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.”

  • JoeySteel [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    This article is so bad I almost threw up, thanks a lot op

    None of this is news

    Maos turn to Nixon and the subsequent shitty foreign policy of China until 1979 (China hasn’t been to war since 1979) can basically be described as funding and arming whoever was anti-soviet

    There’s a reason Maoist groups were heavily infiltrated and funded by the CIA throughout the 70s and 80s (due to their Anti Soviet stance)

    Chinas foreign policy since Maos turn to Nixon is essentially “we’ll wait, but we must avoid war at all costs”.

    So Chinas foreign policy has been one of not putting their head above the parapet.

    When US imperialists wanted to destroy Yugoslavia China was helping the Yugoslavs and got their embassy bombed for that privilege. They then meekly nodded to everything US imperialism wanted even abstaining as the imperialist bastards destroyed Libya in 2011

    None of this is news. Mao (erroneously in my opinion) came to the conclusion they would have to hug tightly to the USA until they had far surpassed the USA and do it in such a way that the imperialists could not invade China like they wanted to in 1950 in the Korean war (the plan then was to strike up through Korea, into China then onto Soviet Union but they got bogged down in Korea).

    The Chinese have then stepped back into essentially full capitalist relations to avoid war with USA and they have only avoided war with USA because of proletarian heros like Gordon Chang running a psyop on USA by telling them China will collapse every year since 1999 (and the US press believing it). They’ve done this strategically and pragmatically to bind the world economy to China, to avoid a capitalist coalition against it whilst also obtaining as much technology as possible to overtake them. Regardless of their previous awful foreign policy we are where we are and China is moving rapidly into US imperialisms cross hairs. They are becoming Anti-Imperialist by A) force of necessity now US has cross hairs on them and B) by undercutting Western imperialism with the Belt and Road initiative and loads to 3rd world at much better rates than IMF or World Bank as well as their debt forgiveness.

    There is something so rat like when opportunists and distorters of Marxism (and the analysis on Imperialism) try to wrap their words in Marxist language due to the theoretical victory of Marxism

    China’s complicity in these horrors teaches us that anti-capitalism is a class war, not a war between states, and that any attempt to confront imperialism—the great spawn of capitalism—by those same means is doomed to fail.

    In the era of Class Society humans organise into States and class war inevitably becomes a war between States. Does this writer think some Venezuelan can survive and live without being murdered by (US funded) far right militia squads without the utilisation of the State to protect them? Does the writer think the Koreans in DPRK can disband their state and “focus on class war” to “confront imperialism” without organising themselves into a highly organised and disciplined State? When USA practices invading DPRK every year?

    Any form of anti-imperialist politics that focuses on nations invariably arrives at pitting one of the faces of capitalism against another, which can only ever reproduce the very system it claims to fight. Only through a confrontation with the entire capitalist world system, no matter the color of its flag, can the nightmare of empire end.

    Absolute trash and how does one fight the “entire capitalist system” without first settling accounts with your local bourgeoisie ie. your State

    The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. (Marx, Communist Manifesto)

    If humans outside the imperial core wish to survive and not have their populations turned over into a nightmare like The Congo or any number of African States that are completely subservient to international capital and thus have to have their children mining coltan under the threat of child soldiers they must organise into States and States therefore become the principle battleground of imperialism.

    If someone here hadn’t already pointed out that Lausan came out the fascist/far right Hong Kong protests I would’ve told you Lausan is CIA (which they are)

    From Lausan.hk About Page

    傘 (“san”) is the character for umbrella, referencing our ongoing critical engagement with Hong Kong’s social movements. 流傘 is also a homophone of 流散 (decentralized/diaspora), referencing our dispersal across the world. Lausan is a collective of writers, translators, artists, and organizers. We have no founders, only members. We are 100% independent and volunteer-run.

    Tip for anyone here: any slipper revolution , any velvet revolution, orange revolution , sunflower revolution and indeed any umbrella revolution is not a revolution. It’s the CIA

    Anytime some “pro democracy” group tries to popularise an inanimate object as a symbol of ‘revolution’.

