You must log in or register to comment.
China will have to eventually abandon its “non-interference” policy. As shown, US/NATO don’t just fight direct or proxy wars, they will do color revolutions and unleash their terrorists, Xinjiang and Pakistan will be hot spots if/when China moves on Taiwan. The CIA already has their terrorists in Pakistan killing Chinese engineers working in Pakistan.
i am wary of this rheotoric, i have heard on podcasts the ussr was extremely hesistant and critical of the soviet afghan governments killing of people, and despite stating so multiple times upon deploying soviet troops into afghanistan were unable to solve the issue and continued the mindless deaths of the people of afghanistan.
war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition.
the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many. i have heard it said socialism cannot sustain it self with weapons of war - that the steel of rifles barrels could have built bridges and incubators.
not to mention the foreign actors who wish to see the PRC collapse, we all know very well that the capitalist have the power to make mountains of ant hills
This is nominally the correct answer. The key fault that lied with the Communists of the former socialist Afghanistan they fell into ultra-left deviation of moving too far ahead of the Afghan people and attempted to force their people to move faster than they were willing from afar, leading to their masses becoming fertile grounds for reactionary religious fundamentalist sentiments to sprout and causing an unbroken vicious cycle of violent reprisals that would lead to the fall of Socialist Afghanistan and the weakening of the Soviet Union.
Material improvements are indeed one of the primary means of countering festering reactionary seeds, but the methods of application of ideology is another one as well. And currently I’m of the belief that China’s currently pursuing, as far as we can generally see thus far, the correct course in relation to their own self-governance. Nevertheless I do hope they’re paying close attention and have been working thoroughly to ensure the defenses of their western regions.
good comment
war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition. the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many.
Blanket statements about war being a crude form of politics tends toward dogma and not material analysis.
Reminds me of Mao’s “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” speech. “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
Modern China is quite different from Mao’s China, but I think it is still true that there are conditions under which war is a necessary activity for a socialist state. One of those conditions would be acts of war imposed on that state by other bourgeois states. If Mao had not insisted on the necessity of war in revolutionary China, I don’t think we would have a socialist China today. The threat on China today is only increasing, and military force will inevitably have to be used to counter Western aggression.
I am not advocating hawkishly for war. It is not automatically the correct strategy. Nor is it automatically incorrect. War is a reality imposed on socialist states that has to be dealt with on its own terms.
i am acknowledging this comments, will come back when my thoughts are fully processed
China will be fine. If they can survive in the 70s when they’re completely surrounded by hostile countries they have border skirmishes with on top of being a bit of a pariah state, they’ll be fine now.
They should have years ago but they wont. In the end even in the worst case and these terrorists do make it to China they’ll treat it as their own internal affair, do whatever needs to be done and then have Xi meet with whatever dipshit is replacing Blinken and Yellen every few months.
China has been consistent. The best description I’ve seen is BRICS is not anti-west but rather non-west. They want to claim independence from western(US) influence and intervention yet they want to be treated as equals and be friendly. Sadly this naive idea is exactly what dominates right now and it is bound to fail no matter what.
Very deep questions need to be asked but they wont. China will do everything to keep the economic miracle going while crying US bad and doing nothing about it. Taiwan is a dead end issue given China’s own technological development.
what needs to happen is that the br4mins that rule India need to allow BRI
the chinese need to stop claiming Arunachal in returnafter that, coolzone
China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world. While this isn’t a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.
The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.
Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.
It’s not so clear as that, I think. The USSR and the PRC both exported revolution / aided decolonial revolutions to some extent, but the USSR also attempted a policy of peaceful coexistence and in many cases was probably not as proactive as they could or should have been, often only reacting to the most egregious of aggressions from the U.S.
The USSR’s “peaceful coexistence” during the Cold War was simply them trying to avoid WW3 with the US, especially after how much WW2 devastated Soviet society and how far it set them back in their economic goals. It wasn’t an incorrect position to take given the US still had an immense amount of production capital before the neoliberal turn and, if the USSR were to hypothetically enter a hot war with America, they would likely lose it solely because the US would be able to outproduce them.
