If China is so based why doesn't it spread communist propaganda to the West? Why aren't there Chinese created Prager U's commiepilling ppl? Why are they just watching as the rest of the world sinks into fascism?
>>2272869I think a charitable way of looking at it is they see interfering in the internal affairs of other countries to be a form of colonialism, and even doing it in the name of socialism or something that sounds good is really the same thing in disguise, sorry. An important part of their history after all was breaking with the USSR because they saw the USSR as turning into an imperialist power that happened to be waving a red flag. So, they're happy showing off what they're doing in China to impress or awe you, but they're not interested in telling anybody else how to live. Well I say "they" as if 1.4 billion people all think the same.
Then there's another argument that they're not really communist anymore, that the party bureaucracy talks about Marx and so on but it's formalistic and this is really just used for the purposes of maintaining the system of power after the revolution and the power of the people who comprise the party committees. These are those sorts of "new class" theories. But I think it's probably more complicated, and there are probably people like that in the party, but there are others who really do believe it too and think China has gone too far in tolerating markets and so on.
Either way, I think it's very hard to change the entire culture or psychology of a people or a country. You can change who's in power and the property relations, but certain outlooks on life and the world which are more organic and semi-permanent to human cultures and societies can be very sticky. It takes a whole lot to destroy a national culture. China has never been particularly interventionist. Whether you call it Sinocentrism or a superiority complex or whatever (frankly speaking), I don't think some of the ideas which the Russians had during their revolution about how socialism needed to spread to Europe for it to survive in Russia (this changed during Stalin's time) ever had much purchase with Chinese. Because Chinese already thought of China as the center of the world.
It's like, China is backwards??? Well, they know they were backwards technologically, but its name literally means the Middle Kingdom and they've got 5,000 years of history here, buster. It's a certain subjectivity. It's not China that sucks, man, and there's only on China in the world. Eight nations trampled on China in 1900 but in 50 years the Chinese people stood up. It took some time but they solved that.
Also, related to this, the idea of fighting the whole "collective West" like how the Russians talk isn't how they do things. That's like… too mechanical. Or black and white. That's not the Chinese logic. Why does China have to fight dozens of countries because the U.S. happens to be behind them? Just because they're friends with the U.S.? That doesn't necessarily mean they are enemies of China and you can't do business. Even the U.S. understands this in relations with other countries.
>>2273574>>2272869Found it
If auygh is broken from the outside it becomes a meal. If broken from the inside, it brings new life
>>2273570The only thing a 'leftcom' thinks China, or any bourgeois nation state for that matter, can save from, is his/her surplus value
Also MLs are openly dengists so I mustn't beat a dead horse
>>2273603Ridiculously wrong. ML is inherently contingent.
>>2273595Cry more.
>>2273693I mean, the results are quite good as well, for embracing global liberalism. And they are on that point where the tables are so far turned that the new cold war is upon us. AES purists that argue how"much better" it could be if the CPC had a harder line… either languish under the boot of the hegemon or become socdem(with optional red tint) collaborators.
A problem that China can't have even if all the denunciations were true, because they'd never be allowed back into the US good graces without thoroughly dismantling their own economy.
>>2272869>Where is China solidarityHere
China just sends copies of Xi Jinping though. Which is nice I guess. But more than that is too antagonize and not let the bourg by the rope from which they will swing
>>2274205yeah and China is the exception in that they kept building socialism (or at least they try).
The others have pissed away everything and suck the American cock on their first opportunity
>>2274152Natlib *is* class struggle.
There can be no more advanced forms of class struggle if national liberation is not achieved in the first place.
>>2272869did you forget what they did to the ussr? and now they have nukes. xi is letting them down easy so musk and theil dont rush the mars mission send their friends to the new zealand bunker and nuke beijing. china
could embargo the US/UK and drop troops in gaza but unlike during mao they actually have something to lose now
>>2274359>the exchange being entirely performative.BY THE WAY BIRTHMARKS
BIRTHMAAAAAAAAARKS ULTRAS YOU READ THIS? ITS BIRTHMARKS, IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK READ IT, IT SAYS BIRTHMARKS.
>>2274359>>2274364>>2274367>>2274370>>2274373Ur decadent medal is being revoked for uttering the words “neo-feudalism” in a serious manner.
Glory to the councils.
>>2274203>why should CCP bother? USSR was active both in the field of propaganda AND military, aggressively pushing for Communism in the West AND in Asia and Africa … A Red Army of one country waging world war against everybody to force communism onto them is Trotskyist nonsense, and it is bound to fail.Well it started out with propaganda during the revolution then went to military expansion during the time of Stalin who swallowed the Baltic states and then expanded Soviet power during World War II. Trotsky was dead.
But I think the reasons for that have less to do with Stalin or Trotsky or something that was wholly and consciously planned (although they did plan this stuff out), but something which they were also compelled to do by a kind of historical, materialist logic. Basically that is the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union (in which a lot of the heavy industry was centered around producing for the military). This was not accidental or unnatural but something which also happened in European countries and the United States which aggressively expanded while industrializing. In reality, the CPSU was unable to act differently although they could convince themselves that sailing Soviet warships around was in everybody else's interests.
