deleted by creator

Unless this response is meant as a general statement ,it has little to do with my comment

I literally call it a bad ,cringe and toothless socdem stance and there isnt a hint of supporting or justifying it, let alone not being critical

and saying

Maybe if and when China comes out on top of this new cold war and is able to remap its foreign policy ,soft power and projection based on the new global status quo and completely on its own terms things may change, In this case it may mean the likely scenario that Israel will progressively be less able to be maintained and supported as a highly militarized and subsidized by the US hegemony protectorat and China not caring to “adopt” and use it in the same way

is miles appart from you saying

every bad china take is supported by essentially ‘ok but when they win and hit the socialism button they’ll be perfect’...them eventually becoming anti-imperialist is not supported by anything they have done. socialism in one country, perhaps. global anti imperialist? there is no evidence for that besides our dreams.

which feels like a response to what i said and would be putting way too many words and assumptions in my mouth. What i said doesnt even presume a socialist China, let alone an actively anti-imperialist one. I think my presumption is pretty realistic all things considered

Which leads to a last point ,thought i generaly agree with what you say. China's rise and success diminishing and overturning the golbal US military, imperialist and economic hegemony while China itself remains at worst as it is today (not actively anti-imperialist but also not imperialist in any significant and interventionist capacity) is itself one most impactfull and important anti-imperialist changes and wins in history, for billions of people and hundreds of countries. Even if it doesnt come from China having or persuing an active anti-imperialist agenda. The end or at least the diminishing of an era of the tens of millions of deaths due to Western imperialism, hundreds of millions of lives ruined, countries destroyed and impoverished, regions distabilized, governments overthrown and couped, dictatorships backed and trained, torture genocidal wars doesnt require China becoming communist and globaly anti imperialist and perfect. Just not becoming exponentially,hillariously worse and more imperialist and interventionist than it is now . Almost every single socialist or anti-imperialist country or movement or project from Cuba to Bolivia to Rojava to Venezuela would be in a much much better position ,materialy ,deplomaticaly ,economicaly and geopoliticaly with no multi level interfeerence and aggression by global hegemony .

You dont have to dream about socialist or ideologicaly anti imperialist buttons and transformations to see the very likely possibility of China being semi-passively the catalyst of a huge and world changing blow to the grip of global imperialism

anything otherwise is a remnant of the white roots of marxism

you're off the deep end dude

China's policy is what has allowed it to exist. You pay taxes, you are also complicit in the genocide of Palestinians.

There is not a single more genocidal and colonialist country than any anglo settler regime, both by scale and depth. How come you don't ask americans on this site to return the stolen land they live on? how come you don't ask white countries to demand the return of stolen american land? how come you don't demand European countries to stop all relations with settler regimes? how come you keep paying taxes to fund the genocide of Palestinians while you occupy stolen indigenous land?

Apparently it only bothers you that China maintains the UN supported position while being a non-imperialist superpower, having developed without stealing land or continental scale genocide. What a weird set of priorities, but then again, this is an anglo site.

But Palestinians and Israelis need to learn to live together.

If one group of people is actively genociding the other group, I don't think the primary concern is for them to learn to live together

Uh no Israelis need to shut the fuck up and get in the sea. Complete and total irredeemable Nazi society. Gonna ask slaves to reconcile with their slaveowners next?

deleted by creator

So to clarify, China works with Isreal because it's a way they can funnel American military tech into their country?

North Korea, Cuba and democratic South African government (ANC), famous western settler governments.

deleted by creator

This whole comment reads like what a stoner turns in as an essay when they haven't read the assignment.

Removed by mod

Yes and unfortunately the overall revolutionary foreign policy that China displayed in the 50s and 60s largely ended during the late Mao era of the 70s and eventually led to what Chinese foreign policy is now:

It normalized its relations with Burma, and established diplomatic relations with non-communist countries: Malaysia (1974), the Philippines (June 1975), and Thailand (July 1975), all of which had been regarded as “lackeys of American imperialism” in the past.[28] In the context of confronting the Soviet Union and rapprochement with the United States, China adjusted its attitude towards these Third World countries. Meanwhile, China pursued a “dual-track” policy: it still provided a certain degree of support to anti-government left-wing parties.[29] Geng Biao used Sino-Burmese relations as an example: “We have diplomatic relations with Burma. [Prime Minister] Ne Win comes, and we have to welcome him. But the Burmese Communist Party conducts armed struggle, and we strongly support it. However, we can’t sever diplomatic relations with the Burmese government just because we support the Burmese Communist Party.”