And even before WW2, the USSR was already doing peaceful coexistence with capital from their policy of ‘Socialism in one country’, because they realized after the failure of socialist uprisings in other European countries in the 1920’s, they were alone in the world and surrounded by the enemy. Trying to be more ‘proactive’, which is what the Trotskyists wanted, would have been tantamount to self-destruction.
The PRC and the rest of the Marxist-Leninist states today continue the same doctrine, because it works for them today as it did for the Soviets back then.
It should also be noted that some of the interventions that the USSR did undertake ended up eliciting resentment from the local populations towards Soviet Communism. The Soviet-Afghan War is a prime example, but it can also be seen in their suppression of protests and politicians that didn’t toe Moscow’s line closely enough in Eastern European SSRs (which, while understandable, did create a big impression from the people that the USSR was an occupier getting in the way of self-determination).
Mao’s criticism of the USSR conducting ‘social imperialism’ during the Cold War was an apt one when, in the cases I noted beforehand, it was very much the Soviets trying to impose their will and ideological line on foreign peoples, instead of allowing left-wing movements to grow and develop organically. I personally believe the Belt and Road Initiative is China’s way of allowing the latter idea to occur, but it’s not without its faults, and it remains to be seen if it will succeed.
Let’s not forget the PRC themselves made several mistakes in their attempts to export Socialism abroad too; backing the genocidal Khmer Rouge, sending the PLA into Vietnam to “teach them a lesson” for removing the Khmer Rouge, and the Sino-Soviet Split itself causing a massive rift in the International left that greatly stunted the ability to organize against global capital.
Again, I’m not trying to argue that it’s wrong to try and instigate revolution abroad and back anti-colonial movements (DPRK indirectly supplying weapons to Palestinians is based), but that there is a lot more historical nuance behind the modern geopolitical strategies of AES.
If I may ask, what do you believe the USSR should have been more proactive in in regard to their interventions abroad?
I’m not really well informed enough but my understanding is that after Afghan communists took power, the Soviets had very little at all to do with supporting that government until they sent troops like a full 6 months after the CIA began arming, organizing and funding reactionary forces in the country, something which a US official famously admitted, boasting about provoking the “invasion”. Maybe a more proactive approach by the Soviets could have been more effective than going in only after the government was already beset by well armed forces of reaction. I don’t know though, it’s just a thought. I wasn’t trying to say you’re wrong, I just think it isn’t so black and white as to say they did the opposite of non-interference.
My general reading of the Cold War is that the USSR as opposed to how they were painted by western propaganda as this scheming force trying to install communism everywhere is that they were actually highly conciliatory and as you said trying to avoid WW3, whereas the U.S. was the truly aggressive and belligerent actor across the globe. The USSR mostly restrained itself to supporting causes that solicited their help and only then when they had already taken state power or were close to doing so. As you said they were like this even before WW2, telling the Chinese communists to continue working the KMT is another example.
Post WW2 they were highly conciliatory giving half of Berlin to the capitalists, allowing the U.S. to occupy half of Korea and only begrudgingly aiding the DPRK military campaign after Kim took action to end that occupation. The U.S. was far more aggressive in places like Greece, and later places like Indonesia where the U.S. was actively bombing parts of the country and provided support to the anti-communist military forces allowing them to kill a million people and destroy what was a large well organized communist party in one of the world’s most populous countries. I can imagine an alternate history where the communists in Indonesia armed themselves with the aid of the PRC or USSR and that huge win for the forces of reaction never happens (actually, Mao warned the Indonesian communists to arm up and they chose not to so it’s not a criticism of China or USSR, more so just illustrative of how sometimes choosing to not act or bide your time can be disastrous in general).
But I mostly agree with you, and I think China has been served well by following a strict non-interference policy during this particular historic moment. I was only quibbling with the characterization of the USSR’s policy as the opposite of that, their actions were somewhere in between. There may have been times they got involved unnecessarily but I think there were also times where they could have been served well by doing a bit more.
The longer they wait the weaker the west will be when it happens. The west us powered by capitlaism and well, there is this tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.
is an incredibly viable strategyIt pretty much always works against the US and that is kinda wild.
