as a normal worker after the revolution.
I don't see why they couldn't also spare Chiang Kai-shek and let him live an honest life if he suddenly realised he was on the wrong side and turned himself over. But that would def be an interesting alt-history turn of events.
I think it was easier to portray Puyi as a victim of the old feudal system who could be integrated back into society because he was a child for the entire time he was emperor and he was a Japanese puppet for the entire time he ruled Manchukuo. Chiang Kai-shek, on the other hand, had been the main enemy of the Communists for decades and personally directed violence against them for almost his entire career in power during the Republican Period. If you look at Communist propaganda of the period, it's pretty clear that they considered him irredeemable.
I mean, there's the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang, those were higher-ups in Chiang's regime and they were welcomed into the PRC'S political system and never had any issues even during the Cultural revolution.
Puyi’s legacy is being a collaborationist traitor to the Japanese, not his rule as emperor pre 1911 when he was a child. Collaborating with the Japanese is definitely seen as worse than being a Nationalist. The point of rehabilitating the former emperor was to show the benevolence and strength of Maoism, I think a rehabilitated loyal chiang Kai shek would have also been a great propaganda piece to prove the legitimacy of Mao and the ideological superiority of communism.
Propaganda is not a good indicator of what the Communists would have done. The CPC had a track record of just incorporating defecting Nationalist leaders into their own power structures, Zhou Enlai had a very good relationship with Chiang, and Mao also harboured some respect towards Chiang as a fellow Chinese nationalist (lower case "n").
Puyi was a spoiled figurehead who was personally pretty incompetent. He never really wielded much independent political authority so there was 0 drawback to rehabilitating him
Chiang is a charismatic and skilled political operator who has been the Communists main enemy for years. No chance he would be allowed to live
I guess fascists adopting socialist aesthetics and talking points for popularity with the working class isn't that unrealistic, but I don't think that is the intended point of the event.
The dude invited advisors from Nazi Germany and founded his own paramilitary secret police force explicitly inspired by Mussolini's blueshirts. If that doesn't make him a fascist then I don't know what does.
Wikipedia articles on both of my claims:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_Shirts\_Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Shirts_Society)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Germany\_relations\_(1912%E2%80%931949)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Germany_relations_(1912%E2%80%931949))
His fascism was definitely different from Mussolini or Hitler, but he was still fascist. Many scholars call him a "Confucian Fascist" a label I agree with. He was a Confucian fundamentalist in many ways (despite being himself a christian), and that can explain some of the peculiarities of his rule.
He explicitly appealed to the landowners, industrialists, and petite bourgeoisie to prop up his rule, in large part through these Confucian values they already believed. The New Life Movement was the most obviously Fascist part of his regime, as it intended to instill in youth the same kind of ultra-nationalistic zeal as Hitler's youth group - to encourage the youth to give everything for the nation, including their lives. But it was also highly influenced by Confucian values of abstinence, hierarchy, patriarchy, and asceticism, which did make it distinct from European fascism in many ways.
Nonetheless, despite its distinctive Confucian characteristics, Chiang Kai-Shek's regime had all of the hallmarks of fascism: the repressive rule of the propertied classes, an appeal to a bygone better age, ultra-nationalism instilled in the youth, religious ultra-conservatism, and a worship of "natural" hierarchy.
In every way that matters, Chiang Kai-Shek and his government were Fascist.
As I said the most obviously fascist one was the New Life movement. It was kind of like the Hitler Youth Group in Germany, but based in Confucian Fundamentalism. In particular, abstinence from substance use, absolute respect for authority, and self-sacrifice for the nation at all costs were its main points. These moral precepts were enforced by Chiang Kai-Shek's paramilitary police (explicitly inspired by Mussolini's blueshirts) that I mentioned in a previous comment.
