Or they could not do that because there is nothing specifically wrong from profiting off of your enemies’ actions as long as you don’t rely on it for your entire economy. We don’t really deal with moralist arguments here
Yes, and the trade with the entity was that China got US miltech in the 90s (when it was still the top provider in the world) when no one else would trade it with them bc of sanctions and in exchange the colony gets AC units and some agriculture. Basically consumer goods.
I’m not going to do a good trade bad trade comparison because that’s meaningless but this was the historical reason for the normalization of relations with the zionist entity and the exporting country does get the most benefit out of it. There is a strict ban on exporting weapons or anything that could be made into weapons.
I can’t be in their mind but China is probably worried that if they completely change course it will only alienate them from the ties they’ve built in the region. Most countries in the region have normalized relations with the occupation, what is China supposed to do when they inherited a situation they had no hand in forming? Instead of yelling at them on english websites the CPC doesn’t read we should be demanding that our governments send Cuba oil.
Seems like sound logic. Trade with the genocidal ally of the increasingly fascistic global military super power while they systematically eliminate all other smaller “AES” states and major trade partners you have (or economically force them into submission) while you sit back and shore up your metaphorical walls.
You idealist China shills are nothing if not consistent.
You respond to differing opinions with a haughty demeanor. Then, when a counter argument is made, you resort to childish name calling when your rehearsed responses are no longer sufficiently up to the task.
“Rehearsed responses” motherfucker, THE TRUTH DOESN’T CHANGE.
Y’all always reveal yourself with that exact bullshit. Of course the responses are gonna sound the same, they were forged in truth and there is only one mold.
There are no opinions to be had here, it’s just you being wrong. All your arguments have been defeated thoroughly in this very thread by others already
Ah yes. There is one unshakable truth, yet I am dogmatic for criticizing one decision made by the entity that must not be questioned.
I will continue to criticize what I feel needs to be criticized for the possible betterment of the movement and people as a whole. You are welcome to join me and engage in discussion and debate that will inevitability lead to our mutual growth. I hope you do.
Yep, that’s kinda how truth works actually. We base our view on material analysis and see the truth that China can’t do much more than they already are.
yet I am dogmatic for criticizing one decision made by the entity that must not be questioned.
I mean, you are clearly putting principles and ideals over material analysis. There is simply no way that you tried to materially analyse the position of China and got to the conclusion that they should intervene more than they already are. China is the number 1 enemy for the west and you want them to ruin all hard earned relations with them for what exactly?
I will continue to criticize what I feel needs to be criticized for the possible betterment of the movement and people as a whole.
Throwing out moralist opinions based on dogmatic ideals is not criticism. Again, read the thread and you can find actual criticisms and their answers.
Of course you won’t actually read anything in here and just keep on holding unto your liberal opinions on how the biggest enemy of the western world should act.
They have done insanely well so far and you should have some respect towards the people that are actually fighting against the empire and are getting closer in over taking it. Just an insane amount of hubris that you think that your “criticisms” can hold any water to the communist party of china and their decision making.
You are welcome to join me and engage in discussion and debate
? You are the one that has refused to engage in discussion and debate. I told you multiple time to take to the thread and actually read it.
I will concede the trade point in a general sense. But the point I was trying to make is that, to our collective dismay I’m sure, the US is tightening a noose around China.
Russia is floating the idea of trading with dollars again in Ukraine negotiations. India recently made a trade deal with the US for oil. Depending on how these things play out, BRICS will be considerably weakened.
The US is moving a large amount of armaments to the Philippines. They are amassing a fleet to strike Iran. South Korea is still… South Korea.
I disagree with what I assume is you and your comrades support of China’s lack of direct support for socialist movements abroad. It looks to me as though they will soon be in a very weak position on the global playing field. In my opinion, that direct support could have made a difference. Reeling in trade with their ideological enemies could as well. Should this play out in favor of the US, they will likely have to make more concessions to the bourgeoisie than they already have.
Unless the US economy finally gives way to the rot that has been spreading across it’s foundations. Which China may be banking on. The “gamble” I mentioned previously.
