I know the wording is weird but I hope you guys get what I’m saying. For example, what Nazi Germany was doing obviously justified it being taken down. I know generally the reasons given by western govts for invading countries is bs lies used to justify colonialism, exploitation, etc but I’m saying if said invasion was done by a socialist country without a military industrial complex and profit in command. Perhaps Tibet is an example of this but I just don’t know much about that at all. Would China for example be justified in invading Israel and giving power/land back to Palestinians? Self determination is a very key aspect of ML and I’m wondering how far that goes.
Self determination and national liberation movements arent good or bad by themselves. In marxism, support for national liberation movements must always be subordinated to antiimperialism. Does this national liberation movement weaken or strenghten imperialism? Thats all that matters. Should we support uyghur separatists in Xinjiang or latvian separatists back when the USSR existed? Ofc not, they weaken socialism and strenghten imperialism, since China and USSR are socialist countries. Should we support corsican separatists in Corsica (an island held by France) or basque separatists in the Basque Country (a region of Spain)? Ofc yes, they weaken imperialism since France and Spain are imperialist countries. The same goes for invasions of countries. Was the Winter War (the soviet invasion of Finland in 1939) right? Yes of course, since Finland was a reactionary anticommunist state and if that invasion had fully suceeded Finland would have become socialist. We communists are internationalists, not nationalists. We only support nationalism when it strenghtens socialism, otherwise it belongs in the trash.
Now there is a counterargument to the “invading countries to spread socialism” thing, which is that if the material conditions of the country arent ready for a socialist revolution yet, the population will resist the invasion and socialism will fail. This is why China did what it did in Tibet (which you mentioned). Contrary to western propaganda, China didnt invade Tibet. Tibet became independent in 1912 after the collapse of the Qing Dinasty and the beginning of the Warlord Era. Tibet was a feudal society ruled by the buddhist monks, with the Dalai Lama at the top as an absolute monarch. Most of the population were serfs who had 0 rights and were enslaved to the monks who owned everything, including the serfs. Resistance was brutally punished. In 1949 the Kuomintang lost the Chinese Civil War and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed. In 1951 the PRC negotiated the 17 Point Agreement with the Dalai Lama to peacefully reunify Tibet with China. As part of the agreement, Tibet would retain its feudal government and society.
Now why did China do this? Exactly because of the argument i mentioned. They wanted to wait until the tibetan people were ready for socialism. And this happened in 1959. Contrary to western propaganda, China didnt “annex Tibet and oppress tibetans”. What happened in 1959 was that the tibetan serfs, seeing the freedoms that their chinese brothers had but they didnt, decided to rebel against the monks. They took up arms and rebelled. The Dalai Lama was preparing to brutally suppress the uprising, but China intervened on the side of the serfs, arresting the monks and forcing the Dalai Lama into exile, where he became a CIA puppet. From then on, tibetan feudalism was abolished and Tibet became socialist like the rest of China. China waited until the tibetan people rebelled against feudalism instead of imposing socialism from outside. This is all explained in the book “When the serfs stood up in Tibet” by Anna Louise Strong, an american journalist and communist who was there in Tibet when the events happened.
quality comment<br> have an upchuck and some R*ddit gold, good sir 👍<br> drop a definitely-real WMD on that like button
Thank you Grain Eating Man (Stalin¿?)! O7
The Basques are a good example of where a culture is being actively suppressed. Any and all efforts to preserve Basque language and culture are community led. Civic and educational processes are all in Spanish.
Meanwhile in China local dialects are protected in schools and students can have their local language (even including English in Hong Kong) as their primary medium of instruction. Uyghur script is one of the languages on the banknotes nationwide ffs.
The comparison is like night and day but Western Media tells people night is day and day is night and people believe it.
deleted by creator
Removing pol pot and angkar from power was definitely justified and good but i don’t think militarily occupying it for a decade and turning it to a quasi-colony did any good for the cambodian people
It was necessary to occupy it, otherwise Pol Pot would have come back to power since he had full support, including many weapons, from China and the CIA. There was no “quasi colony”, Vietnam didnt tell the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) who to trade with. The problem was that the UN, under US pressure, still recognized Pol Pot as the legitimate government so the PRK was sanctioned by most countries. This is shown in John Pilgers documentary “Cambodia: Year Zero”. People were starving in 1979 but UN and western NGOs sent 0 aid because “we cant send aid to an illegitimate government”. They simply couldnt trade with anyone besides COMECON countries. Besides, their trade was more than just Vietnam, there was plenty of trade with USSR for example. USSR also aided the PRK a lot. Many cambodians were able to go to study in the USSR and USSR aid helped rebuild the country a lot. To say that PRK was “a colony of Vietnam” is like saying that Cuba was “a colony of the USSR”. Pure “social imperialism” maoist bs. The PRK depended on Vietnam because it was under severe imperialist aggression, not because it was a colony. Same with Cuba and the USSR.
My guess is when the global theater of things permits an state that harms their own citizens get taken and make it socialist without provoking a worse impact in the rest of the world.
That’s the only thing it actually matters, regarding a Materialist and Dialectical analysis. Because ideologically, all capitalist, feudalist and theocracist states are already on the list of “should be taken down and made socialist”.