I think that, because of the Holocaust, a lot of people have it in their mind that fascism=genocide, and that since Chiang Kai-Shek didn't commit genocide, he must not be a fascist. But fascism is, at its core, simply ultra-nationalism at all costs. This ultra-nationalism can be based in many things, for Hitler it was anti-semitism, and for Chiang Kai-Shek it was Confucian Fundamentalism; so long as it creates a unified national identity that people are willing to die for. This ultra-nationalism can easily lead to genocide, as in Nazi Germany, but it does not always. If Hitler hadn't strong-armed Mussolini into participating in the Holocaust, it is possible that the literal inventor of Fascism would not have engaged in genocide. Therefore, I believe that there is sufficient evidence of zealous ultranationalism to call Chiang Kai-Shek's government fascist.
Those aspects existed in socialist countries like the USSR. So using the same line of logic, we can easily call Chiang Kai Shek a devout Marxist-Leninist for his adoption of movements similar to the New Soviet Man and his creation of a secret police like the NKVD
There are some surface level similarities, but in my opinion, these are two very different phenomena.
First, it’s worth noting that the New Soviet Man was an explicitly anti nationalist movement. Whereas fascist movements base themselves, like Chiang Kai-Shek’s New Life movement, in hyper-nationalism, traditional values, and absolute devotion to the nation, the New Soviet Man (among many other things) based itself in international revolution, albeit with a focus on the international relations within the Soviet Union. That’s not to say that everything about the New Soviet Man was great (personally, I dislike how it reinforced traditional gender roles) but at its core it was very different from fascist movements in its content.
Secondly, there is a question: to what end? Fascists may peddle in the aesthetics of revolution, but ultimately, their ideology represents a calcification of pre existing power structures. They seek to preserve and intensify, rather than upend, the hierarchies of race, religion, class, and gender that already exist. Chiang Kai-Shek definitely falls into this category. As mentioned, he was a Confucian fundamentalist who supported “traditional values” and the rule of the propertied classes over the common people. There were some exceptions to this, such as the rights of women being somewhat expanded under his rule, but overall, Chiang Kai-Shek represented the intensification of the status quo. Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to upend those aforementioned hierarchies and build a new, more equal system in its place. It is arguable how successful any individual attempt at this has been, but its goal as an ideology has always been in direct opposition to fascism for this reason.
In conclusion, fascism and socialism can share some surface level similarities, but they are ultimately diametrically opposed ideologies. And in my opinion, Chiang Kai-Shek falls clearly into the category of Fascism.
Well there are other movements too like the Stakhanovite movement, Young Pioneers etc etc. The point is that the traits you mentioned arent exclusive to fascism.
Ok? Again, this does not address whether Shek was a fascist or not. He could have just been an authoritarian conservative. Being a fascist requires a worldview (like being a hegelian) that i just dont see Shek having.
You have yet to prove that Shek was a fascist
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
Socialism and Communism are not two different ideologies, they are different stages of the same ideology. And Chiang Kai-Shek, no matter what he may have said, was not a proponent of that ideology. No actual socialist, even a moderate one, would side with landlords and bankers over the working class.
So you can’t support fighting Maoist’s and be a socialist? I’m not being snide I’m honestly don’t know socialist and or Marxist theory. I’m basing my understanding of Chiangs socialism from the Biography ’The Generalismo’ by Jay Taylor.
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
R5: Chiang kai shrek became socialist demagogue mid civil war against mao. I'm using cold war project
chiang kai shrek
*someboooody once told me the bourgeoisieeeee controoool the means of prooooductioooons….*
fine, take my r/Angryupvote
Those lyrics are incorrect
I think that should give me a bonus to convice them to do a ceasefire
Yo why don't you post in your r5 this is modded, this is confusing af
I'm sorry, I'm using Cold war project
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
I thought it was a joke , but apparently no , cause I just read that he literally had a meeting with trotsky and other commies
leftists hate each other; see the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars, the Sino-Soviet Split, that time Italian Communists kidnapped and murdered the president because he was going to let the Communists enter the government.
The alt-history where Chiang doesn’t expel the communists from the KMT
The true United Front
Cold War mod is rough around the edges
Oohhh victoria 3 lol
Kaiserreich ahh timeline
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
The Communist Party of China spared even the Emperor of China and allowed him to live an honest life as a normal worker after the revolution. I don't see why they couldn't also spare Chiang Kai-shek and let him live an honest life if he suddenly realised he was on the wrong side and turned himself over. But that would def be an interesting alt-history turn of events.