Although the CCP claimed it strongly supported the armed rebel groups, this support inevitably grew weaker because it needed to maintain relations with their governments. In May 1974, China and Malaysia formally established diplomatic relations. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Razak Hussein, in his meeting with Mao Zedong, repeatedly asked the latter to promise that the CCP would not have any relations with militant communists in Malaysia. Mao refused to sever the CCP’s relations with the Malaysian communists, but he compromised that “it is your internal affairs; we can’t intervene.” When Abdul Razak claimed he would “use troops and police to kill them,” Mao still said “it is your policy”; “we don’t intervene in your internal affairs.”[30] Later in July 1975, Mao told the Prime Minister of Thailand Kukrit Pramoj: “Someone asked me not to have relations with the communists in their country (Mao meant the rightest governments). I said no. How can communists not support other communists?... As for how you deal with the communists (in your country), we don’t intervene. Nothing more than condemning, fighting and killing. We don’t and are unable to manage it. (We) can’t intervene in other countries’ internal affairs. ”[31] By reiterating “we don’t intervene,” Mao implied his declining endorsement to the communist rebellions in Southeast Asia, although he didn’t completely abandon them.

Geng’s speech also illustrated the subtle change of Mao’s foreign policy. “We should not intervene in their internal affairs,” said Geng Biao. “Each countries’ Marxist-Leninist parties’ guidelines, policies, and strategies can only be made by themselves and through the integration of Marxist-Leninist principles and their practical situations. No matter how correct you are, if you don’t understand their situations, it will be very dangerous to command them. In the past, the Soviet revisionists always wanted to command us, but we didn’t listen to them.” Geng’s talk justified China’s declining support to the fraternal communists in Southeast Asia by referencing Mao’s philosophy, “integrating the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the particular situations.” The CCP wanted neither to participate in other communist parties’ conferences nor to invite other parties’ members to join CCP events. “The meetings we hold are to solve our own problems. What happens if they disagree with us when we are giving a report? If they invite us to attend a conference, we cannot keep silent about what is wrong. The moment we speak, we will disagree with them and quarrel with them. They are the hosts, and we are the guests. It’s not good to quarrel with them on their own turf.” China was also reluctant to train military personnel for its communist brothers. “We should tell them that fighting is not a big issue; they can learn when they fight. Some always ask to send military cadres to come here to study. We should tell them there is no need to do so,” said Geng Biao.

The CCP emphasized the role of “political support” - “political support is primary; economic support is secondary,” according to Geng. But in fact, this political support was also decreasing. Propaganda support was one of Beijing’s traditional means of political endorsement for the fraternal parties. The left-wing parties’ armed struggles were often the focal point in the Chinese media. In the middle of the 1970s, when China had improved its relations with Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, Chinese media gradually reduced its reporting on the revolutionary insurgencies in these countries. It also avoided criticizing the Southeast Asian leaders by name. Additionally, in the past, the Chinese media had underscored the importance of Mao’s approach of armed struggles in the countryside when reporting the insurgencies in Southeast Asia, while in the middle of the 1970s, the reporting had to admit the complexity in Southeast Asia and encourage political movements in cities.[32] Three China-based clandestine radio stations—the Voice of the People of Thailand, the Voice of the Malayan Revolution, and the Voice of the People of Burma—were still able to pursue different lines from Beijing’s media. They continued carrying anti-government propaganda. But, Chinese media references to these clandestine stations became less frequent as the 1970s progressed.[33] The above demonstrated a dimming in Chinese zeal to spread revolution.

Mao Zedong himself was reluctant to give up revolutionary ideals, as well as the endorsement to fraternal parties, but he had no better option. He realized other communist parties did not live up to his expectations because they achieved little and were unable to overthrow their governments. He had to compromise and placate those foreign government leaders.[34] Revolutionary ideology declined in Chinese foreign policy in the 1970s.

Based.