The time for Xinjiang separatists to make their play was in 2016 when media coverage and support for them was an all time high. The CPC have already integrated Xinjiang successfully with the rest of China with stability through development and crackdowns and can flex a huge tourism industry on top of that. The terrorists are just going to arrive in Xinjiang and realize they have little to no connection to the people there after camping in Syria and cozying up to western groups.
Going from Syria to Xinjiang is a pipe dream and I think the imperialists believe this as well so they’re only going to be used for manufacturing consent for anti-Chinese policies in already captured nations and at home rather than any attempt at color revolution.
good luck with that. China will stick them into a blender if they even try, as they should.
deleted by creator
unsurprisingly communist analysis predicted this exact scenario many years ago
Often when I listened to prominent academics giving their takes and recollecting history, I thought to myself ‘god damn, they’re knowledgable’ - because it would take me a long time to read up, and understand the conflicts they were speaking of and be able to talk about it.
What I hadn’t realised up until recently, is that if you keep up with the news for years on these issues, you too end up with this knowledge bank. These academics didn’t necessarily go back and read all the history books - they lived through them in real time, and each day learnt and applied communist perspectives in the face of propaganda.
Similarly, the Marxists of this community repeatedly educated me but being more correct and predictive about things than everyone else until I read more theory and caught up.
It is called the immortal science for a reason
I know they’re usually very measured about these things, but they need to erase these guys like they erased the cia proxy force parachuted into Tibet.
they’ll erase themselves if they even bother showing up. While they’ve been off pillaging in Syria for a decade the Chinese government has lifted the standard of living in Xinjiang and tamped down on Uyghur separatism. Typically a would be independence movement needs to, you know, be active in the land and among the people they are purporting to represent.
If these guys think they’ll receive a hero’s welcome from the locals they’ll be sorely mistaken, and the US isn’t around in Afghanistan to funnel them support anymore. Hilariously their old friends in the Taliban will probably sell them out to China now for a few drops of aid money. It will look like some bay of pigs shit if they try to return in force. I doubt they will even try to leave Syria
Yeah the PLA mopped up the Tibetan CIA assets quick because they could not hide. Imagine being a typical liberated Tibetan serf seeing some lama failson trying to bring back slavery. Yeah it’s reporting time.
Imagine being a typical liberated Tibetan serf seeing some lama failson trying to bring back slavery. Yeah it’s reporting time.
Reminded me of this gem from Parentis “Friendly feudalism”
Many Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself …
They have a ceiling support of 45% (the percentage of Uyghurs in Xinjiang), so good luck with pulling off a separatist movement. But this is all talk. Put your feet in the shoes of these Uyghur jihadists. They could risk going through Afghanistan to get vaporized by the PLA or they could steal land from indigenous Syrians and set themselves up as Uyghur settlers like their Zionist masters. They’re already stealing land since if they decide to squat in a Syrian’s home, the Syrian can’t exactly say no.
Bay of Pigs 2:
boogaloo.Afghanistan is an economically devastated pariah state. China should extend a helping hand and get Afghanistan back on their feet by economically and politically helping them. And when China does help them in this way, the Taliban will know what to do when they see a bunch of Uyghur jihadists trying to make their way to Xinjiang.
Pretty much. The best model for anti terrorism is the development of Xinjiang, full stop. Generally speaking people don’t like being terrorists and would much rather live regular lives, so if you stabilize a region and give them that option they will choose it.
deleted by creator
Fair, it’s a totally different situation, but I think that if nothing else cooperation and development remains provably the best path to stabilization and therefore reducing radicalization. Just imagine fighters coming home from fighting in Syria to find out that the rest of their family is making twice as much as they are while working half as hard, how many do you think will just want to settle down?
Xi’s comically large blender
Removed by mod
genocide
Your programming is a few years out of date, even the UN gave up the ghost on trying to spin that yarn. Tell us about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs next
Gotta say, after the last few years, I don’t think you people should be allowed to use the word genocide anymore
Have to put it on a high shelf until you understand what it actually means
Western censorship of the plight of the Palestinians was so blatant I’m surprised libs still remember how to spell “genocide.”
Yeah, there’s still people breathlessly repeating that “Russia is carrying out a genocide on Ukraine” and I’m looking at the death counts compared to Palestine and going
Those kind of people are especially stupid.