China is a bit different because they got the heavy industry down awhile ago but have really developed in the past few decades by opening markets to make everybody else's buckets, bolts, and Barbie dolls.
>>2274205This is like citing North Korea as an example of why the USSR's interventions were good. The exception(s) such as North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Cuba do not disprove the rule. 95% of USSR-aligned "Marxist" states instantly went into full fledged bourgeois "democracy" as soon as the USSR was gone.
The implication and convincing argument being that socialism was not truly desired by the masses and as soon as the threat of T-72s rolling through the neighborhood was removed so did their desire to conform to the system.
>>2274249>and act as if Third Worlders are lifeless puppets.Seems that a couple of centuries of western hegemony is a refutation of that no? They can very well subjugate, be it colonialism or imperialism, and even on the latter there was a lot of militarism employed.
If anything the problem is not enough force, inhibited by profit chasing in the cases of China and Russia. A western hegemon which merged the EU and NATO and was ideologically committed to stamping out unsanctioned economic development could have gone on forever. Reset the periphery and raise the rate of profit with proxy wars every now and then. Golden.
Liberalism could be forever, if they weren't so greedy.
>>2274851>However the problem is their failure to take sides in literally any conflict, including when there is a clearly reactionary and a clearly progressive side, and when the latter could actually pull off a victory if they had the proper support. It's a big ask because (just adding some context) they just don't think like that. Honestly I think it's way deeper and down into a different matrix of social and cultural values, which may or may not have something to do with communism, but either way the Chinese just don't think it's their business that much. It's more like, one "builds up their own home, and governs the country."
You know how we've had these debates on leftypol about LGBT rights in China and religion and so forth? How they don't have Pride parades, but China also isn't particularly repressive, and most Chinese don't care in reality? That's another example, because it's that person's business and why care what other people do, but why would you parade down the street and make it everybody else's business? It comes across as like proselytizing. You can swap the Pride flags for Christian flags, what's the difference? Really, Western liberalism can come across to Chinese intellectuals who write about these subjects as containing the essence of Christianity which, in its own world view, everyone in the world are all children of Jesus Christ, and the Christians take it upon themselves to go around converting other people.
But in China, there's a billion people and until recently 90% of them were food-growing peasants with Confucian values. There's something about that "peasant mentality" (not intending this as a pejorative) which is more defensive in nature, and very practical, and also content to tend to one's crops / memes. If it's not their concern, it's not their business. But there are expectations that the government provide peace and security and handle the big infrastructure projects (like building water reservoirs), while the people on the ground are pretty loose and handle their own affairs. And they think if the rest of the world behaved like this, then there wouldn't be so many goddamned wars! It's self-evident that this is a superior way to govern a country, man.
China had also been a broken-up warring state for a long time where foreign powers meddled in their affairs, and a core part of the revolution was about putting a stop to that, restoring a strong central government that is supposed to do what Chinese expect. There are obviously points of contact with Marxism as social-revolutionary utopian movements do, but it had its own particular Chinese flavor too.
>One can only imagine what Hezbollah might have achieved if they had been equipped with state of the art Chinese equipment instead of third hand leftovers of 1980s vintage that the Iranians bought from Russia.Well, maybe. It could be that Nasrallah was still a feudal "warlord." An anti-imperialist feudal warlord but practice has proved a long time ago that the landlord class, ethnic bourgeoisie, religion and gangs cannot complete the anti-imperial mission.
>>2274958Naxals are left deviationists
India has enough cancerous braindeadism like this, no need for indian Gonzalo to up the game
>>2274958Only one group you listed is remotely close to controlling a single country. Not even one is actually on the offensive against the UN-recognized government. Communist states don't support states because it's the good thing to do, but because it improves the international situation for the communist state itself. Supporting Houthis would arguably make the situation worse since gulf states wouldn't appreciate that.
China is in an okay enough international situation right now, so the resources are better spent elsewhere mostly. China does a lot of propaganda just by existing and doing so well, people are definitely more accepting of socialism and they understand what it actually is more as well.
>>2275175>Only one group you listed is remotely close to controlling a single country.The CPC was nowhere close to controlling China in 1945 when the Soviets handed over Manchuria and the captured Japanese stockpiles. The Naxals today have a proportionally comparable presence in their country to the PLA prior to the Soviet offensive against Japan, at least in terms of geography. If you exclude Manchuria they only controlled a few pockets of territory scattered across northern China. If the USSR had adopted the current CPC's approach to international relations then they likely would have handed these things to the KMT instead, and the PRC may not even exist today.
>Communist states don't support states because it's the good thing to do, but because it improves the international situation for the communist state itself. No, they do it because it improves the international situation for the communist
movement which is far larger than any single state. This is the essence of internationalism, and prioritizing the interests of a single communist state over the global class and anti-imperialist struggle is opportunism by definition. It's the same mentality that led the worker's parties to support the imperialist war in 1914, putting themselves above the immediate tasks of revolutionary struggle.