    It’s CIA.

    Lausan is CIA

    https://amp.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3091438/us-has-been-exposed-funding-last-years-hong-kong-protests

    • LibsEatPoop2 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 years ago

      This article is so bad I almost threw up, thanks a lot op

      sorry, lol.

      None of this is news

      Maos turn to Nixon and the subsequent shitty foreign policy of China until 1979 (China hasn’t been to war since 1979) can basically be described as funding and arming whoever was anti-soviet

      This was news to me. I knew of the Sino-Soviet split but I had no idea about the true scale of the animosity.

      The Chinese have then stepped back into essentially full capitalist relations to avoid war with USA … They’ve done this strategically and pragmatically to bind the world economy to China, to avoid a capitalist coalition against it whilst also obtaining as much technology as possible to overtake them …

      This, I take some issue with. I’d written somewhere else -

      Yeah, I mean, just one article isn’t going to make me hate China or the CCP. But I guess the question is how much do we forgive/accept as necessary? Killing 100,000 Vietnamese communists? Funding Iraq/Afghanistan? Ties with Israel for the War on Terror? Hiring Erik Prince?

      Clearly, the CCP has felt all of it is necessary/justified for the sake of developing China. But I bet the victims of these actions, maybe of whom are either communists themselves and/or are heavily oppressed by other Western imperialist powers, feel otherwise.

      @space_comrade commented this -

      What you mentioned here is something I hold against all ML states, the “ends justify the means” attitude tends to lead to quite a bit of excesses that are all nominally explained as necessary but how can they really be so sure of themselves?

      So, like, idk.

      On BRI and Africa:

      They are becoming Anti-Imperialist by A) force of necessity now US has cross hairs on them and B) by undercutting Western imperialism with the Belt and Road initiative and loads to 3rd world at much better rates than IMF or World Bank as well as their debt forgiveness.

      Yeah, I made a post about that earlier. The video states pretty clearly why African nations prefer China over the US. So, no arguments there.

      On to Lausan, I don’t really have anything to add. I don’t know about them and there’s enough evidence that a lot of the HK riots/protests are funded/supported by the U.S. Same with the rest of the article (which you responded to). I found this article and wanted to have a discussion about the things it mentioned w.r.t. the Cold War and Chinese involvement in U.S. wars.

      • ferristriangle [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        The Sino-Soviet split and the subsequent falling out is pretty unanimously regarded as a tragedy and misguided, not as some sort of necessary evil where the ends justify the means.

        But also, foreign policy is a very different beast from domestic policy, especially considering the time period and development of China at the time. You have a brand new state, which was still 80%-90% agrarian, with very little to speak of in terms of sophisticated foreign intelligence agencies, working with a lot of imperfect and incomplete information with regard to current foreign affairs. You end up with foreign policy decisions that are fueled by spite and bad blood, rather than a rational accounting of the facts.

        And none of that context is meant to be used to justify those mistakes or rationalize any of the harm that was done as a result. Those actions should be condemned, and they are condemned by most everyone who is pro-China.

        But the idea that the Sino-Soviet split is evidence that China abandoned socialism and embraced capitalism has to ignore a lot of context in order to present that conclusion.

        However, it presents a compelling narrative when paired with the Deng market reforms and China opening up their markets to private enterprises, so let’s take a bit of look at the rationale for this policy.

        When discussing China, it’s important to note that the communist cliche of “seize the means of production” could never apply to China. This is due to the fact that China was just emerging from a century of colonial rule, where all their labor and natural resources were robbed at gunpoint and used to develop the colonial powers rather than their homeland. There were no means of production to seize, all that capital was locked away behind the doors of global trade. They were left with a country of roughly 90% peasant farmers, most of whom were working the land with hand tools. Developing advanced productive forces capable of providing for everyone will be an arduous task no matter what. So let’s look at the options available and see the rationale behind each.