There is a non-trivial number of people who think China is genociding Uyghurs but Israel isn’t genociding Palestinians
Those people legit make my blood boil with rage
Westerners think China killed every single Uyghur
Libs are very fond of using the word genocide (PuTiN, China, Assad) except when it actually applies (Palestine)
“Everything is genocide except actual genocide, which is fine”
I turned the burner on my stove and shit directly onto it to see if I could make something worse than your post and I failed miserably.
lmao get fucked, lib
Post hog
joined 4 days ago, lemm.ee account… i can’t imagine what they may have said
They will liberate the entire globe except Palestine. They are very “moderate” so they do not want people to think they are antisemitic or something.
Like a sort of Global Liberation Army?
Of course if they can whitewash the HTS’, they can do just the same to these
I want to say China could kill everyone in that photo for $20k in FPV drones, but they also control 80% of the global drone market so who knows how cheap that would actually be.
China icing a bunch of CIA proxies for the price of half a ham sandwich and a handful of change, pocket lint, and a bobby pin they found in a parking lot.
Using the weapons developed in NATO’s two decade global rampage. Foucault’s boomerang will hit hard.
you could pick any two decades since it’s inception for the title of ‘global rampage’
china would demolish them lmao what are they thinking
The US is paying them to harass China. If China overreacts the Us will pay them alot more and they might win so.ething in a little war
i am unfamiliar with what the current situation in the uyghur district in the PRC is, but i imagine if an individual takes the PRC at their word - and the living conditions are improved and the oppression the west has stated is no longer there/false, there must be a nonzero standing army/security force in the area composed of locals uyghurs whose rank & file have interests which are aligned with the PRC, and will be the frontline/intelligentsia who will oppose these “moderate rebels” and their attacks?
if the security force of ugyhurs fighting on the behest of the PRC in these districts exists to be the total number of soldiers in the region, it would be deeply de-legitimatizing to these religious zealot claims of liberation to the world who are not the running dogs of empire.
Xinjiang is around 45% Uyghurs and 42% Han. You don’t even need a security force of just Uyghurs. Xinjiang isn’t like Tibet at all. This was why Uyghur separatism didn’t have much chance of succeeding. You’re not going to pull off a separatist movement where the ceiling of support is 45% of the province.
actually, to be further contrarian to this rhetoric- this is not inherently true atleast not to the spectrum desired, from my understanding of jordan and egypt in our circles, they are understood to be lackeys of the west and oppress their own people, as the ruling class and military elements are provided immense material benefit.
one could say that the oppression and that material conditions(not living in horrific shit) have worked in tandem to suppress effective dissent (or not being effectively organised cough vanguard cough). of course there are protests that are immediately suppressed from time to time, and stories of people being kidnaped after expressing dissent in egypt. but that would require a westerner to pay attention to be aware of such circumstances, which our legacy media does not inform them on, nor does our mainstream influencers (that are selectively not shadow banned).
this must mean that our legacy news media and social media influencers will not report on the falseness of the conditions in this district. that while a total ughyur security force may reduce munitions to hurl, and existing conditions where there is a lack of protests outburst (which were the indicator of oppression in egpyt) - your run of the mill westerner will not be informed or told of this as they are not beneficial to the dominating capitalist powers.
they will instead be told of every instance where intentional misinterpretation can lead to ideas of mass oppression of a uyghur people.
reminds of lenin quote
spoiler
“All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.”
of course updated to modern terms please no more news papers
my end statement is that this rhetoric i initially expressed can be reduced to insignificance, that the only way to effectively sway people of the west is to build rapport with them (atleast more rapport than the totality of the news outlets and influencers) and seem reasonable (or offer material benifits as roderic day wrote in his essay on brainwashing), there will be no mass dissonance for the general westerner who materially benefits from the status quo and they may more or less be happy with their current material conditions
willing to change my mind on my logic, if someone wants to discuss
my personal position is that i really want the PRC to be a force of positive change in the world, but tbh i am unsure of how to conduct analysis to find the absolute truth - knowing that everybody is biased in some way and tbh to sift through everything is a pain, i can see why most people will simply default to whatever materially benefits them more
ETIM barely had any support the first time, now it has much less.
