What is y'all thought about current China (feddit.it)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by super_user_do@feddit.it to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello everyone! I was wondering what modern day communists think about current China because I have heard many different and conflicting opinions by people who should theoretically be on the same side of the political spectrum. Thanks in advance!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 6 days ago

China is a beacon of light for most of the world, a story of success by their own merit. Regardless of your political tendencies, one cannot simply not acknowledge the tremendous development they have achieved in such a massive country in such short time.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago

The USSR before was similar, then Khrushchev happened.

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 6 days ago

The USSR comitted many mistakes that China has learnt from, for one they do not get caught subsidizing weak allies that end up being a burden instead of a shoulder to lean on.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

They had heart. Something I (and for instance Palestinians) still don't know whether it's applicable to the post Mao PRC.

[-] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 6 days ago

I don't think it can quite be reduced to "heart", but certainly I'd agree the USSR was trying to help in the ways they could think of to do so and didn't have a reference on it to guide them. The way I see it, the CPC is more cautious and guarded with international policy, but this is to be expected as a reaction to the conditions that followed the collapse of the USSR. Not only was it imperative that they not become USSR collapse 2.0, they were also now working in a world that had far less international communist support.

Like it's easy to say they morally should be on the front lines of support for Palestine, for example, but what that looks like as long-term strategy across a decades view of planning is a more complicated question. It is probably more sustainable for them to help ensure that Iran is a pillar of anti-imperialist resistance in the region than to try to intervene more directly. Iran is capable of doing a debasing process in the region that China can't do in the same way. Iran is capable of doing material solidarity with like-minded regional forces that China can't do in the same way.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, it is probably more insightful for us to ask: Why is China doing things the way that they are? Rather than, why aren't they doing everything we'd like.

[-] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 6 days ago

Even in Mao-era China, it had dog-shit foreign policy and was relatively non-interventionist besides helping with the Korean War on its border. The Sino-soviet split was broadly on the lines of opposing the USSR's "social-imperialism", I.e. their interventionist foreign policy and dictating of who gets revolutions and support for revolutions, and how their post-revolutionary government will look and function. China and the USSR had a number of border skirmishes because of this, and Mao-era China resented Stalin's government for telling both China and Korea they would be getting no support in their revolutions in order to kow tow to the west.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

I avoided deliberately to talk about their relationship because it's complicated.

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I don't think so honestly, ultimately their "selfless" mistakes caused one of the worst tragedies of the century in the dismantlement of the USSR and all that followed...

What may seem as selfish from China may ultimately be the best in the long run. At some point we have to liberate ourselves and be strong in our own to stand shoulder to shoulder with China, not hang on their back.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 days ago

I second that. It seems like idealism to believe everyone is capable of fighting off their oppressors unassisted, especially with the gap in power as it is. Sounds like bootstrapism. Some people are severely disadvantaged and require assistance. I wouldn't have expected the intentionally fractured German proletariat to defeat the Nazis alone, for example. Maybe after a long decline but not then.

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 4 days ago

I do think a movement has to show something resembling competence before being lent assistance, if one is doomed to fail why lose an arm trying to pick it up?

[-] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago

I don't disagree. Though I'd say China's powerful enough and getting more powerful, so its arm probably would cease to be at risk after some point. There's also an argument to be made that some enemies need to be put down even if there's no good domestic resistance. For example, the US is the primary engine behind climate change, which affects everyone. It's an act of war against the whole world. I don't know how much longer that will be or how well protected China is against such change so maybe it's not a matter of having to take down the US before it destroys the world. I'd hope not because there's no point in getting a movement going if everyone dies before it happens.