        First would be to pursue socialist development in alliance with the Soviet bloc, getting access to a valuable trading partner and material assistance for developing your economy. Unfortunately, that bridge was burned so this one gets thrown into the honorable mentions/alternative history pile.

        Second, you could attempt to build up advanced productive forces out of sticks and stones. And the whole time you’re doing so, you’ll also have to fight off the imperialist aggression that’s directed toward every socialist project in the Cold War era, extending into today. This might be doable, but it would require tremendous amounts of toil.

        Which brings us back to seizing the means of production. If you don’t want to start from nothing, you need some mechanism of exchange to gives you access to the capital that your working class built.

        You could make an argument that they’d be morally justified in using their military to take back some of that stolen wealth by force as a form of reparations, but challenging a superior military power in such a way is a recipe for failure and incredible suffering.

        Which leaves us with the market reforms. The main issue with the market reforms is that you reintroduce all of the contradictions of private enterprise, namely exploitation, uneven development, inequality, and so on. But you get some important benefits in exchange. For one, you gain access to important investments in labor saving tools and machinery. Which means that even though you’re introducing exploitation, you’re reducing toil by a far greater degree. The second primary benefit is that the market reforms act as a powerful deterrent to imperialist aggression and allows for peaceful development during the epoch of imperialism. This is due to the fact that by tying your economic livelihoods together, you create a kind of “economic mutually assured destruction.”

        This is fully consistent with principles of socialist development, in my opinion. It’s a case of pick the best out of a bad set of options, but when accounting for the full context and conditions they were responding to this is the plan that seems to advance the interests of the masses in the most effective way available. And as these conditions change, as China has become more self sufficient and less reliant on foreign investment we see this strategy continue to change in order to best benefit the masses. Reduced reliance on investment and the sunk cost of existing investments is transformed into leverage that constantly puts pressure on private enterprise to increase wages, with an average increase of 17% each year for a total increase of 400% in the past 30 years. As capital starts getting priced out of Chinese labor markets and private enterprises start going out of business or move to more favorable labor markets, the state simply takes over and manages the business as a public enterprise instead.

        That’s not “capitalist roading” no matter what the ultra-leftists might tell you.

        • LibsEatPoop2 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          Thanks for your comment. This is all very informative. I definitely haven’t seen it put together in such a concise way before.

          But where do you draw the line between “capitalist roading” and “socialist development”? If you have market reforms along with the contradictions of private enterprise, how do you draw the distinction between the two? Do you just take the CCP at their word? That is a fair stance to take but it isn’t one that would be accepted by all, and especially not those affected by the downsides of such a deal with the devil.

          • ferristriangle [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            I don’t have to take the CCP at their word.

            I have the benefit of hindsight, and I can observe the incredible gains that this plan of action has won for the working class whose interests the party claims to represent. I can see that the party consistently meets or exceeds the stated developmental and economic goals that they commit to in each of their publicly available 5-year plans. This combination of consistently fulfilling their promises, and committing to 5-year plans that consistently advance the interests of the working class, would lead me to conclude that the CCP is an organization that is committed to representing the interests of the working class, and is doing the best they can with the set of options available to them.

            As for where you draw the line, that always depends on the material conditions you are molding your theory of change to, and what is required to address those conditions. If, for example, America turned socialist tomorrow, I would never endorse a plan of Chinese market socialism for this new socialist states of America, because you wouldn’t be able to make a case for what needs are being met and what contradictions are being resolved in exchange for permitting private enterprise. America isn’t going to imperialize itself, so you can’t make the case for shared economic development acting as a deterrent to aggression. And America is already a highly developed economy, there’s no need to attract foreign investment to help build up your productive forces. You can just follow the standard playbook of “seizing the means of production,” because that theory of change was written with the highly developed western economies like America in mind.

            Also, I would argue that capitalists are the ones making a “deal with the devil,” in this case, and not China.

