117
Xi: China's resolve to stay on the path of peaceful development will not change. We will never take the trodden path of colonial plundering, or the wrong path of seeking hegemony đź‘Ź (news.cgtn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/sino@hexbear.net
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Capitalist world is in a crisis now, and we can see anti capitalist movements only getting stronger around the globe. Meanwhile, BRICS is a perfect example of the division in the capitalist world. It's a bigger economic bloc than the G7 now, and it includes a mix of capitalist and socialist countries. Something like BRICS would not be possible with an ideologically driven geopolitical position from China.

Furthermore, as the economic situation in the west continues to decline, we're seeing people increasingly lose faith in the system. Western powers continue to weaken, and their ability to prevent socialist movements also weakens as a result. Recent events in Bolivia are a perfect illustration of this working in practice.

The contradiction is unavoidable, but it's possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    The contradiction is unavoidable, but it's possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.

    It is arrogance to believe that will always be the case. The same arrogance that the capitalists had in believing capitalism had won with the defeat of the USSR and that capitalism would always be in hegemony thereafter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    What China is currently doing has objectively accomplished more to derail global capitalism than USSR was ever able to. It's not arrogance, it's making tactical retreats to achieve long term strategic gains. As Lenin very eloquently put it:

    To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    It's an all-in strategy that hinges on either winning or leaving absolutely no gains behind (which at least the USSR did) if it fails.

    If China ever falls it will have done precisely nothing to advance the cause of socialism at all other than for itself, which will amount to exactly nothing if it fails.

    It is reckless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Every approach has risk associated with it. I'd argue that trying to do what has already failed is far more reckless than learning and adapting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I disagree with the premise that it failed. It advanced the socialist holdings around the world, then fell.

    If China falls, it does so without advancing anything.

    Surely you can see where my thinking is with this. A more hollistic view of the whole period of transition to socialism will show it as expansion and contraction and expansion and contraction. The USSR expansion and advancement of socialism will have actually achieved something, should it fall China's will not, it will be wasted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Fair, USSR has greatly advanced the cause of socialism while it was around. However, I don't see how you can say that China hasn't advanced anything since the days of USSR. For example, the pink tide happening in Latin America is directly facilitated by trade with China.

    If China falls, the world will likely regress, but the march towards socialism will not stop. Ultimately, it's the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system itself that lead to its ultimate distraction. In my view, the most important task today is to break apart US led hegemony over the world. Global socialism will not be possible as long as US empire remains dominant. It seems to me that China stands a very good chance of achieving that with its current approach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you think anything in the pink tide will remain without China? The pink tide is not socialist. Maybe they become more revolutionary without China? But judging by what happened with the ussr I suspect not, it will spark a global recession of socialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago

    Like I said, if China falls then there would be a regression in socialist movements. However, the way things stand right now, it's the west that's in crisis. Capitalism is becoming discredited at the very core of the empire as we speak. Hence, why I think that China's approach is currently achieving far more than USSR was able to. Nobody knows what will happen in the future, but the current trends are against the empire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent