China: Obama's Kind of Political-Economic System

by | Jan 20, 2011

It’s considered big news that the United States and China are forging “stronger economic ties.” The real news is that the United States even has the time of day for China. If America were still a free and prosperous nation, one respectful of individual rights and with a roaring, growing economy, things would be different. […]

It’s considered big news that the United States and China are forging “stronger economic ties.” The real news is that the United States even has the time of day for China. If America were still a free and prosperous nation, one respectful of individual rights and with a roaring, growing economy, things would be different. The United States would not “need” China.

China is a Communist country in name, while a fascist country in practice. What makes it Communist both in name, and in practice, is that individuals have no personal or political rights — which is to say, no rights at all. They cannot assemble, associate, write, speak or think (at least publicly) as they see fit, unless they’re prepared to face imprisonment or even murder. Economically, China is fascist. Under Communism, the government owned all property and exercised control over all economic activity. The Chinese Communist government attempted not just to regulate, but to literally direct, initiate and control all economic activity. The results were predictably disastrous: Starvation, despair and outright ruin.

The Chinese government next discovered fascism, starting in the 1980s.

Under fascism, individuals are allowed to participate in, initiate and, to some extent, benefit from economic activity. Economic fascism superficially resembles capitalism in this respect. However, there’s a crucial difference. Under economic fascism such as that in China, government ultimately owns everything. People operate businesses at the permission of the government, when it suits the government, and only when government allows it. Property is left in private hands when it suits the government, but ultimately property belongs to the government, who may do with profit or property whatever it sees fit.

Under economic fascism, government calls the shots. Business leaders are actually business “officials” and they exist to make the country prosperous, although only as the government defines it. The government completely controls and manipulates the currency and disposes of both businessmen and workers as it sees fit. Oh, and there’s only one political party in charge too, by the way. The important officials of government have an economy to run, and there’s no time for dissension or competition from political parties with different points of view.

To an Obama liberal, the Chinese system is the way it ought to be.

The United States is moving towards a Chinese system, if not in style, certainly in substance. Political competition is still allowed in the United States, although the Obama Administration is hard at work with its goals of nationalizing the Internet and restricting the types of speech to be allowed on the airwaves. We still have elections. But government increasingly subsidizes and controls most of economic activity (which explains our continuing slump).

Cap and trade legislation seeks to nationalize — that is to say, allow government to take ownership of — all the energy that is produced and consumed in the United States. This is huge. We’re not talking about nationalizing a particular corporation, such as AIG, or an entire industry, such as medical care or automobiles. Obama has already accomplished that. We’re talking, with cap and trade, about nationalizing the use of energy, the fundamental basis for essentially all economic human activity. That’s an ambitious goal and, to liberals, socialists and fascists, a noble one (so long as their particular guys get to be in charge). No, cap and trade will not pass into law under the current Congress, but the Obama Administration has made its intentions known, its intention to implement the law through the executive branch of government whether Congress permits it or not.

Barbara Streisand and other liberal/socialist celebrities celebrate the increasing association of China and the United States. These liberals probably understand what most Americans don’t yet grasp, or want to admit: That their President essentially likes the Chinese system. No, Obama does not admit this openly. But you can infer it from his actions.

All of his polices are aimed at doing the things China already does: Nationalizing health care, subsidizing or nationalizing private industries, and moving in the direction of restricted or limited individual rights, such as freedom of speech.

Does it bother Obama that in recent months China has been building itself up militarily? After all, Obama condemns the United States for its arrogance militarily, and is doing everything he can to reduce our nuclear capability and cut the Pentagon budget. You would think if he was so favorable towards pacifism, he’d condemn, or at least oppose, the Chinese for going in the opposite direction. And yet there’s silence. We can only infer (in Obama’s world) that when the United States builds its military up, it’s immoral; when China does so, it’s right.

Admitted or not, these are the attitudes of a President who favors fascism and opposes what the United States has historically been — a nation of mostly capitalism, freedom and individual rights.

You know you’re in trouble when a man such as Donald Trump, far from an advocate of capitalism and individual rights himself, says the following about the Chinese government: “The fact is they’re laughing at our leadership, and we’re letting them get away with murder.”

Trump is absolutely right. The problem is, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. But do Americans?

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at:

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest