Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Conference Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence on Friday in Beijing.Here is the full text of his speech.Carrying Forward the Five Principles of
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.
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.