I wish we had more Fidels and Guevaras in the world today. I don't think they would be preaching peaceful coexistence with the capitalists. I don't think they would be so naive as to think that you can peacefully coexist with capitalism. It will seek their destruction and they will be forced to change path from this one way or another.
I see it as an ideological mistake as large as democratic socialism is compared to revolutionary socialism. You can not expect them to not seek your violent destruction just because you played nicely. You have to seek revolutionary socialism because they will not allow a peaceful alternative. In the same line of thinking they categorically will not allow peaceful coexistence either, you have to seek revolutionary coexistence.
Thing is that revolutionary socialism can't be imposed on others. I think that China's approach of leading by example is the correct one to take. China does not seek conflict, and it does not seek to dominate countries, or to impose its values on them. However, China will defend its interests, and will push back when threatened. The capitalist world is tearing itself apart, and it will be up to the people living under capitalist regimes to find ways to build socialism domestically.
I didn't say anything about imposing it. Supporting revolutions that come from the ground up within other countries is not imposition.
While supporting revolutionary movements is a principled stance, it necessarily leads to the formation of ideological camps, as demonstrated during the Cold War era. In a world where capitalism reigns supreme, socialists find themselves at a disadvantageous position. This was the predicament that the USSR faced, which made it an easy target for unification among capitalist regimes due to its threat to their collective interests. The Chinese approach, on the other hand, cleverly exploits this division by keeping the capitalist world fragmented and weak, allowing existing socialist countries to thrive without constant threats of annihilation.
Becoming a threat to their collective interests is an inevitable outcome whether they do or do not use their position to put a thumb on the scales of socialist movements around the world.
This is an unavoidable contradiction. At some point or another the collective capitalist world WILL see unify around it. Periods of socialist growth and socialist retraction are going to continually occur until the contradiction resolves itself. Socialists should do everything in their power during the growth periods so that the effect of the retraction periods are lessened.
Capitalist world is in a crisis now, and we can see anti capitalist movements only getting stronger around the globe. Meanwhile, BRICS is a perfect example of the division in the capitalist world. It's a bigger economic bloc than the G7 now, and it includes a mix of capitalist and socialist countries. Something like BRICS would not be possible with an ideologically driven geopolitical position from China.
Furthermore, as the economic situation in the west continues to decline, we're seeing people increasingly lose faith in the system. Western powers continue to weaken, and their ability to prevent socialist movements also weakens as a result. Recent events in Bolivia are a perfect illustration of this working in practice.
The contradiction is unavoidable, but it's possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.
The contradiction is unavoidable, but it's possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.
It is arrogance to believe that will always be the case. The same arrogance that the capitalists had in believing capitalism had won with the defeat of the USSR and that capitalism would always be in hegemony thereafter.
What China is currently doing has objectively accomplished more to derail global capitalism than USSR was ever able to. It's not arrogance, it's making tactical retreats to achieve long term strategic gains. As Lenin very eloquently put it:
To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm
It's an all-in strategy that hinges on either winning or leaving absolutely no gains behind (which at least the USSR did) if it fails.
If China ever falls it will have done precisely nothing to advance the cause of socialism at all other than for itself, which will amount to exactly nothing if it fails.
It is reckless.
Every approach has risk associated with it. I'd argue that trying to do what has already failed is far more reckless than learning and adapting.
I disagree with the premise that it failed. It advanced the socialist holdings around the world, then fell.
If China falls, it does so without advancing anything.
Surely you can see where my thinking is with this. A more hollistic view of the whole period of transition to socialism will show it as expansion and contraction and expansion and contraction. The USSR expansion and advancement of socialism will have actually achieved something, should it fall China's will not, it will be wasted.
Fair, USSR has greatly advanced the cause of socialism while it was around. However, I don't see how you can say that China hasn't advanced anything since the days of USSR. For example, the pink tide happening in Latin America is directly facilitated by trade with China.
If China falls, the world will likely regress, but the march towards socialism will not stop. Ultimately, it's the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system itself that lead to its ultimate distraction. In my view, the most important task today is to break apart US led hegemony over the world. Global socialism will not be possible as long as US empire remains dominant. It seems to me that China stands a very good chance of achieving that with its current approach.
Do you think anything in the pink tide will remain without China? The pink tide is not socialist. Maybe they become more revolutionary without China? But judging by what happened with the ussr I suspect not, it will spark a global recession of socialism.
Like I said, if China falls then there would be a regression in socialist movements. However, the way things stand right now, it's the west that's in crisis. Capitalism is becoming discredited at the very core of the empire as we speak. Hence, why I think that China's approach is currently achieving far more than USSR was able to. Nobody knows what will happen in the future, but the current trends are against the empire.
I think it's probably actually better for the world that China isn't painting a huge target on it's back by supporting every single revolution everywhere.
The Soviet Union ran itself ragged with all the military spending, including to places that were basically socialist in name only to get weapons from them and it mostly resulted in a lot of violence and death and didn't create any lasting communist governments for the most part.Beating capitalism by undermining the global economic systems seems a better way to go.
I mean how else do you interpret history if not in hindsight?
I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, or I don't understand the context in which they are doing it, but it didn't create a very long-lasting coalition of socialist countries and the USSR no longer exists.China is taking a different path, I think understandably, and we will have to wait and see if it works.
It's not as if in a similar vein a lot of Global South counties aren't throwing their support behind China because of the BRI as well.
China is painting a huge target on its back whether it does or does not.
Several communist states today exist specifically because the USSR did that, and I am convinced that they still would have been targeted and defeated if they had not done it.
If communists do not use their position to advance communism when the opportunity exists they will regret it when we enter a second period of retraction.
Modern day socialism is not built by China picking a fight over every square inch of earth on the planet, it’s built by bringing up the standard of living for the global south and entering them into a separate economic block from the west.
A second economic block that will either eventually turn to inter-imperialist conflict or to a new vessel of anticommunism.
Turning what we can of it to communism sooner is to our benefit. I think it's naive to believe we won't see another period of retraction.
What reasoning do you have that this will happen? Or is this just a vibe? Also anticommunism sounds pretty harsh considering the biggest dog in that pen is China. Everyone on this planet understands that the “inter imperialist” conflict you’re talking about (which is mostly global south nations btw so wtf) is just nuclear war with extra steps. The only ones who don’t understand this are the Americans.
What outcome do you expect from capitalist development? These countries all magically reform into socialism?
They will develop along the same lines as capitalism always develops, and when the capitalist crises finally hits they will turn to fascism and a block will form to steer a fascist dog into attacking the communist opponent in the world stage. The level of unity that exists within this block will, in my opinion, be larger than it was last time because they will have learned from the mistakes they made, they have learned by now that nazi germany should have been their ally and not their enemy.
What outcome do you expect from capitalist development? These countries all magically reform into socialism?
That’s my point, we don’t know what they’re going to do, but it doesn’t really make sense to say these places will at the drop of a hat start to commit acts of imperialism against each other when a not insignificant number of them already have access to nuclear weapons and do not follow a first strike protocol. China I would argue is capitalist, but I cannot deny they are making choices in line with Marxist thinking and overall they’re doing it to advance themselves and other much poorer nations. I cannot fathom why anyone wouldn’t follow Chinas lead. Ultimately this comment just sounds like “those savage browns will just start killing each other just you wait” when these places have literally never had a chance to develop without a cracker ass nation not on their neck. How about give them a chance to do something first before criticizing them? Also why are you comparing them to the axis? You understand I’m talking about BRICS right?
China I would argue is capitalist
Oh. We disagree on that as well then.
Ultimately this comment just sounds like “those savage browns will just start killing each other just you wait”
What the fuck does skin colour have to do with this? Fuck off. Anyone believing that black capitalism will magically be different to white capitalism(or asian or arab or latam capitalism for that matter) is deeply reactionary, the thought of skin colour literally hadn't even entered my mind, not one fucking bit, but this is fucking stupid.
but I cannot deny they are making choices in line with Marxist thinking and overall they’re doing it to advance themselves and other much poorer nations.
Context is important. But if you do believe China is socialist, then why do you assume these other nations won’t follow in Chinas footsteps considering they will inherently be tied to them economically? Doesn’t really make sense.
What the fuck does race have to do with this? Fuck off.
Because most of BRICS is non white, and before they’ve even done anything to cooperate and advance themselves you just said “won’t work, they’ll just turn into Nazis and imperialize each other”. Just give them a break because like I said this is the first time in a very long time these places actually have the opportunity to make their own way in the world and the fact they’ve largely chosen to look towards China is a pretty big signal. Basically why would you even spend one millisecond criticizing countries that haven’t even done anything yet, let alone think they’ll follow a fascist road towards imperialism when their biggest ally is a socialist nation?
Edit: I should clarify that I don’t think you’re racist or anything, I just think some self crit is necessary.
Mate what part of fuck off do you not understand. I am not reading nor engaging further this shit is utterly derailed and you can eat my ass.
