China will have to eventually abandon its "non-interference" policy. As shown, US/NATO don't just fight direct or proxy wars, they will do color revolutions and unleash their terrorists, Xinjiang and Pakistan will be hot spots if/when China moves on Taiwan. The CIA already has their terrorists in Pakistan killing Chinese engineers working in Pakistan.
China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world.
While this isn't a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.
The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.
Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.
It’s not so clear as that, I think. The USSR and the PRC both exported revolution / aided decolonial revolutions to some extent, but the USSR also attempted a policy of peaceful coexistence and in many cases was probably not as proactive as they could or should have been, often only reacting to the most egregious of aggressions from the U.S.
China will be fine. If they can survive in the 70s when they're completely surrounded by hostile countries they have border skirmishes with on top of being a bit of a pariah state, they'll be fine now.
The longer they wait the weaker the west will be when it happens. The west us powered by capitlaism and well, there is this tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.
They should have years ago but they wont. In the end even in the worst case and these terrorists do make it to China they'll treat it as their own internal affair, do whatever needs to be done and then have Xi meet with whatever dipshit is replacing Blinken and Yellen every few months.
China has been consistent. The best description I've seen is BRICS is not anti-west but rather non-west. They want to claim independence from western(US) influence and intervention yet they want to be treated as equals and be friendly. Sadly this naive idea is exactly what dominates right now and it is bound to fail no matter what.
Very deep questions need to be asked but they wont. China will do everything to keep the economic miracle going while crying US bad and doing nothing about it. Taiwan is a dead end issue given China's own technological development.
i am wary of this rheotoric, i have heard on podcasts the ussr was extremely hesistant and critical of the soviet afghan governments killing of people, and despite stating so multiple times upon deploying soviet troops into afghanistan were unable to solve the issue and continued the mindless deaths of the people of afghanistan.
war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition.
the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many. i have heard it said socialism cannot sustain it self with weapons of war - that the steel of rifles barrels could have built bridges and incubators.
not to mention the foreign actors who wish to see the PRC collapse, we all know very well that the capitalist have the power to make mountains of ant hills
war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition. the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many.
Blanket statements about war being a crude form of politics tends toward dogma and not material analysis.
Reminds me of Mao’s “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” speech. “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
Modern China is quite different from Mao’s China, but I think it is still true that there are conditions under which war is a necessary activity for a socialist state. One of those conditions would be acts of war imposed on that state by other bourgeois states. If Mao had not insisted on the necessity of war in revolutionary China, I don’t think we would have a socialist China today. The threat on China today is only increasing, and military force will inevitably have to be used to counter Western aggression.
I am not advocating hawkishly for war. It is not automatically the correct strategy. Nor is it automatically incorrect. War is a reality imposed on socialist states that has to be dealt with on its own terms.
This is nominally the correct answer. The key fault that lied with the Communists of the former socialist Afghanistan they fell into ultra-left deviation of moving too far ahead of the Afghan people and attempted to force their people to move faster than they were willing from afar, leading to their masses becoming fertile grounds for reactionary religious fundamentalist sentiments to sprout and causing an unbroken vicious cycle of violent reprisals that would lead to the fall of Socialist Afghanistan and the weakening of the Soviet Union.
Material improvements are indeed one of the primary means of countering festering reactionary seeds, but the methods of application of ideology is another one as well. And currently I'm of the belief that China's currently pursuing, as far as we can generally see thus far, the correct course in relation to their own self-governance. Nevertheless I do hope they're paying close attention and have been working thoroughly to ensure the defenses of their western regions.
China will have to eventually abandon its "non-interference" policy. As shown, US/NATO don't just fight direct or proxy wars, they will do color revolutions and unleash their terrorists, Xinjiang and Pakistan will be hot spots if/when China moves on Taiwan. The CIA already has their terrorists in Pakistan killing Chinese engineers working in Pakistan.
China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world. While this isn't a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.
The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.
Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.
It’s not so clear as that, I think. The USSR and the PRC both exported revolution / aided decolonial revolutions to some extent, but the USSR also attempted a policy of peaceful coexistence and in many cases was probably not as proactive as they could or should have been, often only reacting to the most egregious of aggressions from the U.S.
China will be fine. If they can survive in the 70s when they're completely surrounded by hostile countries they have border skirmishes with on top of being a bit of a pariah state, they'll be fine now.
The longer they wait the weaker the west will be when it happens. The west us powered by capitlaism and well, there is this tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.
It pretty much always works against the US and that is kinda wild.
They should have years ago but they wont. In the end even in the worst case and these terrorists do make it to China they'll treat it as their own internal affair, do whatever needs to be done and then have Xi meet with whatever dipshit is replacing Blinken and Yellen every few months.
China has been consistent. The best description I've seen is BRICS is not anti-west but rather non-west. They want to claim independence from western(US) influence and intervention yet they want to be treated as equals and be friendly. Sadly this naive idea is exactly what dominates right now and it is bound to fail no matter what.
Very deep questions need to be asked but they wont. China will do everything to keep the economic miracle going while crying US bad and doing nothing about it. Taiwan is a dead end issue given China's own technological development.
what needs to happen is that the br4mins that rule India need to allow BRI
the chinese need to stop claiming Arunachal in return
after that, coolzone
i am wary of this rheotoric, i have heard on podcasts the ussr was extremely hesistant and critical of the soviet afghan governments killing of people, and despite stating so multiple times upon deploying soviet troops into afghanistan were unable to solve the issue and continued the mindless deaths of the people of afghanistan.
war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition.
the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many. i have heard it said socialism cannot sustain it self with weapons of war - that the steel of rifles barrels could have built bridges and incubators.
not to mention the foreign actors who wish to see the PRC collapse, we all know very well that the capitalist have the power to make mountains of ant hills
Blanket statements about war being a crude form of politics tends toward dogma and not material analysis.
Reminds me of Mao’s “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” speech. “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
Modern China is quite different from Mao’s China, but I think it is still true that there are conditions under which war is a necessary activity for a socialist state. One of those conditions would be acts of war imposed on that state by other bourgeois states. If Mao had not insisted on the necessity of war in revolutionary China, I don’t think we would have a socialist China today. The threat on China today is only increasing, and military force will inevitably have to be used to counter Western aggression.
I am not advocating hawkishly for war. It is not automatically the correct strategy. Nor is it automatically incorrect. War is a reality imposed on socialist states that has to be dealt with on its own terms.
This is nominally the correct answer. The key fault that lied with the Communists of the former socialist Afghanistan they fell into ultra-left deviation of moving too far ahead of the Afghan people and attempted to force their people to move faster than they were willing from afar, leading to their masses becoming fertile grounds for reactionary religious fundamentalist sentiments to sprout and causing an unbroken vicious cycle of violent reprisals that would lead to the fall of Socialist Afghanistan and the weakening of the Soviet Union.
Material improvements are indeed one of the primary means of countering festering reactionary seeds, but the methods of application of ideology is another one as well. And currently I'm of the belief that China's currently pursuing, as far as we can generally see thus far, the correct course in relation to their own self-governance. Nevertheless I do hope they're paying close attention and have been working thoroughly to ensure the defenses of their western regions.
good comment