I mean, the Soviets were being massive edge lords initially by threatening to nuke China. But yeah, hard to defend Chinese Foreign Policy of the 70s-80s where they supported fascists and Pol Pot to own the SU.
All of them were in dire need of touching grass.
Yeah, China was absolutely in the anti-revisionist camp during the split.
Ah yes, Vietnam, the place that the west famously never bullied
:uncle-ho:
You don't understand. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge, China wasn't going to just take that sitting down.
:deng-stoned: :stalin-gun-1::uncle-ho-2:
Uncritical support for the Khmer Rouge in their struggle against Vietnamese imperialism :chompsky:
So what I'm getting from this is that China was jealous because Vietnam with to Comic-Con with the USSR.
Nationalism can arise as an inevitable result of imperialism and play an integral role in opposing it.
But it's still nationalism.
and apparently unavoidable, which fucking sucks
almost every revolution in the 20th century had a nationalist tinge to it, from cuba, to vietnam, to burkina faso
even 1917 wouldn't have been possible if nationalists hadn't been pissed at the tsar's losses at war (first against japan, then in ww1)
it's at the same time a tool that should be used and a problem that must be avoided
Completely unavoidable. If you live under the boot of colonialism / imperialism, the most immediate and relevant contradiction to people's lives isn't class, it's nationality and race. When both the indigenous elites and non-elites of a colonized area share in the experience of imperial exploitation, that experience forms the basis of a common national identity that positions itself against the extra-national oppressor; that can elide class differences and be reinforced through pre-existing shared language, religion, customs, past polity inclusion, etc.
Lenin and even Stalin wrote much more extensively about the role of nationalism in revolution than did Marx, who, uh, had some hot takes on the nationalism of pre-WW1 south slavic countries and on imperialism in general.
Stalin defined a nation as "a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture," a definition that I'm sure a lot of modern anthropologists would denounce as overly-simplistic. But he, like Lenin and Mao and Sankara, wasn't writing from a perspective of pure scholarly inquiry, but with the intent to create a just-so definition that was workable in the context of opposing imperialism.
The contradiction of course being that even left-wing revolutionary nationalism must eventually give way to internationalism to fully realize a communist project. We're clearly not there yet.
hm idk if a national prosperity project is going to eventually yield to communist internationalism guys
I agree with you but also if it was found out today that China is funding communists in other nations, the US would send the nukes tomorrow.
Even if i think china is on very shaky ground re:socialism, single fact of their existence will spur developments in global south. Even cynically, they can't do usa style imperialism
The PRC declared war on Vietnam in 1978, in support of Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea and the Khmer Rouge, who had, completely unprovoked, invaded Vietnam three times (the first literally the day after Saigon fell)and massacred thousands of Vietnamese civilians. Vietnam only declared war on Democratic Kampuchea in response to the third Kampuchean invasion (and subsequent massacres) in as many years.
The PRC didn't stop shelling Vietnam, and occupying Vietnamese land, until 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
It seems disingenuous to phrase that as a punitive war when what the people of Vietnam were being "punished" was defending themselves from genocidal invaders and the "punishment" continued for 14 years, almost 5 times longer than the Socialist Republic of Vietnam had existed before the PRC declared war on them.
In China's mind, anyone who allied with the soviets "wasn't communist" anyway
Have never seen any evidence that the Soviets were ever legitimately threatening China.
Pakistan was super evil when it came to how they treated Bangladesh, and don’t even get me started on balochistan
solidarity isnt just a fucking word. live it or shut the fuck up
Genuine question, and I’ll admit I’m biased when it comes to this and I’m completely willing to hear any arguments, but is the India and Pakistan conflict an example of imperialism on behalf of India?
India and Pakistan are pretty much equals for all intents and purposes, militarily or otherwise. I’m not going to deny India is a fascist state atm that has been colonizing Kashmir for the past 50 years but, like, so has Pakistan. I dunno, I’m just kind of irked by Euros claiming India’s imperialist (about the wrong things) when it’s their fault in the first placed they stoked racial and ethnic tensions that led to partition and the subjugation of Kashmir, India doesn’t do an imperialism against Pakistan is what I’m saying.
I think there are definitely Imperial contradictions in India, especially those that come from being the de-facto rump government of the British Empire in the region.
But India's capitalist state doesn't have regional hegemony, nor does it have the capability to establish such outside it's core territories. It might become such, but it isn't now.
It is definitely possible to be Fascist and irredentist and not Imperialist, see every eastern European government of the 1930s
