The CCP is a Totalitarian Regime, Not an Authoritarian One

May 28, 2024

Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are two fundamentally different concepts, yet in recent years, many people have conflated them. Especially in China and North Korea, these typical communist totalitarian regimes are often referred to as authoritarian regimes, even by numerous experts, scholars, politicians, and even pro-democracy advocates both domestically and abroad.

However, there is an essential difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, despite both appearing on the surface to be dictatorial regimes led by a single political strongman and his party.

While an authoritarian regime is also a dictatorial regime led by a political strongman and his dominant party, under such a system, there is still a basic framework of democratic constitutionalism in place. For example, there is a seemingly impartial constitution, parliament, courts, and to some extent, a real opposition party and independent media. Elections, which may appear fair but are actually controlled behind the scenes by the political strongman and his party, are used to elect representatives and leaders at various levels, up to the highest.

These constitutions, parliaments (sometimes referred to as the Duma, People’s Congress, Political Consultative Conference, etc.), courts, and elections, though manipulated by the political strongman and his party, still provide some checks on the dictatorial policies of the political strongman and his party. Even though these checks are often limited, they ensure that the political strongman and his party do not completely act without constraint, leaving some space and hope for the authoritarian regime to gradually evolve into a democratic constitutional system under appropriate domestic and international conditions, especially if the strongman’s conscience has not entirely vanished.

In an authoritarian regime led by a political strongman and his party, there is an attempt to unify the thoughts and actions of the entire population under the strongman and his party’s ideology, but this is challenging to achieve in reality. This is because the political strongman and his party do not fully control all of the personal resources for survival of every individual under their rule.

Under an authoritarian regime, people typically retain their private property, homes, and freedom of movement, meaning that their rights and resources for survival are not entirely controlled by the political strongman and his party and government.

Therefore, under an authoritarian regime, people still retain a certain degree of freedom of thought, speech, and action, even though the authoritarian regime often restricts or even deprives individuals of these rights under various pretexts to consolidate its power. However, an authoritarian regime typically does not, and cannot, strip away all of the basic rights and survival resources of all its subjects at all times.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is a dictatorial regime established by a party that is built around a certain grandiose ideology or thought that is subjectively imposed.

To deceive both domestic and international audiences, the totalitarian regime may also set up representative bodies (which, despite varying names, are equivalent to parliaments in democratic countries), courts, and supervisory institutions. There may be so-called “democratic parties” outside of the ruling party, as well as a constitution and media outlets like television, radio, and newspapers. However, under a totalitarian dictatorship, all of these are merely nominal, serving as tools completely controlled by the political strongman, his party, and the government. They cannot play any role in supervising or restraining the arbitrary actions of the political strongman and his party.

In a totalitarian regime, all these institutions are entirely controlled by the political strongman through his party, serving as instruments for realizing his personal political ambitions and promoting the ideology he claims to believe in. Even though the strongman might not truly believe in this ideology, he uses it to deprive the people under his rule of their individual rights, forcing them to sacrifice all their interests and even their lives to fulfill his personal ambitions.

The significant difference between a totalitarian regime and an authoritarian regime lies in the extent to which the regime controls the resources for survival of the people under its rule. A totalitarian regime, its party, and its political strongman deprive the people of all their survival resources and keep these resources firmly in their own hands, reducing the people to mere dependents and slaves of the regime, with no individual dignity, no freedom of thought, speech, or action.

Under a totalitarian regime, every individual’s clothing, food, housing, and work are all controlled by the political strongman, the party, and the government. The well-being of each person, and even whether they can continue to survive, depends entirely on their level of obedience to the party and the government of the totalitarian regime and its political strongman.

These characteristics of a totalitarian regime make it fundamentally incapable of self-correction, and this is the greatest and almost insurmountable obstacle to social progress and the transition to democratic constitutionalism under such a regime.

An authoritarian regime, on the other hand, does not control all of the survival resources of the people. People have their private property (even though it may sometimes be infringed upon), and since they possess private property that is not typically arbitrarily confiscated, their basic survival resources, such as food, clothing, and housing, are not entirely dependent on the political strongman and the authoritarian government. Therefore, the people are not completely reduced to dependents of the political strongman and his authoritarian government. In an authoritarian regime, because people own their private property, have their own homes, and enjoy freedom of movement (that is, their own living space), they have a certain degree of freedom of thought and speech, as well as the rights granted to them by the constitution. Although these rights are often eroded or deprived under various pretexts by the political strongman and his authoritarian regime, they are not entirely taken away. These characteristics of an authoritarian regime provide possibilities for social progress and the gradual transition to democratic constitutionalism.

The Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, North Korea under the three generations of the Kim family, and Cambodia under Pol Pot were all typical examples of communist totalitarian regimes. They all took Marxism, an ideology concocted by Marx that was highly deceptive and alluring, as their guiding ideology, depriving the people under their rule of all private property and survival resources, reducing them to mere tools and cannon fodder for the political strongmen to achieve their personal political ambitions.

In their quest to fulfill their personal ambitions of global communist revolution, these totalitarian regimes and their political strongmen showed no regard for human conscience, morality, tradition, and law. They were willing to use any means, including repression, slaughter, famine, lies, brainwashing, endless political movements, and control of all survival resources, to intimidate and control the people, reducing them to obedient slaves and tools of the totalitarian regime and its political strongman (reading the true history of China under Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin, North Korea under Kim Il-sung and his descendants, and Cambodia under Pol Pot will make this clear).

The current rule in mainland China by the CCP under Xi Jinping is still a new form of communist totalitarian regime, which the author has termed “semi-marketized authoritarian communist totalitarianism,” as it not only possesses all the characteristics of a communist totalitarian regime but also has its unique features.

Since over 40 years ago, in an effort to save itself from the complete collapse of the economy and regime caused by Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the CCP has had to introduce a certain degree of market economy elements in the economic field. Under the banner of “reform and opening up,” it permitted the existence of private businesses and implemented the so-called “household responsibility system” in rural areas (which was essentially land division to households), forcing the CCP authorities to temporarily relax their total control over the basic survival resources of the people. As a result, the people began to acquire varying amounts of private property, and many gained their own homes. Although household migration remained strictly restricted and controlled by the CCP authorities, the freedom of population movement and migration improved significantly compared to before.

The CCP’s “reform and opening up” not only saved the CCP’s communist totalitarian regime in mainland China from impending collapse, but also, with increasing external exchanges, prompted the awakening of the intellectual class in mainland China, who had partially gained control over their basic survival resources. Having largely escaped years of poverty and famine, the people of mainland China (primarily intellectuals and students) began to make political demands.

The awakening of the intellectual class made them dissatisfied with the rampant corruption, wealth disparity, social injustice, collusion between officials and businesses, black market activities, rampant organized crime, environmental devastation, and moral decay that emerged after the “reform and opening up.” Encouraged by the wave of political and economic reforms in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, this dissatisfaction eventually led to the outbreak of the “June Fourth Student Movement” in 1989, which shocked the world. This massive, peaceful demonstration by students and citizens prompted the CCP hardliners led by Deng Xiaoping to feel their end was near, leading them to send tens of thousands of troops and police to brutally suppress and massacre the protesting students and citizens, resulting in thousands of casualties.

The CCP authorities did not draw lessons from the “June Fourth Student Movement” to carry out genuine political and economic reforms to fundamentally address the numerous social ills caused by partial economic reforms without corresponding political reforms.

Deng and the CCP failed to realize that the market economy can only fully unleash its potential to promote social development and improve people’s livelihoods under a legal system that upholds the sanctity of private property rights and within a rule of law society that effectively prevents the various negative aspects of the market economy.

Deng and the CCP attempted to develop a market economy while maintaining the communist totalitarian rule unchanged. This approach not only prevented the market economy’s advantages from being fully realized but also allowed its various negative aspects to go unchecked.

The CCP hardliners led by Deng Xiaoping believed that the “June Fourth Student Movement” occurred because the CCP had relaxed its control over the thoughts and speech of the mainland Chinese people, especially intellectuals and students, when it introduced certain market economy elements. They also believed that the CCP had loosened its control over the media, the cultural and arts sectors, and the basic survival resources of the mainland Chinese people.

Therefore, after the “June Fourth Student Movement,” starting from the Jiang Zemin era, the CCP began to re-tighten its control over the thoughts and speech of the mainland Chinese people, the media, the cultural and arts sectors, and so on, while also increasingly tightening its control over the basic survival resources of the mainland Chinese people.

From the Hu Jintao era to the present Xi Jinping era, the CCP’s control over the mainland Chinese people has, in many respects, returned to the level of Mao’s era. In terms of the scope and degree of control, especially with the use of high-tech means, it far surpasses that of Mao’s era.

On the surface, it seems that the mainland Chinese people now have varying amounts of personal property, with some even possessing millions or billions in assets. Many people have their own homes, whether owned or rented. In many situations, people can travel within the country or even go abroad, although household registration cannot move with them. This gives the impression that the mainland Chinese people have somewhat regained control over their basic survival resources.

