A relatively short article with some key assertions. The first paragraph is definitely going to irritate some people here. But the main thrust of the article is presented later, which is -

China’s late Cold War role as the great anti-communist power in the East, and its subsequent role in financing the American empire as it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

The article lays out a lot of history as it relates to the Sino-Soviet relations and shows how as a result -

The CCP picked the side of capital in the Cold War, doomed the international communist movement in the process

Most important is this paragraph w.r.t the Cold War -

The first sign of betrayal was China’s active role in supporting Pakistan during the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh By 1972, Mao’s meeting with Richard Nixon signaled that the full anti-communist pivot was complete. With this pivot, China became a close American ally and the bulwark of anti-communism in East Asia and beyond. By the middle of the decade, the CCP was giving out loans to Pinochet, supporting UNITA in Angola alongside South Africa and the US against Cuba and the Soviet Union and had opened diplomatic relations with reactionary capitalist powers, from the Marcos regime in the Philippines to Japan. Deng Xiaoping sealed this alliance by invading Vietnam in 1979 in defense of the US-backed Khmer Rouge which the Vietnamese government had been attempting to overthrow. The CCP claims to have killed 100,000 Vietnamese communists in that war, which broke the back of the communist movement in East Asia and essentially ended it as a Cold War front , thus allowing the US to fully pivot to its massacres in Latin America and Africa in addition to the defense of Europe against the USSR and domestic communist movements.

And in the post-Soviet world -

Unlike other major American bond purchasers (Japan, South Korea, Germany) who are American military protectorates and can thus even be coerced into increasing the value of their currency, China subsidizes the American war machine ... CCP funds America’s wars in order to maintain the high value of the dollar relative to the yuan, which gives China a massive competitive edge in manufacturing and is a critical source of China’s massive economic growth.

In coalition with the East Asian American military protectorates, China filled the massive budget shortfalls that resulted from the combination of the Iraq War, Bush era tax cuts, and the early 2000s recession, propping up the flailing US economy as the war commenced. Chinese bond purchases intensified with US spending in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, the CCP became an eager participant in the new War on Terror by allying closely with Israel, adopting American counterinsurgency techniques and technologies from the rapidly burgeoning trade, and eventually hiring American mercenary Erik Prince for themselves for deployment in “Xinjiang.”

  • Pezevenk [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    any Communist Party that is not behind the CPC in 2021 can go die in a ditch as far as I’m concerned

    Like KKE?

    • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I think kke are one of the best parties in Europe dont get me wrong but there stance on China being "no different to the imperialist powers" is nonsense (doing same thing as this article...highlighting their poor foreign policy prior to 1979) and their epiiogue on China is the same conclusion as all the other decent communist parties have drawn: that the market will inevitably lead back to counter revolutoon

        • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          China has not been at war for 42 years whilst Usa has only seen 19 years of peace in its entire existence

          Theres substance to that argument if you ignore the last 42 years

          • LibsEatPoop2 [he/him]
            hexagon
            ·
            4 years ago

            otoh, you can argue that it is the US' global dominance that allows it to go to war without any repercussions whereas if China had tried it would have resulted in severe reprisals. And that isn't an argument for what happens when the time comes to roll back these market reforms.

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        They are not highlighting the foreign policy prior to 1979? That's not their main concern. They don't like what China is doing now, not 40 years ago...

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        In particular, here's an article from KKE's central committee outlining their takes on China's international relevance: https://www.komep.gr/m-article/O-DIETINIS-ROLOS-TIS-KINAS/

        It's in Greek but you can translate it. I'm not saying I agree with it fully, it's just that it really isn't about their pre-1979 foreign policy, which is not remotely the point of emphasis.

        • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Hey comm this is same article I was referring to (written in 2010 by same author) but I read the english translation

          https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-International-role-of-China/

          So when I said"no difference to china and the imperialist powers i was referring to this piece"

          Even if we accept that there is a difference in the way in which China operates in Africa, in Asia etc, in comparison to other imperialist powers (something which is questionable, since they develop similar “humanitarian” and “educational programmes” in less developed countries e.g. the EU up until 2008 was the largest aid sponsor and commercial partner in Africa)

          I think 11 years on from this article and it is quite obvious that China has behaved very differently toward the 3rd world

          I'd like to see an article by KKE written in the last year or 2 and see if their stance has shifted.

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Lol I was just saying that because I remember JoeySteel citing KKE etc and KKE is very anti CPC.