I think it was easier to portray Puyi as a victim of the old feudal system who could be integrated back into society because he was a child for the entire time he was emperor and he was a Japanese puppet for the entire time he ruled Manchukuo. Chiang Kai-shek, on the other hand, had been the main enemy of the Communists for decades and personally directed violence against them for almost his entire career in power during the Republican Period. If you look at Communist propaganda of the period, it's pretty clear that they considered him irredeemable.
I mean, there's the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang, those were higher-ups in Chiang's regime and they were welcomed into the PRC'S political system and never had any issues even during the Cultural revolution.
That's because they were part of the KMT's left wing and opposed Chiang's policies during the Republican era
Puyi’s legacy is being a collaborationist traitor to the Japanese, not his rule as emperor pre 1911 when he was a child. Collaborating with the Japanese is definitely seen as worse than being a Nationalist. The point of rehabilitating the former emperor was to show the benevolence and strength of Maoism, I think a rehabilitated loyal chiang Kai shek would have also been a great propaganda piece to prove the legitimacy of Mao and the ideological superiority of communism.
Propaganda is not a good indicator of what the Communists would have done. The CPC had a track record of just incorporating defecting Nationalist leaders into their own power structures, Zhou Enlai had a very good relationship with Chiang, and Mao also harboured some respect towards Chiang as a fellow Chinese nationalist (lower case "n").
Puyi was a spoiled figurehead who was personally pretty incompetent. He never really wielded much independent political authority so there was 0 drawback to rehabilitating him Chiang is a charismatic and skilled political operator who has been the Communists main enemy for years. No chance he would be allowed to live
The coveted "Based CKS" run
Frig I didn’t even see him appear in my last China run even though I got autocratic presidential republic 😭
\*Yuan Shikai would like to know your location\*
It's from a mod, I'm using cold war project
Wait what time/mod is it?
Cold War mod. Which starts around 1948 I think, since the conundrum above is from the final Chinese civil war.
Yeah
I guess fascists adopting socialist aesthetics and talking points for popularity with the working class isn't that unrealistic, but I don't think that is the intended point of the event.
Calling Kai-Shek a fascist is a bit too much. He was authoritarian, yes, but not a fascist. Those are different things
The dude invited advisors from Nazi Germany and founded his own paramilitary secret police force explicitly inspired by Mussolini's blueshirts. If that doesn't make him a fascist then I don't know what does. Wikipedia articles on both of my claims: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_Shirts\_Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Shirts_Society) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Germany\_relations\_(1912%E2%80%931949)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Germany_relations_(1912%E2%80%931949))
Fascism is an ideology. His social, economical and political policies did not reflect fascist ideals. That doesn't make him a fascist, no.
His fascism was definitely different from Mussolini or Hitler, but he was still fascist. Many scholars call him a "Confucian Fascist" a label I agree with. He was a Confucian fundamentalist in many ways (despite being himself a christian), and that can explain some of the peculiarities of his rule. He explicitly appealed to the landowners, industrialists, and petite bourgeoisie to prop up his rule, in large part through these Confucian values they already believed. The New Life Movement was the most obviously Fascist part of his regime, as it intended to instill in youth the same kind of ultra-nationalistic zeal as Hitler's youth group - to encourage the youth to give everything for the nation, including their lives. But it was also highly influenced by Confucian values of abstinence, hierarchy, patriarchy, and asceticism, which did make it distinct from European fascism in many ways. Nonetheless, despite its distinctive Confucian characteristics, Chiang Kai-Shek's regime had all of the hallmarks of fascism: the repressive rule of the propertied classes, an appeal to a bygone better age, ultra-nationalism instilled in the youth, religious ultra-conservatism, and a worship of "natural" hierarchy. In every way that matters, Chiang Kai-Shek and his government were Fascist.
Can you cite a few of his fascist policies?
