• Aria 🏳️‍⚧️🇧🇩 [she]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Their reasons for not exporting socialism is their reading that it was one of the main factors for soviet instability that eventually led to Gorbachev.

    how was that a cause for soviet instability? i don’t get it. is there not other factors at play here too? ^^; /genq

    One particular example would be the Afghan revolution and civil war.

    okay, but what about cuba and the revolutions in africa? they seem to have succeeded without the USSR becoming unstable.

    If they were to invite instability, make mistakes and eventually end up losing ground or even being toppled like the USSR, it would be a much harsher blow to the global communist movement. They are a bulwark against global imperialism, not a frontal assault army. It’s up to the communist parties of each nation to actually produce their revolutions.

    like, i’m not asking to “force it upon them”, that’s obviously gonna push back progress for global socialism (if there even is any). i’m simply asking that the prc advocate for socialism and progressivism in the world stage and don’t be such a fence-sitter. gently encouraging/nudging other countries to follow socialism.

    or hell, help out the commie parties in other countries if they ask for help. especially at a time where people are more interested in becoming fascists than socialists like they should be. the voice of the socialist left worldwide has become very weak post-ussr as it is, especially with the US happily interfering every time a new country tries to actually embrace socialism or socialism gets popular in other countries on their own volition. i feel like the prc advocating for socialism would give it a boost. especially when they have the receipts to show for it.

    but i didn’t know that that was inviting instability or being a “frontal assault army”, damn.

    For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

    this is the same country whose people wanted the USSR to stay back in the late 80s/early 90s, but pizza hut man still decided to kill it anyway for the lols.

    • trashxeos
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      i feel like the prc advocating for socialism would give it a boost. especially when they have the receipts to show for it.

      Remember that they do have to survive in capitalist hegemony. To break the hegemonic power of the United States imperial system, they’re first breaking the systems that have been created to give full hegemonic dominance of the USD. New development bank, local currency trading, ignoring US sanctions, etc. Once the dollar cannot be weaponised by Washington against allies and enemies, I think we’ll see more and more push, especially with the developments occuring as part of BRI, towards peaceful cooperation, which will hopefully open further masses towards socialist and communist thoughts and actions.

    • albigu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      Sorry for taking too long to reply, the questions were good but I was too busy irl to sit down and answer them appropriately.

      how was that a cause for soviet instability? i don’t get it. is there not other factors at play here too? ^^; /genq

      The policy of exporting revolution goes as far back as the Brest-Litovsk treaty negotiation to withdraw from WW1, with Trotsky as commissar of foreign affairs leading the peace delegation by trying to stall all negotiations while agitating for revolutions in Central Europe. This belligerence (from a position of weakness) meant not only harsher terms being imposed on Russia but also justifications for the foreign powers to invest in the badly named “Russian Civil War”.

      After that the brand of “foreign agitators” always came along breaking of diplomatic relations whenever leftist movements became relevant, like the Spartacist uprising in Germany, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam and so many others, whether they participated or not. The Brazilian Communist Party, for instance, was temporarily banned under the justification of being “a foreign party”.

      They also constantly had to be running the arms race, not because there was any actual Soviet interest in beating the US (their only significant “first” was the ICBM), but because every hiccup around the world could be the trigger for Nuclear War.

      There are many other factors at play, of course. Left-Communism up to the 40s, WW2 and subsequent aggression from NATO. But opening too many battle fronts was a mistake, and Afghanistan is when the US wised up to that mistake.

      The Afghan war was specifically propped up by the US as an entrapment against the USSR, with many in the US Department of “Defense” calling it the “Soviet Vietnam”.

      okay, but what about cuba and the revolutions in africa? they seem to have succeeded without the USSR becoming unstable.

      Cuba was only supported after the Bay of Pigs battle, and at that point the Revolution was already successful. They were supported economically rather than militarily for the most part, due to the US embargo, and Cuban-Soviet relations accidentally ended up in history books as “The Cuban Missile Crisis” any way. It wasn’t a mistake, but there were great risks involved.

      I’m not well read on Africa, but I’m not aware of any revolution that was materially supported by the Soviets before their success either. Vietnam and Korea were costly, but those two countries already had their own strong and militant parties and armies.

      or hell, help out the commie parties in other countries if they ask for help.

      AFAIK they are not really opposed to that. I’ve seen CPC officers in some CPUSA events for instance. But it’s a hard dilemma to balance, both for the CPC (as a party on one hand but a state actor on another) and for the local parties (requiring support but also needing to build their own autonomous structure). Integrated as they are into the global economy and geopolitical landscape, they prefer to not be seen as “meddlers”. And local parties are often very sectarian against the CPC.

      I won’t pretend to be in love with the CPC or that I would be unhappy with them giving material support to my personal favourite parties, but I would be very surprised. And in the end, I don’t think it would be that effective without a heavy dose of self-organising.

      But at least they are not wavering in their support for Korea or Vietnam.

      this is the same country whose people wanted the USSR to stay back in the late 80s/early 90s, but pizza hut man still decided to kill it anyway for the lols.

      Killing the USSR was only possible due to very real stagnation in the living conditions, mostly caused by the liberalisation reforms, but partly also due to geopolitical realities.