You’re identifying the same contradiction I am, just seemingly analysing it differently and drawing different conclusions from it.
The U.S. is clearly attempting to tighten the noose but that’s not new. That’s been the defining feature of China’s external environment since at least 2011, and realistically since 1949. Encirclement, sanctions pressure, proxy wars, tech embargoes, financial warfare, the standard imperialist containment. What’s different now is simply that China is large enough to be treated as an existential rival rather than a manageable subordinate.
Despite agreeing on this I heavily disagree with your analysis and conclusions. You’re assuming that earlier or more direct revolutionary intervention abroad would have meaningfully altered this trajectory. I see no historical basis for that.
The USSR tried exactly what you’re proposing: massive material support to militant movements, open alignment, heavy military commitments across multiple continents. What did that produce? Overextension, economic strain, internal stagnation, and ultimately collapse under imperialist pressure. It’s important to remember that we don’t need to speculate on the what if of the soviet road, there is already a concrete historical outcome.
China clearly learned from the Soviet collapse. The CPC’s post Chairman Mao strategy hasn’t been “abandon internationalism.” as many proclaim. In reality it’s redefining it to prioritize domestic development, industrial capacity, technological sovereignty, and long-term resilience first, because without those, everything else collapses. Revolutionary solidarity means nothing if your own state gets strangled or balkanized and also the Chinese people must come first for the CPC just as the Cuban people must come first for the Cuban government etc.
You also say direct support “could have made a difference.” Made a difference how, exactly? Which movements, specifically, would now be in power and capable of resisting NATO-level pressure? With what industrial base? What logistics? What air defense? What energy independence?
There is a persistent fantasy in some parts of the left that revolutionary movements just need more weapons or money and then history bends. That has unfortunately never been historically true. States survive through production, infrastructure, supply chains, and control over development pathways not donations. Look at what happened to the Soviet backed movements post collapse, they all quickly followed suit.
On BRICS: yes, it’s incredibly fragile. Of course it is. It’s a loose coordination mechanism between mostly bourgeois-national states with competing interests. It is absolutely not a unified socialist bloc. Expecting ideological coherence there is a category error. But even limited dedollarization, parallel payment systems, alternative development finance, and South to South trade corridors materially weaken U.S. monopoly power. That’s a world of difference from before it’s creation even if it has many many issues of it’s own.
Russia flirting with dollars again doesn’t mean “multipolarity is collapsing.” It means Russia is a capitalist state negotiating under wartime pressure. India cutting oil deals with the U.S. means India remains as always India: opportunist, comprador-leaning, and strategically unreliable. None of this is new information to us or to the CPC.
What is new historically is that dozens of Global South countries now have non-IMF, non-imperealist financing and development options, Chinese-built ports, power grids, rail, telecom, and industrial zones. That materially erodes imperial leverage far more than headline-grabbing arms shipments ever could.
You’re also underestimating the retaliation China would face. China openly backing armed movements or unilaterally fully severing trade with “Israel” wouldn’t be some isolated moral gesture. It would immediately escalate to financial sanctions, maritime interdictions, tech embargoes, asset seizures, and possibly kinetic confrontation. And unlike the U.S., China does not yet control the global reserve currency, insurance markets, shipping chokepoints, SWIFT or hold global hegemony. Not to mind the lack of power projection capability within the current PLA. However that is slowly changing along with the other issues mentioned, but the qualitative shift is still likely more than a decade away, if we’re being realistic.
Internationalism under imperialism is constrained by force relations. Pretending otherwise is not serious.
You then say China risks being weakened later and forced into bourgeois concessions. That risk exists regardless. The difference is whether China enters that confrontation with: the world’s largest industrial base, growing technological autonomy, energy diversification, strategic food reserves, alternative trade networks and internal political stability. Or without those things. The CPC has clearly chosen the former which I think we can all agree is the better one.
Finally, on the “gamble” point: yes, China is seemingly betting that U.S. internal decay outpaces its ability to maintain global dominance. But I would heavily disagree with the assertion of some that this is naive, it seems more grounded in observable material trends: deindustrialization, debt saturation, political fragmentation, infrastructure rot, and declining real productive capacity.
They are clearly not passively waiting. It’s much more similar to buying time while building strength(similar in idea to the Molotov-Ribbbentrop).
To reiterate the end of my other comment: this is clearly extremely ugly realpolitik. It’s slow. It’s frustrating. It doesn’t provide emotional catharsis. But it’s consistent with a long-term material strategy aimed at breaking Western monopoly power without triggering premature war that could very likely escalate.
Wanting China to behave like a romanticized 20th-century Soviet Union ignores both historical lessons and present conditions. Scientific socialism means adapting strategy to concrete reality, not demanding heroic gestures that feel righteous but materially weaken the only currently existing pole capable of offering an alternative to and eventually dismantling U.S. hegemony.
No need to apologize, I appreciate the effort towards genuine discourse.
The US has historically leaned heavily on “soft power.” Relying on statecraft, various levels of espionage, and throwing around it’s economic muscle. They have always been militarily imperialist as well, but this has been increasing steadily since the turn of the century. Rapidly in the last year as it descends into outright fascism.
I will not deny the merits of this overall strategy, nor the benefits it has provided up until now. But the beast it now faces is very different from the one it dealt with in the past.
I hold no ill will towards China. On the contrary, I hope they succeed. I disagree with some of their revisions and methods, but there are no other bearers of the torch of progress, so to speak.
I fear China is going to far with it’s isolationism. I’ve yet to see them show concrete support for their “allies” beyond promises of said support (except Russia if you count supplies for their war effort, but that looks more like it’s supporting the continuation of the war to keep attention on that part of the world).
What hope does it have to gain allies in the future if it maintains this course? The Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy may prove to be accurate in time, but if it did come to a end in the same horrific fashion, they may stand alone.
We’re veering into speculation, but I believe the destabilization and chaos caused by the new US regime both internally and externally could’ve been capitalized on to a much greater degree. Latin American governments are becoming predominantly right-wing. Maduro was kidnapped and Venezuela is now mostly conceding to US demands. Cuba is under siege. Israel is expanding outwards, Saudi Arabia as well (by proxy). Both the US and Israel are launching military strikes into East Africa, and other Arabian nations are supporting regime change. Iran is in the cross hairs.
Only time will tell and things can turn around as we saw in WW2. But while the Soviet Union predominantly defeated Nazi Germany, it took the Allies to complete the job in it’s entirety. The peripheral dominos appear to be falling. China appears to be taking a stronger stance in support of Iran. Hopefully it’s not too little too late.
I would push back heavily on the idea that U.S. violence abroad has fundamentally changed. The methods cycle between covert and overt, but the underlying imperial practice has been remarkably consistent. From Vietnam and Korea to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the permanent siege of Iran and Cuba, the U.S. has always combined soft power with mass violence, sanctions/economic warfare, regime change, and proxy conflicts. There has never been a peaceful liberal phase since it’s inception, just periods where the repression was more deniable. It’s important to remember that since it’s inception the US has been involved in direct military conflict for all but 17 years of it’s roughly 250years of existence.
There’s also Chile, Peru, Somalia and many others. Coups, death squads, structural adjustment, drone campaigns, and engineered instability. This is the standard operating procedure of the empire. What I think makes this feel new is simply that the U.S. is losing its uncontested dominance, so the coercion is becoming louder and less subtle(despite how unsubtle it already was for the most part).
This tone shift isn’t because the beast has transformed, it more goes to show its margins are shrinking. When soft power stops working, hard power has always filled the gap. China isn’t facing a qualitatively different empire(yet), it’s facing a declining one. This is exactly why I believe the CPC is prioritizing industrial strength, internal stability, and alternative development networks over dramatic confrontations. They don’t seem to be underestimating U.S. brutality but rather focused on building strength while surviving it long enough for its material base to erode(for the quantitative to add up to the qualitative) and for the inevitable shift in balance of forces that will come with that.
Or they could not do that because there is nothing specifically wrong from profiting off of your enemies’ actions as long as you don’t rely on it for your entire economy. We don’t really deal with moralist arguments here
Good quote!