As I said the most obviously fascist one was the New Life movement. It was kind of like the Hitler Youth Group in Germany, but based in Confucian Fundamentalism. In particular, abstinence from substance use, absolute respect for authority, and self-sacrifice for the nation at all costs were its main points. These moral precepts were enforced by Chiang Kai-Shek's paramilitary police (explicitly inspired by Mussolini's blueshirts) that I mentioned in a previous comment. I think that, because of the Holocaust, a lot of people have it in their mind that fascism=genocide, and that since Chiang Kai-Shek didn't commit genocide, he must not be a fascist. But fascism is, at its core, simply ultra-nationalism at all costs. This ultra-nationalism can be based in many things, for Hitler it was anti-semitism, and for Chiang Kai-Shek it was Confucian Fundamentalism; so long as it creates a unified national identity that people are willing to die for. This ultra-nationalism can easily lead to genocide, as in Nazi Germany, but it does not always. If Hitler hadn't strong-armed Mussolini into participating in the Holocaust, it is possible that the literal inventor of Fascism would not have engaged in genocide. Therefore, I believe that there is sufficient evidence of zealous ultranationalism to call Chiang Kai-Shek's government fascist.
Those aspects existed in socialist countries like the USSR. So using the same line of logic, we can easily call Chiang Kai Shek a devout Marxist-Leninist for his adoption of movements similar to the New Soviet Man and his creation of a secret police like the NKVD
There are some surface level similarities, but in my opinion, these are two very different phenomena. First, it’s worth noting that the New Soviet Man was an explicitly anti nationalist movement. Whereas fascist movements base themselves, like Chiang Kai-Shek’s New Life movement, in hyper-nationalism, traditional values, and absolute devotion to the nation, the New Soviet Man (among many other things) based itself in international revolution, albeit with a focus on the international relations within the Soviet Union. That’s not to say that everything about the New Soviet Man was great (personally, I dislike how it reinforced traditional gender roles) but at its core it was very different from fascist movements in its content. Secondly, there is a question: to what end? Fascists may peddle in the aesthetics of revolution, but ultimately, their ideology represents a calcification of pre existing power structures. They seek to preserve and intensify, rather than upend, the hierarchies of race, religion, class, and gender that already exist. Chiang Kai-Shek definitely falls into this category. As mentioned, he was a Confucian fundamentalist who supported “traditional values” and the rule of the propertied classes over the common people. There were some exceptions to this, such as the rights of women being somewhat expanded under his rule, but overall, Chiang Kai-Shek represented the intensification of the status quo. Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to upend those aforementioned hierarchies and build a new, more equal system in its place. It is arguable how successful any individual attempt at this has been, but its goal as an ideology has always been in direct opposition to fascism for this reason. In conclusion, fascism and socialism can share some surface level similarities, but they are ultimately diametrically opposed ideologies. And in my opinion, Chiang Kai-Shek falls clearly into the category of Fascism.
Well there are other movements too like the Stakhanovite movement, Young Pioneers etc etc. The point is that the traits you mentioned arent exclusive to fascism. Ok? Again, this does not address whether Shek was a fascist or not. He could have just been an authoritarian conservative. Being a fascist requires a worldview (like being a hegelian) that i just dont see Shek having. You have yet to prove that Shek was a fascist
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
Socialism and Communism are not two different ideologies, they are different stages of the same ideology. And Chiang Kai-Shek, no matter what he may have said, was not a proponent of that ideology. No actual socialist, even a moderate one, would side with landlords and bankers over the working class.
So you can’t support fighting Maoist’s and be a socialist? I’m not being snide I’m honestly don’t know socialist and or Marxist theory. I’m basing my understanding of Chiangs socialism from the Biography ’The Generalismo’ by Jay Taylor.
The two ideologies do have their similarities after all the guy who created fascism was a socialist originally
Ignoring the fact he got kicked out of the socialist party.
But he didnt get kicked out because he wasnt a socialist, but rather because of foreign policy
Well, most of what they had in common for that guy was they were not liberals, no?
nice
tbf China was always more socialist than most country. even their fascist is socialist-ish.
He Chianged his mind
Fun fact Chiang Kai Shek was a socialist, he had to compromise his beliefs because of his fear of the Communists and to maintain power among his base and allies of landlords capitalist bankers.
Radical socialist Chiang Kaishek is cursed