this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
83 points (98.8% liked)
podcasts
20034 readers
49 users here now
Podcast recommendations, episode discussions, and struggle sessions about which shows need to be cancelled.
Rest In Power, Michael Brooks.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the biggest caveat to China support for me, too. Like I've read and understand the arguments that if China were to support global socialist movements the way the USSR did, they would lose a lot of the leverage and power that they've accrued for themselves in the past couple of decades - but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow them supporting right wing governments against socialist guerillas. If they're not going to send PLA volunteers to aid the rebels then at the very least they should use their neutrality to play some wishy washy word games about how they can't get involved!
Plus, I think there needs to be a reckoning with the fact that in every way that matters China is the largest power in the world right now. America's hegemonic status has been broken for a long time and the rest of the world is just figuring it out, China might see it in its interest to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency or whatever but they absolutely have room to be making moves that advance the socialist cause.
Exactly. Palestinians are literally on the brink of extinction, and China’s support for Iran is by million layers of proxy. Pakistan is their closest ally in the region. There are simply so many contradictions with China I can’t personally hand waive away through n degrees of abstraction.
Why should China be advancing the socialist cause directly in whatever nation? This is precisely the biggest blunder the USSR did and a historical lesson we should have learned already, why keep insisting on this. China already does their part by leading with example and proving that socialism is a superior system, the responsibility for liberating one own nation falls in the shoulders of the respective nation citizens. If a country wants a revolution they can have it, if not they won't, the Chinese wanted a revolution and they had it, Russians wanted a revolution and they had it, etc...
Winning a revolutionary struggle is not a matter of wanting it more than your opponents do. History is often contingent on the vicissitudes of a seemingly chaotic universe. I can understand the USSR wanting to tip the scales in favor of their preferred winners. Their failures in part show how difficult the task of steering history can be, so I also can't blame the CPC for their approach.
Why should China be socialist in the first place? Why not just go full cynicism and rig a capitalist system that directly benefits Xi and his allies?
"Because it's the right thing to do and would greatly benefit a large number of people" is reason enough. You can argue over tactics, say that if overt support draws an even worse counterrevolution then a different tactic should be pursued, but you can't argue over the morality.
Stopping colonialism and genocides is good, actually. Also, national chauvinism and claiming that all that matters is how well people live in China, as opposed to caring about the conditions of the working class in the world in general, is cringe, to say the least.
What basis does this claim have?
The PRC has been successful in improving the lives of people in China, but it does not seem to be doing much to help the rest of the world against capitalism and colonialism.
This is rather silly. Firstly, an 'example' is not something that gives peripheral states arms and productive capacities to fight off NATO, nor does it give those to the working class there to fight off the bourgeoisie in general. Secondly, what useful 'example' does the PRC provide? A shift to a privatised economy is useful in the short term for attracting foreign investments, which comes at the cost of workers' rights, such as guaranteed housing. Currently, no country that is opposed to NATO seems to be able to compete with the PRC in terms of foreign investment attraction and exports, as far as I'm aware. For that to happen, the PRC would have to stop taking its 'W's. Thirdly, as of right now, the PRC's economy is significantly privatised, it has a profit motive. I'm not sure what your definition of a 'socialist system' is, but the definitions that I have encountered so far require the abolition of the profit motive. That is in addition to the fact that, due to this profit motive, the PRC cannot currently manage to provide people with guaranteed housing the way planned economies are incentivised to do.
Notably, even if we accept this as some sort of a natural law (it obviously is not), that does not mean that the other countries should be left to suffer NATO's colonial atrocities.
This is literally a belief in the 'mind directly shapes matter' sort of magic.
A large part of Chinese marxist scholarship, is analyzing the reasons for the USSR's downfall. Some of the big ones are:
Of course both the PRC and USSR had some major foreign policy mistakes, but the PRC since Mao has continued to be non-interventionist overall.
Then why should any socialist support China?
Because the vast majority of socialists who can read this reside in imperial entities who wish to see China crushed. Part of the socialist struggle for internationalism is also defending anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles abroad, even if they're not perfect, the net effect of opposing our current system in a real way is more important.
The vast majority of us reading are fucking peasants who need China to be the ray of light.