Yes, and the trade with the entity was that China got US miltech in the 90s (when it was still the top provider in the world) when no one else would trade it with them bc of sanctions and in exchange the colony gets AC units and some agriculture. Basically consumer goods.
I’m not going to do a good trade bad trade comparison because that’s meaningless but this was the historical reason for the normalization of relations with the zionist entity and the exporting country does get the most benefit out of it. There is a strict ban on exporting weapons or anything that could be made into weapons.
I can’t be in their mind but China is probably worried that if they completely change course it will only alienate them from the ties they’ve built in the region. Most countries in the region have normalized relations with the occupation, what is China supposed to do when they inherited a situation they had no hand in forming? Instead of yelling at them on english websites the CPC doesn’t read we should be demanding that our governments send Cuba oil.
Seems like sound logic. Trade with the genocidal ally of the increasingly fascistic global military super power while they systematically eliminate all other smaller “AES” states and major trade partners you have (or economically force them into submission) while you sit back and shore up your metaphorical walls.
Sounds like a one hell of a gamble to me.
Yada yada. The other comments in this thread already addressed everything and explained in easy terms why China is doing what they are doing.
Thank you for the well thought out eloquent response. It contributed much to the discussion.
There is just no more discussion to be had. All the bullshit you come up with has already been answered in this very thread.
Stop being a racist failure and just read the 100 comments here and be educated
You idealist China shills are nothing if not consistent.
You respond to differing opinions with a haughty demeanor. Then, when a counter argument is made, you resort to childish name calling when your rehearsed responses are no longer sufficiently up to the task.
What Is To Be Done?
“Rehearsed responses” motherfucker, THE TRUTH DOESN’T CHANGE.
Y’all always reveal yourself with that exact bullshit. Of course the responses are gonna sound the same, they were forged in truth and there is only one mold.
There are no opinions to be had here, it’s just you being wrong. All your arguments have been defeated thoroughly in this very thread by others already
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Stop being a dogmatic idealist, Read it and weep.
Ah yes. There is one unshakable truth, yet I am dogmatic for criticizing one decision made by the entity that must not be questioned.
I will continue to criticize what I feel needs to be criticized for the possible betterment of the movement and people as a whole. You are welcome to join me and engage in discussion and debate that will inevitability lead to our mutual growth. I hope you do.
Yep, that’s kinda how truth works actually. We base our view on material analysis and see the truth that China can’t do much more than they already are.
I mean, you are clearly putting principles and ideals over material analysis. There is simply no way that you tried to materially analyse the position of China and got to the conclusion that they should intervene more than they already are. China is the number 1 enemy for the west and you want them to ruin all hard earned relations with them for what exactly?
Throwing out moralist opinions based on dogmatic ideals is not criticism. Again, read the thread and you can find actual criticisms and their answers.
Of course you won’t actually read anything in here and just keep on holding unto your liberal opinions on how the biggest enemy of the western world should act.
They have done insanely well so far and you should have some respect towards the people that are actually fighting against the empire and are getting closer in over taking it. Just an insane amount of hubris that you think that your “criticisms” can hold any water to the communist party of china and their decision making.
? You are the one that has refused to engage in discussion and debate. I told you multiple time to take to the thread and actually read it.
Enough of this now.
Easier to link than redo
I will concede the trade point in a general sense. But the point I was trying to make is that, to our collective dismay I’m sure, the US is tightening a noose around China.
Russia is floating the idea of trading with dollars again in Ukraine negotiations. India recently made a trade deal with the US for oil. Depending on how these things play out, BRICS will be considerably weakened.
The US is moving a large amount of armaments to the Philippines. They are amassing a fleet to strike Iran. South Korea is still… South Korea.
I disagree with what I assume is you and your comrades support of China’s lack of direct support for socialist movements abroad. It looks to me as though they will soon be in a very weak position on the global playing field. In my opinion, that direct support could have made a difference. Reeling in trade with their ideological enemies could as well. Should this play out in favor of the US, they will likely have to make more concessions to the bourgeoisie than they already have.
Unless the US economy finally gives way to the rot that has been spreading across it’s foundations. Which China may be banking on. The “gamble” I mentioned previously.
Apologies for the long effort post incoming.
You’re identifying the same contradiction I am, just seemingly analysing it differently and drawing different conclusions from it.
The U.S. is clearly attempting to tighten the noose but that’s not new. That’s been the defining feature of China’s external environment since at least 2011, and realistically since 1949. Encirclement, sanctions pressure, proxy wars, tech embargoes, financial warfare, the standard imperialist containment. What’s different now is simply that China is large enough to be treated as an existential rival rather than a manageable subordinate.
Despite agreeing on this I heavily disagree with your analysis and conclusions. You’re assuming that earlier or more direct revolutionary intervention abroad would have meaningfully altered this trajectory. I see no historical basis for that.
The USSR tried exactly what you’re proposing: massive material support to militant movements, open alignment, heavy military commitments across multiple continents. What did that produce? Overextension, economic strain, internal stagnation, and ultimately collapse under imperialist pressure. It’s important to remember that we don’t need to speculate on the what if of the soviet road, there is already a concrete historical outcome.
China clearly learned from the Soviet collapse. The CPC’s post Chairman Mao strategy hasn’t been “abandon internationalism.” as many proclaim. In reality it’s redefining it to prioritize domestic development, industrial capacity, technological sovereignty, and long-term resilience first, because without those, everything else collapses. Revolutionary solidarity means nothing if your own state gets strangled or balkanized and also the Chinese people must come first for the CPC just as the Cuban people must come first for the Cuban government etc.
You also say direct support “could have made a difference.” Made a difference how, exactly? Which movements, specifically, would now be in power and capable of resisting NATO-level pressure? With what industrial base? What logistics? What air defense? What energy independence? There is a persistent fantasy in some parts of the left that revolutionary movements just need more weapons or money and then history bends. That has unfortunately never been historically true. States survive through production, infrastructure, supply chains, and control over development pathways not donations. Look at what happened to the Soviet backed movements post collapse, they all quickly followed suit.
On BRICS: yes, it’s incredibly fragile. Of course it is. It’s a loose coordination mechanism between mostly bourgeois-national states with competing interests. It is absolutely not a unified socialist bloc. Expecting ideological coherence there is a category error. But even limited dedollarization, parallel payment systems, alternative development finance, and South to South trade corridors materially weaken U.S. monopoly power. That’s a world of difference from before it’s creation even if it has many many issues of it’s own.
Russia flirting with dollars again doesn’t mean “multipolarity is collapsing.” It means Russia is a capitalist state negotiating under wartime pressure. India cutting oil deals with the U.S. means India remains as always India: opportunist, comprador-leaning, and strategically unreliable. None of this is new information to us or to the CPC.
What is new historically is that dozens of Global South countries now have non-IMF, non-imperealist financing and development options, Chinese-built ports, power grids, rail, telecom, and industrial zones. That materially erodes imperial leverage far more than headline-grabbing arms shipments ever could.
You’re also underestimating the retaliation China would face. China openly backing armed movements or unilaterally fully severing trade with “Israel” wouldn’t be some isolated moral gesture. It would immediately escalate to financial sanctions, maritime interdictions, tech embargoes, asset seizures, and possibly kinetic confrontation. And unlike the U.S., China does not yet control the global reserve currency, insurance markets, shipping chokepoints, SWIFT or hold global hegemony. Not to mind the lack of power projection capability within the current PLA. However that is slowly changing along with the other issues mentioned, but the qualitative shift is still likely more than a decade away, if we’re being realistic. Internationalism under imperialism is constrained by force relations. Pretending otherwise is not serious.
You then say China risks being weakened later and forced into bourgeois concessions. That risk exists regardless. The difference is whether China enters that confrontation with: the world’s largest industrial base, growing technological autonomy, energy diversification, strategic food reserves, alternative trade networks and internal political stability. Or without those things. The CPC has clearly chosen the former which I think we can all agree is the better one.