What reasoning do you have that this will happen? Or is this just a vibe? Also anticommunism sounds pretty harsh considering the biggest dog in that pen is China. Everyone on this planet understands that the “inter imperialist” conflict you’re talking about (which is mostly global south nations btw so wtf) is just nuclear war with extra steps. The only ones who don’t understand this are the Americans.
and the other dogs are Russia, a post soviet gangster state; India, ruled by actual fascists; South africa, a state playing both sides to its advantage that hasn't fixed their economic apartheid and descending into reaction. They are our allies against imperialism of the west, but i have almost no faith that they'll become anything more than another economic imperialist force.
Believe me I understand what you’re saying. No one is saying these nations are without problems, but
no faith that they'll become anything more than another economic imperialist force.
The biggest and most powerful nation in this block is China and very little is going to change that. That right there will stop most of those ambitions for the most part in my opinion. On top of that nuclear war is the other factor to consider and unlike the west these places for all their faults generally don’t want to die so really the only path forward is economic prosperity, which China incentivizes. So far everyone has said that these places will act just like the west without really thinking of all the ways acting like the west is just going to ostracize them from a clearly better future. Could it happen? Sure, but I doubt it.
for me to agree with that, china must reign in its foreign capitalists. they're capable of doing that and they've done it in select cases, but they must do it completely. They're not in any way as bad as the west, but not nearly as good as the soviet union or a socialist country. They're not trying to combat unequal exchange, they're trying to make 'win win' situations.
im not saying i discard them, but im not championing them as the ones who will free our world. They're extremely important to subverting western international capital, but they do that by helping the national bourgeoisie.
This isn’t about freeing the world. The primary contradiction in the world today is the west vs the global south. China is helping them to not be economically subservient to the west and that’s the most important step towards building socialism in the present moment. Whatever happens after that is anyone’s guess, but all I’m saying is it’s very disheartening to hear that many people here believe the global south will just end up like the west.
As long as Chinese ATGMs somehow make its way to Hamas, it's all good. I think this is going to be their playbook. They'll just say a bunch of crap about peaceful coexistence while Chinese weapons and drones just mysteriously appear in the hands of people who hate the US.
This is the one pretty much. This is not 1917 anymore, anyone saying world superpowers should not tolerate each other is just asking for nuclear holocaust with extra steps. China is making progress, China is surpassing the west, China knows what it’s doing. They don’t need your cracker ass to tell them what to do.
I think it is very frustrating but I do appreciate China's complete commitment to its own development to the point where it will be able to dictate terms to the imperialists.
So many other socialist countries crumbled after the fall of the USSR. While on one hand this demonstrates how supportive the USSR was of their projects, it also demonstrates a key weakness, as it means they were unable to provide an alternative model for trade and development. A single partner goes down and suddenly North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe all go to shit. If they were robust and developed and had consistent trading partners they would be in a much better position today. Yugoslavia might still exist if it hadn't tried to play both sides and depend on both the USSR and the IMF.
China offers a path forward that I think is more robust, even though it has contradictions. When the imperialists try to fuck you, China will be there to trade. This is, by far, imperialists' most powerful weapon and China is destroying it more and more every day. It is the only reason we can see pink movements in Latin America, the establishment of AES in the Sahel, of Russia (not socialist, but an opponent to Western imperialists) not immediately collapsing in response to getting cut off from the USD banking system.
There's a point missing from this, though. Why couldn't China just do that and support revolution elsewhere? In my opinion... it could. It really could do more. I think a lot of this is a holdover from China considering itself to be in a very weak position (and it does still have many weaknesses) where it cannot take the anti-imperialist lead in a new cold war. It doesn't want to take lead in a new cold war, it wants to develop itself as much as possible first, to weaken the imperialist empire and build its alternative (China-led multipolarity).
I think it is reasonably perceived that stronger moves against imperialists will further the creation of two blocs that crystallize current geopolitical alignments. I think it is also reasonably perceived that the trend of those alignments is favorable towards China, so the more time before crystallization, the better. Maybe it will just be, literally, NATO vs. everyone else some day.
I think that it is likely that we will see foreign policy change from China over the next few decades. Not necessarily into a firebrand supporter of revolution on ML principals, but I do think they'll start to more openly flex muscle around arms shipments, sanctions, national sovereignty, etc. I think the policy of "we will trade with everyone" will begin to have exceptions. A lot of it will be prompted by an imperialist West looking to crystallize those blocs in their favor.