However, this is not the case. Under the CCP regime led by Xi Jinping, the government can confiscate your personal property at any time under charges of tax evasion, black market activities, illegal operations, market disruption, or other fabricated accusations. Prominent figures like Cao Tian, Sun Dawu, Wang Jianlin, Jack Ma, Xu Jiayin, Wu Xiaohui, and countless small and medium-sized entrepreneurs have been ruined, bankrupted, and heavily indebted by arbitrary charges, with some families destroyed, some individuals fleeing abroad, others imprisoned. The CCP can also seize, demolish, or threaten landlords to prevent renting properties to you, leaving you homeless, forced to wander or emigrate, or to return to rural hometowns. The experiences of individuals like Yuan Xiaohua, Li Yuanfeng, Jifeng, and Wang Quanzhang illustrate this clearly.

The CCP authorities under Xi Jinping can also arbitrarily restrict your freedom of movement under any pretext (the most typical being the “COVID-19 pandemic”) using high-tech tools such as facial recognition, surveillance cameras, mobile phone tracking, health codes, and travel codes. Thus, the CCP regime under Xi Jinping still firmly controls the basic survival resources of every individual in mainland China.

The CCP regime under Xi Jinping continues to uphold extremist ideologies such as Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought, which are anti-civilization and anti-humanity. Its various institutions, such as the National People’s Congress, the Political Consultative Conference, courts, and procuratorates, are still nominal, serving only as tools for implementing Xi Jinping’s and the CCP’s will. Its military, armed police, public security, national security, and state security forces remain Xi Jinping’s private tools for dealing with internal and external opposition and suppressing dissent. The so-called nine “democratic parties” are, in fact, CCP branches that rely on CCP funding and personnel to continue functioning. They can only recruit members with CCP approval. Aside from being “democratic window dressing” for Xi Jinping and the CCP, they tirelessly whitewash the crimes of Xi Jinping and the CCP. They still monopolize all media outlets, television, radio, films, literature, newspapers, etc., and use these tools to cover up CCP crimes, praise Xi Jinping and the CCP, distort and conceal historical and current realities, and brainwash the people with communist totalitarian ideology.

Xi Jinping’s CCP regime still controls all the power in the country. Its constitution and laws remain mere pieces of paper that can be arbitrarily amended and interpreted. The personal rights stipulated by the constitution and laws can be taken away by the CCP at any time for any reason. In these respects, the CCP regime led by Xi Jinping in mainland China is still a genuine communist totalitarian regime with all the characteristics of such a regime.

The regimes of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo in Taiwan (especially in the later period), Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan in South Korea, and Vladimir Putin in today’s Russia are all typical authoritarian regimes. These regimes possess all the basic characteristics of authoritarian regimes mentioned earlier in this article. Therefore, the authoritarian regimes in Taiwan and South Korea eventually transitioned peacefully to modern democratic constitutional systems. Russia’s transition to a democratic constitutional system is only a matter of time.

Many people, both domestically and internationally, confuse totalitarianism with authoritarianism because these two systems appear on the surface to be dictatorial regimes led by a single political strongman and his party. However, the degree of dictatorship and the disasters caused by these two systems are vastly different. Authoritarian regimes are still subject to some internal checks and balances, limiting the disasters they cause. The suppression of underground CCP members and liberals in Taiwan during the two Chiangs’ rule caused hundreds or tens of deaths each time, and the number of detainees was also only in the tens or hundreds. The repression of student demonstrations during the Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan regimes in South Korea caused similar damage to that in Taiwan under the two Chiangs. However, while these authoritarian regimes caused such damage in the process of stabilizing society, they also brought about economic takeoff and social progress, eventually leading to the peaceful transition to democratic constitutional systems in both Taiwan and South Korea.

In contrast, the dictatorship of a communist totalitarian regime is unprecedented. Such a regime deprives its people of all personal rights. The communist totalitarian regime under Stalin in the Soviet Union caused the deaths of 30-40 million people through repression and famine. The communist totalitarian regime in mainland China caused the deaths of at least 80 million people through repression and famine. The communist totalitarian regime in Cambodia caused the deaths of one-third of the population through slaughter and famine. The communist totalitarian regime in North Korea caused the deaths of millions of people through repression and famine. These regimes also led to the near-total collapse of their economies and social regression.

Many people (including many within Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party) believe that there is no difference between the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party and that of the Kuomintang, as both are dictatorial regimes. Many South Koreans believe there is no difference between the communist totalitarian regime of North Korea’s Kim family and the dictatorial regime of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. In reality, these two types of regimes differ significantly not only in the degree of dictatorship and the severe consequences they cause, but also in another critical aspect. For an authoritarian regime, dictatorship is merely a means to maintain power, stabilize society, and promote social development and progress, not an end in itself. For a communist totalitarian regime, dictatorship is not only a means but also the ultimate goal.

Rewritten on May 13, 2024, at Wangchunxuan

Original Article Address: https://yibaochina.com/?p=253130