Finally, on the “gamble” point: yes, China is seemingly betting that U.S. internal decay outpaces its ability to maintain global dominance. But I would heavily disagree with the assertion of some that this is naive, it seems more grounded in observable material trends: deindustrialization, debt saturation, political fragmentation, infrastructure rot, and declining real productive capacity. They are clearly not passively waiting. It’s much more similar to buying time while building strength(similar in idea to the Molotov-Ribbbentrop).
To reiterate the end of my other comment: this is clearly extremely ugly realpolitik. It’s slow. It’s frustrating. It doesn’t provide emotional catharsis. But it’s consistent with a long-term material strategy aimed at breaking Western monopoly power without triggering premature war that could very likely escalate.
Wanting China to behave like a romanticized 20th-century Soviet Union ignores both historical lessons and present conditions. Scientific socialism means adapting strategy to concrete reality, not demanding heroic gestures that feel righteous but materially weaken the only currently existing pole capable of offering an alternative to and eventually dismantling U.S. hegemony.
No need to apologize, I appreciate the effort towards genuine discourse.
The US has historically leaned heavily on “soft power.” Relying on statecraft, various levels of espionage, and throwing around it’s economic muscle. They have always been militarily imperialist as well, but this has been increasing steadily since the turn of the century. Rapidly in the last year as it descends into outright fascism.
I will not deny the merits of this overall strategy, nor the benefits it has provided up until now. But the beast it now faces is very different from the one it dealt with in the past.
I hold no ill will towards China. On the contrary, I hope they succeed. I disagree with some of their revisions and methods, but there are no other bearers of the torch of progress, so to speak.
I fear China is going to far with it’s isolationism. I’ve yet to see them show concrete support for their “allies” beyond promises of said support (except Russia if you count supplies for their war effort, but that looks more like it’s supporting the continuation of the war to keep attention on that part of the world).
What hope does it have to gain allies in the future if it maintains this course? The Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy may prove to be accurate in time, but if it did come to a end in the same horrific fashion, they may stand alone.
We’re veering into speculation, but I believe the destabilization and chaos caused by the new US regime both internally and externally could’ve been capitalized on to a much greater degree. Latin American governments are becoming predominantly right-wing. Maduro was kidnapped and Venezuela is now mostly conceding to US demands. Cuba is under siege. Israel is expanding outwards, Saudi Arabia as well (by proxy). Both the US and Israel are launching military strikes into East Africa, and other Arabian nations are supporting regime change. Iran is in the cross hairs.
Only time will tell and things can turn around as we saw in WW2. But while the Soviet Union predominantly defeated Nazi Germany, it took the Allies to complete the job in it’s entirety. The peripheral dominos appear to be falling. China appears to be taking a stronger stance in support of Iran. Hopefully it’s not too little too late.
I would push back heavily on the idea that U.S. violence abroad has fundamentally changed. The methods cycle between covert and overt, but the underlying imperial practice has been remarkably consistent. From Vietnam and Korea to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the permanent siege of Iran and Cuba, the U.S. has always combined soft power with mass violence, sanctions/economic warfare, regime change, and proxy conflicts. There has never been a peaceful liberal phase since it’s inception, just periods where the repression was more deniable. It’s important to remember that since it’s inception the US has been involved in direct military conflict for all but 17 years of it’s roughly 250years of existence.
There’s also Chile, Peru, Somalia and many others. Coups, death squads, structural adjustment, drone campaigns, and engineered instability. This is the standard operating procedure of the empire. What I think makes this feel new is simply that the U.S. is losing its uncontested dominance, so the coercion is becoming louder and less subtle(despite how unsubtle it already was for the most part).
This tone shift isn’t because the beast has transformed, it more goes to show its margins are shrinking. When soft power stops working, hard power has always filled the gap. China isn’t facing a qualitatively different empire(yet), it’s facing a declining one. This is exactly why I believe the CPC is prioritizing industrial strength, internal stability, and alternative development networks over dramatic confrontations. They don’t seem to be underestimating U.S. brutality but rather focused on building strength while surviving it long enough for its material base to erode(for the quantitative to add up to the qualitative) and for the inevitable shift in balance of forces that will come with that.