>>2274237First was a lie peddled by a fascist in a capitalist state, with capitalists ruling the country.
Second was truth said by Mao in a country run by workers and peasants, meaning capitalists were allowed as long as it brought anything good to the workers
>>2275582>more important to communism than the class struggleYes its called primary and secondary contradictions. In the age of imperialism, conflicts of national liberation are a prerequisite for communism, as a nation cannot self-determine to be communist if its is subjugated by another nation.
>thing unrelated to communismDevelopment of productive forces is related to communism, in fact some(
Marx) might say its the entire thing.
>>2275598Exactly why the second-largest economy in the entirety of human history still needs to 'build up its productive forces' is a mystery to me, and to every rational mind, when communism could have existed as early as the 19th century.
Every bourgeois revolution has expanded the 'productive forces'. Capitalist production is marked precisely by its social, large-scale character as opposed to the individualistic, subsistence production of pre-capitalism.
Nowadays instead of ‘God’ you have 'contradiction', 'dialectics', ‘absolute spirit’, ‘capital’, or ‘the productive forces’.
>>2275607>Exactly why the second-largest economy in the entirety of human history still needs to 'build up its productive forces' is a mystery to meit took them 70 years to eliminate "extreme" poverty and they still have millions living in dirt houses, and inb4 revisionism, but it was because they had to develop military tech first to defend from imperialist aggression. they have just barely been the second largest economy for over a decade, no one would be demanding such things from them even 20 years ago, but now suddenly they arent moving fast enough despite shattering their stated goals
>Every bourgeois revolution has expanded the 'productive forces'.yes which is why marx called them progressive
>>2275627>it took them 70 years to eliminate "extreme" povertyyet capitalist countries still have poverty. Communist China has no poverty.
>still have millions living in dirt housesWrong. You have no evidence for these lies.
>they have just barely been the second largest economy for over a decadeutterly wrong. Communist China has number one economy in real terms.
>>2275659>>2275640Communist China must destroy terrorism. Communist China strives for peaceful and harmonious shared future for mankind.
>>2275774I wasn't trying to and wasn't reading the argument in the first place.
The state of this place is my argument if anything.
>>2274203In many elements, Liberal Capitalists are so much better at playing systematic politics it's unreal, especially because getting a Liberal to understand systematic politics is like bashing your head against a wall.
The USSR should have had "NGOs"/"Charities" quietly seeding Socialist propaganda and movements to make a Socialist movement seem truly grassroots across the world. I genuinely believe the Eastern Bloc would have been better off with an "inverted" social democracy, where it looks and functions like a social democracy, but where all the state, media functions in ours, allow Capitalism to dominate, a "inverted" one would only really allow Socialist parties to dominate. Capitalist parties would be seen as fringe and crazy.
China is correct in that the Socialist phase should be built country by country, to their local conditions. Socialism in the US would not be M-L I can tell you that.
>>2275753im trying to understand the crushing part. first article quotes a nepali newspaper about "18 truckloads of weapons" with no other sources or confirmation that was imprisoned for publishing rebels and the second says "political and moral support" plus no change in "economic aid".
im reading about how they sent them some anti air back in the 80s but i thought the maoists were more recent. and i thought the civil war is over now and they participate in the elections. if they are crushing shouldn't there be an announcement from china and not the bbc of them sending guns to the king during the war?
>>2275781I've been thinking about "socialism with burger characteristics."
It seems to me that advertising should be a great part of it. Once the workers seize control of digital marketing they can adjust advertising according to economic planning. Central economic planning can work just by putting your thumb on the scale a little bit.
>>2275781> an "inverted" social democracy, where it looks and functions like a social democracyWell that kind of makes the evolution moot at this point, since the whole reason as to why you'll have it is to materially change how the system works, not just which party is in power (which can become revisionist and elect Gorby V2 to shoot itself in the head)
> The USSR should have had "NGOs"/"Charities" quietly seeding Socialist propaganda and movements to make a Socialist movement seem truly grassroots across the world.I don't think it would only "seem" grassroots by that point, but yes
>>2276141> Central economic planning can work just by putting your thumb on the scale a little bit.It doesn't. You seem to have quite the liberal understanding of how a market operates, that is, it operates according to the customer which has some kind of abstract demand that prompts producers to satisfy them. Setting that aside markets naturally tend to produce all kinds of side effects (waste, monopolization, innumerable inefficiencies, etc) because of how they function. Just trying to direct the market via indicative planning was already tried many times (eg Dirigisme in France) with innumerable approaches, and it always reliably failed at stopping a crisis or a decline when it was most needed)
>>2275826It ended up being resolved peacefully anyway.
"In 2006, the Maoists and other main political parties (communist and otherwise) formed a united coalition, launching a successful peaceful civil resistance against the dictatorial coup d'état by the monarchy. This resistance movement resulted in the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 and the drafting of a new constitution."
Unique IPs: 79