            To explain this idea, let’s step back into the realm of theory and ask why would we expect this theory of market socialism to work. I’ve already laid out the case for why the CCP, as a representative of the interests of the working class, would find value in sitting down at the negotiating table to make some compromises with capital. But what is the motivation of capital to play along?

            Well, if we trust Marx, and we trust that the labor theory of value holds true, then we know that capital is worthless without labor. A capitalist who owns all sorts of equipment and machinery and other inputs of production, but who has no labor, in reality only has piles of lifeless junk, which on average can only be resold for the same price he paid for it, and in all likelihood will actually depreciate in value over time, either through the ravages of time and weather, through costs affiliated with maintenance and storage, or through the forward progression of technology rendering his current tools and equipment obsolete. The only way to increase the value of these inputs of production is to have them be brought to life by the application of labor, and transformed into new use values and exchange values.

            So, at the end of the day, even though the capitalist tries everything in his power to increase his leverage and power over labor, he will always be subservient to labor in the end. All of his property is worthless without labor, and will tend to continue to lose value until he can offload it. If conditions existed where the capitalist enjoyed none of the leverage that he does today, then he would gladly pay labor the full value that it contributes and take no profits for himself, simply so that he could rid himself of his investment at cost rather than hemorrhaging money due to holding onto a depreciating asset.

            But, unfortunately, capital currently does hold leverage over labor. Most of that leverage comes in the form of the industrial reserve army of labor. The idea here being that if I can buy and sell labor as a commodity on the labor market, and there is a surplus of labor that is desperate for work and willing to work for scraps, then that’s the price that wages will tend to be depressed towards. After all, why would I pay you a fair wage when there’s someone else starving on the street who’s willing to work for pennies?

            So when China began the reform and opening up period, their leverage was tied to the labor conditions in the global labor market, and specifically tied to the conditions of other global south and previously colonized countries. When you’re trying to attract foreign investment, the same idea of the industrial reserve army applies, but on a national scale. “Why would I open a factory here when I can hire cheaper labor in Malaysia or Indonesia or the Philippines?”

            As a result of this lack of bargaining power and a desperate need for investment, this often meant accepting sweatshop conditions and poverty wages.

            However, a capitalist roader would’ve stopped here. You have private control of markets and production, you have super profits driven by hyper exploitation, all the capitalist aligned people are happy.

            But this is obviously not where the CCP stopped. They continually built up the leverage of the working class, and continually applied more and more leverage on behalf of the working class, pushing through mandatory pay increases and improved labor conditions, constantly developing public enterprise alongside private enterprise and in competition with private enterprise, which then exerts more pressure and creates more leverage, as well as using revenue from taxing these private enterprises to build up public infrastructure that massively improved quality of life outside of work too.

            One of the downsides of relying on investment from capital is that your hands are largely tied by how much leverage you have, and how desperately you need that investment. But what I consistently see out of the CCP is the transformation of self sufficiency into new leverage over capital, and the use of that leverage to consistently improve wages and labor conditions.

            It’s basically like if your whole country was one big union, but when the company collapses or leaves for cheaper labor markets under this pressure, you can just nationalize that work place and keep running it as a public enterprise.

            And you can see this same logic applied to their current day foreign policy and investment strategy with the development aid they give to Africa and the infrastructure being built up with the belt and road initiative. China is deeply aware how intertwined the bargaining power of labor in the global south is with the rest of the world, and that hyper-exploitation is made possible by virtue of how desperate and struggling these nations are, and how capitalism uses that as leverage. So China has a policy of aiding the economic development of these nations, regardless of political affiliation. The idea being that ruling classes are fickle and ephemeral, but real, material development will bring about lasting change.

            The reason that this is a “deal with the devil” for capital is that while they are getting short term profits out of the deal now, their leverage over huge segments of the labor market is being eroded in the process, which shifts the balance of power between labor and capital to where capital is the weaker of the two, and exploits the fact that capital will always need labor, but labor won’t always need capital.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              This write-up deserves its own post.

              Please post this on main to counter the ridiculous resurgence of western chauvinists. I thought we were done with this bullshit.