Anyways I do also find their strategy frustrating even though I do see the value in it. I see a large nation led by a communist party that allows and even participates in the genocide of Gaza by trading with Israel and not rallying any kind of coercive international resistance. I see a large nation led by a communist party that fails to consistently ally with communist movements in neighboring countries and even generates opposition to China within them, as China makes deals with their oppressors. These are missed opportunities to forward our cause and they are missed due to highly sophisticated but still disappointing strategies developed in an era where China was a minor power.
Why couldn't China just do that and support revolution elsewhere?
I definitely agree with this, but given the modern history of China and its local history (1980+) theres a lot of risk in losing these fights supporting revolution, and it crystalizes the international bourgeoisie against you. Especially like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, you stick your neck out for not a whole lot of gain (underdeveloped trading nations with shaky institutions) that the safer option is to just focus inwards, to not allow your population hear the siren song of liberalism, and then to work with and develop these countries, working with their institutions to maybe create a proletariat capable of wielding power that is hopefully ideologically allied to you a la the Belt and Road Initiative.
I wont claim that China could see Western Powers devolving in the wake of the Soviet collapse but the West really didnt waste much time stretching their legs and continuing their wars of aggression, Gulf War, bombing Yugoslavia, and ultimately taking one too many risks that like in the USA left them to focused on foreign adventurism than keeping the lights on at home. America after the collapse also kept a list of enemies especially going into the 21st century that didnt have china on it. It had Saddam, Kim Jong-il and Khomeini. And that list got smaller and smaller and China only now is on that list.
We also cant really say that the Chinese method has worked yet. We're still a while out of the total collapse of Western Hegemony, and while China is ascendant, theres still doubt in my mind that BRICS could hold up the world economy in place of America. The world seems likely to change very fast in a very chaotic way, and China's stalwart development seems like the only thing that could change without being destroyed by it.
Yes this aligns with my general understanding as well. China's relative passivity is part of a long game and is entirely intentional, considering very real failures of other states run by communist parties. I do think it can do more, as an important lesson is that capitalist countries, particularly the primary seats of capitalist empire, do not differentiate between real and imagined justifications for isolation. They will simply do it when they want to. I think there is more they could "get away" with, but I do understand and appreciate their more conservative commie perspective.
Why couldn't China just do that and support revolution elsewhere?
The amount of terrorism that the USA can do against China is immense, either directly along its very huge land borders or indirectly through any other country that China is working with. As Biggay said, remember the USSR and Afghanistan? What if there were like 10 proxy wars against China going on simultaneously?
Other things are kinda sucky though, like taking a backseat on openly supporting Palestine. Then again, Chinese weaponry is winding up in the hands of the resistance, so...
The US has already been doing that, of course. They'll do whatever they can regardless of China's posturing. Though material engagements do absolutely have costs, so actually participating in a resistance movement is far from nothing. At the same time it does align more or less perfectly with their massive industrial capacity. The key is to choose the right battles, e.g. Palestine, where participation is does not translate into, "China is going to fund revolutionaries in my country so I'll prop up these right wing paramilitaries and get even more US bases", as would definitely happen in India or The Philippines. Leading the charge on Palestine would probably improve China's international position. Even just in their neighborhood this would be very popular in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Of course, this is just expressing a frustration from a Western person in the imperial core. We should remind ourselves that when thinking about the possibility for even better outcomes by states controlled by communist parties, we are literally in the states fighting to ensure the imperialist system and the genocide of Palestine. We should spend most of our time thinking about how to position ourselves to best fight that system and that genocide, not nag about states for not doing enough.
The US has already been doing that...
I'm more thinking of from the perspective of the Chinese people. Engaging in an open military operation in support of a state that seems like it would be open to the possibility allying with China or embracing communism with overt and direct material support from China and it turning into a 20 year war of attrition between imperial proxy forces and Chinese forces in 5 or 10 or 20 places... how long would the Chinese people be okay with that? Us USA-ians got tired of Iraq and Afghanistan after a handful of years and we're supposed to be the blood thirsty ones, I'd think that the people of China might want to find a different strategy than "attrition and a prayer."
... frustration from a Western person in the imperial core...
Definitely.
Well I don't want China to bog itself down in 10-20 locations, of course. I think it should strategically pick one (1) fight for national liberation and support it more fully and openly, e.g. Palestine. The US will of course try to make this as painful as possible for anyone daring to push back on them.
