No, they will create rebellions.

Or incur large costs over time.

For maintaining the necessary repression.

This has nothing to do with exact ideologies like Fascism or Marxism. It's just the dynamics of power.

A Liberal government that is not liked by the ppl creates the same effects.

Soviets arose from Russia under the Tsars, Maoists came out of the Xing dynasty's totalitarian suppression of modernization, Castro's revolution was all the more possible only after he attempted to work within Cuban law to oust the actually somewhat fascist Batista

(also batista was our plant, which is why you won't get republicans to ever forgive cuba, literally no other reason)

"Maoists came out of the Xing dynasty's totalitarian suppression of modernization"
NU

well, admittedly reductivist on my part, there were a slew of other reasons, that just came to mind first

they also just opened the country to foreign control

sold out sovereignty

The Emperors were fucked over by colonial powers and the inability to prove their traditional mandate of heaven by being good governors - because the foreigners were stronger then they were. This lead to the completely predictable rise of local warlords only some of which were Marxist (most notably Mao).

and it must be said at the same time chinese communists were on the rise, actual nationalist forces were already in the fight

This was more of a function of Confucianist tradition then of "repression" by the Emperor

@Goodwood of Dank™ whats the difference *bah dum tish*

*Empress, if we're talking about the same time period

Kek.

Dowager Empress, but splitting hairs now

ow ok

I was confuse af

yeah no, definitely talking about the 1900s and onward. specifically the Xing

even within Chinese documentation the Xing were referred to by some as a foreign occupying northern ethnic minority, but who is and isn't ethnically sovereign becomes difficult to discern when your state is a fragile as fucking candyglass

The thing with the Qing dynasty and Chinese history in general is that the entire religo philosopical outlook of China since its earliest inception under the Xia and Shang dynasties has been that of a divinely appointed autocrat to rule over all below heaven. A plausible argument can even be made that China's first recorded dynasty the Xia are a fabrication by the Zhao dynasty to justify there overthow of the Shang. China's entire existance up until the 20th century has been a sucession of dynastic autocrats given divine ligitimacy by chinese culture and religious beliefs to give context the Xia are tentitivly dated to 2200-1760 bc that's over 4 thousand years of this shit being the accepted way to do things.

is it Qing? can never keep it straight

depends on your translation but i think Qing is generally accepted as the name of the last imperial dynasty

The CCP pretty much cntinue that tradition in a way

They have the Mandate of Heaven, because they threw out the colonial scum and made China great again

the mandate of heaven by definition cannot be the mandate of the people

ehh, it kinda is and kinda isn't

it's 'whatever works' institutionalized

so if it works

you got the mandate

The mandate itself in complicated

it can be lost and then its fair game

for example the first ming emperor was born a poor peasant

thw whole continent seems to have been fair game at some point or another

China's problem has always been its size

and to give full context The Hongwu Emperor Rose to power under the Yuan dynasty founded by Kubli khan, who were seen as foregn invaded and generally disliked by the chinese

They weren't wrong

They overthrew an oppressive autocratic regime to replace it with another repressive autocratic regime

Sounds like modern Russia