this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32282 readers
829 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would read an English translation of "On the Governance of China" as well as this https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Even Lenin acknowledged that you can't get rid of capitalism quickly, and China started from an even worse position than the USSR.
Empires competing and creating multipolarity benefits China, other socialist nations, and the imperial periphery looking to break free. Keep in mind that mao's three worlds theory is a major influence on some socialist factions in China, even if it is reductionist. Russia maintaining strength to challenge the US(including if it comes through a defeat or truce in ukraine)(note that China is pushing for a truce which would maintain Russia's ability to defend itself from NATO better, but supplying them to maintain their strength) is a good thing in their calculus, and I haven't seen any compelling rebuttals to it.
Realistically, China, as an hegemony seeking super power, would do the same thing no matter what century and flavor of autocratic regime is at the helm at that particular time. No need to make it more than what it is, really.
Citation needed.
Also you didn't really respond to anything said.
Have you ever listen to the CCP's rhetoric? Especially Xi's neo-traditionnalism and "restoring China's just place at the center of the world".
And neither did you, you were off-topic from the get go.
When China historically was the "center of the world" did they exert imperial hegemony over the rest of the known world?
This is a rhetorical question, because they didn't.
When you look at the way China has been making itself "center of the world" you'll note the lack of imperialism in their policy. They do not rely on financial and military control in foreign countries the way empires do.
You were claiming they weren't left wing and were state capitalist, I was addressing that misconception. Did you just try to say this as a "no you!"?