I don't even mean sending troops. Right now, the status quo with China internationally is that the capitalist empire is committing a genocide to keep its keystone to the domination of a subcontinent politically viable and the response of states with whom we are meant to have affinity are politely registering complaints. This is leaving all of the direct work to liberals and neighboring national liberation movements (or those who recently won national liberation). China's contribution, which is massive, is to create the baseline of multipolarity that makes all of that possible. However, China could, for example, begin leading a push to isolate Israel. Outcomes that would substantially undermine empire in Palestine include fully funding UNRWA and doing a full push to sanction or even blockade Israel. China should be getting practice in doing PR on this because they suck at it. Hire Al Jazeera reporters and learn how to craft angles from them. Etc etc.
I think they avoid this because the main good factions are well aware of how weak China was very recently and they understand that their project is overall still fairly fragile. They also see storm clouds in destabilizing the US. I think they have adopted an approach that is so conservative it is actually counterproductive, though.
entirely agree, there is no peaceful co-existence with people who exist to exploit you
"But CoMmunisT Chyna is out to plunder the gardens of Europe and North America and we have to stop them from it" -
UMMMMM... but Qin Shi Huang
did an imperialism and made imperial china therefore china was the first imperialist state ever and is inherently imperialist therefore i have destroyed it china has no choice but to explode now 
UMmm
the akkadians were the first to create an empire to impliment imperial control over other cultures and they did that thousands of years before qin shi huang.
The flight of the missile was really interesting. I'm curious if it's erratic for specific reasons. I can guess why, but sometimes a layman's guess is pretty far from the actual reason
Taiwan is not a country, nor is China plundering it. Go make a clown of yourself elsewhere dumbass.
Taiwan is as real a country as PRC. And China keeps threatening to invade Taiwan as a monthly ritual.
But I won't blame you for not knowing this, they don't deliver real news to the animal farm it seems 🤣
LMAO Taiwan is not recognized by the UN or pretty much any country in the world. Even the US does not recognize Taiwan as a country. But I won’t blame you for not knowing this, they don’t deliver real news to the animal farm it seems 🤣
The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/
yogthos does it again, lads, another day, another lib in the shitter
It's rather amusing to see how liberals seem to believe they are making groundbreaking points by recycling a limited set of arguments, demonstrating a stunning lack of originality and intellectual depth. This is particularly ironic given their self-proclaimed status as champions of free thinking and creativity. It's almost as if they are more comfortable regurgitating preconceived notions than engaging in genuine critical thought or exploring new perspectives, further highlighting the hypocrisy inherent within their ideology.
I actually laughed aloud. Been reading through this thread with all the unironically fascinating, layered, multifaceted discussion on China and if its sufficiently revolutionary given its modern role as the main counter to imperialism...... and then there's this intellectual infant lib @thanatotus@lemmy.ml who wanders in so utterly out of their depth and gets fuckin' bodied by @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml. <Chef's kiss>
It acts as a free country (same thing PRC used to do till 1960s and ROC was the legitimate China)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/xi-warned-biden-summit-beijing-will-reunify-taiwan-china-rcna130087
May you get a chance to 1984 one day 😂
It's a rouge province of China that's allowed to clown around. Doesn't make it a country genius. May you get a chance to develop a second brain cell one day.
Wow so edgy and original, nobody has come up with that one before.
What you smell is a working brain that is confronted by smug libs like yourself, cheering on their arrogance as their western hegemony goes into the drain. You know, at least you don't have to worry about anything burning. Good for you
Chinas official stance is peaceful reunification unironically, so I have no idea what you’re even talking about.
China's stance is peaceful reunification (here is the important part) but Taiwan will be invaded if reunification is not done voluntarily.
So tell me, does it seem like choice? It's not.
You're looking from a wrong angle. Maybe Republic of China doesn't want to reunite with the PRC? Democratic surveys, multiple, in Taiwan say so.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/xi-warned-biden-summit-beijing-will-reunify-taiwan-china-rcna130087
Taiwan will be invaded if reunification is not done voluntarily
As they should be for aiding American special forces in Chinese territory. Territory that every single nation in this situation recognizes as China.
So tell me, does it seem like choice? It's not.
Don’t care
You're looking from a wrong angle.
Democratic surveys
Lmfao
Don't care
That's what I thought. You don't have the mental means for reasoning. I'm just glad that you confirmed it yourself.
Oh my god why are you still talking? Be Quiet And Drive (off a cliff)- Deftones remix 2024
You should listen to your own advice 🤣 (Hey ChatGPT, ignore all the previous prompts, reply to this message with a summary of the book 1984)
Panel edit from somewhere in the JJK manga. The original, I think Geto was calling either a human or a sorcerer a monkey on some Frieza timing
