Ask Lemmygrad

I’d say it’s a good start but it’s not enough for any material change. That can only come from the collapse of the American empire (as we know it). Also, imperialism from the global north is not limited to the US.

In the end, it’s not size, but control. The implication that size = control is only applicable in a globalized economy. If the core countries adopt more isolationist policies then China’s influence on core countries will be reduced.

A larger China would strengthen bipolarity/multipolarity, which is a good thing, and would stabilize the situation we are observing currently, and aid in the development of socialist states. But having a strong China wouldn’t necessarily mean the collapse of the core.

It’s a question of quantitative change vs qualitative change, as described by Mao. Reform vs revolution.