- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Makes sense. Would you prefer to negotiate with the partner who authorized bombing you during the negotiations, or the country which has never bombed you before?
I love watching Drumpf push all of the US’s enemies together. Undermining decades of careful imperial planning, all so he can swing his dick around and feel like a big man.
If it wasn’t also increasing the chances of nuclear war, it would be funny as hell.
Not just the US’s enemies, but allies as well. Japan and AmeriKorea have opened up to China for the first time in decades.
NEEDS MOAR TARUFF
Why is this thread full of ultras?
There’s a contingency of ultras around who don’t really post or comment until China is mentioned and then they come out to dogpile.
China bad gang got riled up lol
With regards to Iran, probably because we just went through an almost two week war of sorts, where Iran got almost zero support from it’s foreign partners, including China. The USA was shooting down ballistic missiles and drones that were attacking Israel using US air defence systems and fighter jets, and then intervened in the conflict offensively with capabilities that only the USA has. Not to mention all the aircraft, and a sizable amount of munitions used by Israel were US made. What did China or Russia do for Iran by comparison? Did they try shoot down incoming Israeli munitions? Did they operate their own air defence systems in Iran? Did they supply Iran with any offensive weapons/munitions? Where were the Su-35s, J-10s and S-400s or HQ-9s that every pro Iran social media grifter was talking about?
What did China or Russia do for Iran by comparison? Did they try shoot down incoming Israeli munitions? Did they operate their own air defence systems in Iran? Did they supply Iran with any offensive weapons/munitions? Where were the Su-35s and S-400s that every pro Iran social media grifter was talking about?
Did Iran ask for any of this?
Yes…
When? Where?
Half of us expect China to be the world’s savior and are mad as hell they’re not trying to be. The other half will bend over backwards to frame everything China does in a good light and make excuses for bad geopolitical decisions.
This is hexbearian dialectics.
china won’t do jack shit to improve anyone’s lives in iran or anything to stop the genocide and neutralize the threat of israel. pezeshkian is saying please help us and xi will be like hmm how about a loan and we keep buying your oil for way cheaper than it should be? china has good domestic policy for sure but im completely disillusioned with their foreign policy. fuck them.
China’s foreign policy is entirely centred around keeping China’s 1.4+ billion people safe. It is intensely conservative, yes, which is infinitely disappointing, but it is not up to China to stop the genocide and risk all out war with the world’s preeminent superpower. It feels like people on here have a confused view of China’s place in the world, hoping for it to be the second USSR in terms of foreign aid for revolutionary projects, and then turn totally the other way when they realise that this is not happening, acting like China has somehow betrayed it’s required revolutionary outlook and deserves extra condemnation.
China’s foreign policy is entirely centred around keeping China’s 1.4+ billion people safe.
I wonder how much of that’s driven by the memory of the USSR’s interventionist policies and its collapse following e.g. its failure in Afghanistan.
1000%. Post-1991 China’s been laser focused on not repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union. Xi Jingping is particularly obsessed with this; excerpts from a speech he gave back in 2013 on this very topic:
The most striking part of Xi Jinping’s “new southern tour speech” is his revisiting the topic of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He said, “Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, ‘the ruler’s flag over the city tower’ changed overnight. It’s a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”
“Why must we stand firm on the Party’s leadership over the military?” Xi continued, “because that’s the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union where the military was depoliticized, separated from the Party and nationalized, the party was disarmed. A few people tried to save the Soviet Union; they seized Gorbachev, but within days it was turned around again, because they didn’t have the instruments to exert power. Yeltsin gave a speech standing on a tank, but the military made no response, keeping so-called ‘neutrality.’ Finally, Gorbachev announced the disbandment of the Soviet Communist Party in a blithe statement. A big Party was gone just like that. Proportionally, the Soviet Communist Party had more members than we do, but nobody was man enough to stand up and resist.”
“Nobody was man enough”! How vividly this captures Xi Jinping’s anxiety over the fall of the Soviet Communist Party and the collapse of the Soviet Union!
In his inauguration speech on September 19, 2004, when he succeeded Jiang Zemin to become the Chairman of the Central Military Committee, Hu Jintao also railed against Gorbachev as “the chief culprit of Eastern Europe’s transformation and a traitor of socialism.” “Because of the openness and pluralism he championed,” Hu said, “Gorbachev caused confusion among the Soviet Communist Party and the people of the Soviet Union. The Party and the Union fell apart under the impact of ‘westernization’ and ‘bourgeois liberalism’ that he implemented.”
Per https://chinachange.org/2013/01/26/beijing-observation-xi-jinping-the-man-by-gao-yu/
China is not the USSR. The Chinese economy is fully integrated into the global economy - a very powerful position that the USSR did not have.
Just look at how China used the rare earth cards to get Trump back to the negotiation table. Do not underestimate China’s ability to assert its interests on the international stage. It can threaten the stop of goods flowing and the entire world will fold. It can stop the genocide if it chooses to.
And that’s why the US likes China to play the role it is right now, because in this calculation, China will not use its powerful position to disrupt US interests, so long as it doesn’t infringe the Chinese interests itself.
And that’s why the US likes China to play the role it is right now,
lmao
Yeah what. The US likes a very specific thing about China, that it doesn’t confront them in direct conflict. China, on the other hand, overtaking the US on every stage across the world, which the US fucking hates and is preparing for war to stop.
There is also just a form of geopolitical natural selection at work. There were surely political elements in the PRC that made it more stable against Western imperialism that helped it avoid a USSR-style dissolution, and they continued past the dissolution of the USSR. And they would be drawing from the material base of society as well, an engine that continued to today.
There is struggle in China, in the CPC, between the government and capitalists, between capitalists. Factions rise and fall. Despite this rotation it has only strengthened via its general charted course.
Why should China dive into helping Iran when the last time they were about to have really good relations the Iranian government threw it all away for the slightest concession from America? Iran is not run by principled socialists, they’re a bunch of libs and theocrats who happen to be on the right side of history re: isntreal, China and Iran are right to improve relations now, but they’re also right to be cautious and doing it in a measured way. Fool me twice, you can’t get fooled again, as
would say.US: Bombs the shit out of Iranian nuclear facilities
Reformists: We should have renewed dialogue with the US
Unless Iran gets rid of these traitorous reformist snakes, they cannot be viewed as a reliable partner. Imagine selling weapons to Iran only for them to not use it or even worse, destroy them because the current Iranian administration is some shitty government run by reformists who think they can get concessions by sucking up to the West.
China is wise to keep its distance from Iran.
6 months ago I would’ve called you a fool, but after they got bombed by the US and still let the IAEA back for inspections is when I realized their leadership is cooked
because me, a western leftist, expect others to do the work that is mine. Chinese people should throw their lives to stop my country from erasing other countries, not me that lives in the aggressor country and benefits from it.
No need, China already supports and trade with genocidal fascists
trade =/= support. The USSR also mantained trade with nazi germany at some point, if you think that makes them allies you’re just disingenuous. Still doesn’t change the fact that it is the US, likely your country, the one primarily enabling Israel and you do nothing about it.
Thanks for proving my point that it was bad for the USSR to do that. When China does something that isn’t just talk let me know. Also for a country of over 1 billion it’s hilarious to see not a single discernible action made by any individual made for Palestine.
china won’t do jack shit to improve anyone’s lives in iran
Not necessarily true; if China decides to just sidestep the the sanctions stupidity placed on Iran then they can actively help make the lives of Iranians much better. Militarily? I’m not sure China is interested in helping from a military angle (although here’s to hoping they sell Iran some serious power, but I know this hope is in vain), but at least if they can help Iran’s economy then that would be really important.
they probably will improve peoples lives in iran the same way they are doing in africa and the such, cheap loans with gracious terms, supplying solar energy etc
do not forget that the simple fact that China provides cheap and quality commodities is already a way of improving the people lives. really the only reason the countryside people in my country has access to stuff like mobile phones is because China makes them very accessible.
Mobile phones and telecoms from China has done lot to increase the income of the most impoverished people of the world. I remember a study from last year or two on this exact phenomenon, showing a clear correlation between introduction of Chinese telecoms to rural areas in the global south and real wage increase.
even just replacement parts for other stuff made in china is already an improvement to people’s lives. Things that i used to buy for hundreds of USD i can now get from chinese manufacturers for fractions of the cost, leaving me with more money on the wallet to use on other stuff. Heck the other day i had to replace an alternator for a tractor, i got a chinese one for $150, and it works better than the Made in Europe expensive crap that came with the tractor lol.
Hope it’s more than that or it’ll just all get blown up by the next inevitable attack from US and Israel. They need anti-air capacity.
It would be good for it to be more than that but more energy and materials can support and offset domestic militaryproduction as well. Compare to the alternative, where Iran is more isolated and has less money.
Ya it’s definitely better than nothing. Think news has been so depressing lately I’ve just been used to being pessimistic. I’m trying to have more revolutionary optimism lately but it’s hard. Organizing helps, but it’s offset by the news lol.
It is hard to be aware of the state of the world and not at least sometimes be depressed or infuriated.
China is not going to be the second USSR because its economic model is inherently neoliberal, and one that adheres to the market principles set by the IMF, despite what many Western leftists want to believe in otherwise.
This is what market socialism actually means, and what many Western commentators misunderstand about the Chinese model. In fact, the government has repeatedly stated that it vows to be the defender of the free trade order, and that it is the US that violates the international rules it sets itself.
You have narratives from both sides that attempt to paint China as “imperialist” or “anti-Western imperialist”, and neither of them is correct. China is the biggest beneficiary of the neoliberal free trade order, with the global industrial capacity being deliberately concentrated into China, at the expense of the rest of the world since it rendered the rest of the Global South vulnerable to the onslaught of Western finance capitalism.
The US is happy to de-industrialize itself, and China is happy to keep the system going and benefiting from it for as long as it can. As long as the IMF ideological indoctrination continues to hold, China’s actions will be constrained by the framework set by the US-dominated institutions.
The problem now is that the long term de-industrialization in the US has caused the rise of populism, and erupted in the form of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump’s movements in the mid-2010s, following the 2008 global financial crisis that truly ended what remains of class mobility in the country and fully disillusioned their own working class of the “American dream”. Everyone who is not establishment knows that the system is broken. This is itself the contradiction of the American neoliberal capitalist system.
Forced to respond to the rise of populism, American capital is now attempting to forge a new international order that would allow its own finance capital to remain hegemonic while at the same time pacifying the dissent of its own working class. A new form of fascism, if you will. It is a huge bet full of risks and contradictions in and on itself, but this is the only way for American capitalism to survive and perpetuate itself.
On the other hand, China wants the status quo to remain, and the continued de-industrialization in the US is good for China. Yet another contradiction at the global scale that will continue to build the geopolitical tension, until something breaks.
And the work had already begun with the first Trump term, with its initial foray into a trade war with China since 2018 (the same play dealing with Japan in the 1980s). Biden ramped up the trade war and completed the subjugation and disciplining of the European economy through Ukraine War and the Build Back Better policies (the long-term effort of neutralizing the euro as a major challenger to the dollar since the fall of the USSR, during which the plunder and monetization of post-Soviet industrial capital finally enabled Europe to form its own currency zone).
Trump II is now continuing the effort by playing up the global tariffs, with Europe out of the game and Japan is still too slow to recover its growth, most likely with the intention of setting off a mercantilistic fight throughout the world, allowing China to flood its cheap goods across the world while it hides itself behind the tariffs. This will weaken the domestic industries in many economies of the world, which will then set the stage for global supply chain to be reshaped, as they are plundered by IMF/bailouts by foreign capital.
Europe will likely be forced to purchase American goods and invest hundreds of billions in the US. Again, another layer of contradiction that relies on the Europeans playing ball - the last time Europe was being squeezed to pay its war debt beyond its ability to American creditors post-WWI, they ended up squeezing the defeated Germany which directly caused the rise of Hitler and Nazism. A very dangerous game to play here.
This is just a long winded way of saying that if you want China to act to the benefit of the Global South, the neoliberal ideology must first be purged in China.
The problem is that even after the Ukraine war started, despite many Global South countries wanting to jump on the de-dollarization train, China has been extremely reluctant to do so precisely because of what I described above - it benefits greatly through dollar hegemony, and this is the result of its economic framework being constrained by neoliberal theories. It does not have an alternative framework like the USSR did. This emboldens the US to continue to challenge China and the rest of the world, because its calculation is that China will still prefer to keep the status quo than to radically change the rules of the world.
The PRC’s economic model is not inherently neoliberal. What is this nonsense?
OP thinks neoliberalism is when free trade lol.
Even then China has substantial import controls and protectionist measures. For example, The Great Firewall is mostly a protectionist measure for domestic tech development.
There are neoliberals struggling for neoliberal policy in the PRC government and liberal policies for many industries, but the way it treats capital is usually more akin to a classic econ, Keynesian, and of course Marxist logic.
It may br faur to assume OP is speaking more about its international economic relations, where imperialist peers have exported neoliberal policy via something like the IMF. They .ake reference to the IMF. The usual aspects of neoliberalism in that context are to tie strings to loans for imperialized countries to convert their economies into (dependemcy) profit maximizers for imperialists. Cut their labor protections, abolish domestic food production via multiple means including removing protectionist barriers, leading to greater proletarianization for there to be workers for the imperialist-owned factories, cannibalization of social programs and many functions of the state that threaten this regime or remove opportunities for profit.
But even then China is at best somewhat complacent with other countries’ neoliberalism. They do not attach those strings and their direct investments tend to not involve net exploitation (vs. their domestic workforce). This is a debated point among Marxist nerds but I find the analyses in line with what I’ve described more convincing and rigorous.
I think the most salient criticism is that China’s strategy of economic integration is a double-edged sword. While the imperialists are stuck with the choice between attacking China and having unstable economies and profits, China is stuck trying to figure out what to do with their export-driven productive economy if they ever tried to decouple.
The term you’re looking for is imperialism, or financial imperialism, not neoliberalism. There are many Global South countries today that are obviously not imperialist and yet have their economic model fully adhere their to the neoliberal framework.
I mostly agree. I used both terms in their own context, while they’re also related, as imperialism frequently uses the imposition of neoliberalism to achieve its ends. If we ask how China could be fundamentally neoliberal we quickly exhaust the question domestically, so we’d need to look at how it could be neoliberal in a farther-reaching sense in that it imposes neoliberalism on other countries or strictly relies on an expansion of neoliberalism elsewhere in order to function.
Just explained to another user but here you go:
Definitionally, China’s economy fits fully into the neoliberal framework and adheres closely to the IMF prescription (balancing the budget, export-led growth, privatization etc.). Please don’t say just because China has industrial policy that it is not neoliberal. Many countries, including Japan and South Korea, have industrial policies and still fit fully into the neoliberal framework.
From an academic standpoint, economics departments across Chinese academia are already dominated by Western neoclassical and Austrian school economists who studied in Western universities. You want to find Marxist economists? They’ve all been banished to the humanities and social sciences departments decades ago.
From a historical standpoint, China’s reform and opening up model was designed by the Chicago school and Milton Friedman was even invited twice to China to educate Chinese policymakers. Shanghai’s financial sector was designed by the Chicago school lol.
Perhaps the most prominent economist and policy advisor in China today, Justin Lin Yifu, who pioneered the New Structural Economics that defined the Chinese economic model for the past 30 years, was the first ever Chinese PhD graduate from the Chicago school of economics and the protege of Theodore Schultz himself, the co-founder of Chicago school of neoclassical economics together with Milton Friedman.
Again, you are confusing a country having industrial policy and some level of capital control, which I remind you, that exist in many countries in the world today, as being not neoliberal.
Many people don’t even understand how the Chinese economy works and its history think they know China better than myself lol, and I don’t even claim to be an expert.
Definitionally, China’s economy fits fully into the neoliberal framework and adheres closely to the IMF prescription (balancing the budget, export-led growth, privatization etc.).
The IMF neoliberal framework is one of balancing budgets through austerity (etc). Neoliberalism is definitionally destructive to state-owned capital - as you mention, privatization. Generally speaking, it refocuses the profit drivers to finance through cannibalization of productive capital. While one could’ve argued for a worrying trajectory towards this in China in 1999, today the trend and actuality is opposite to this, with a growing state, growing SOEs, deprivatization, growing infrastructure, direct confrontations with an already-suppressed financial capital sector, and a steadily increasing domestic production for domestic consumption.
It is certainly true that China ticks some boxes (e.g. allowing its own exploitation, export-driven economy), but these are not sufficient to be neoliberal.
From an academic standpoint, economics departments across Chinese academia are already dominated by Western neoclassical and Austrian school economists who studied in Western universities. You want to find Marxist economists? They’ve all been banished to the humanities and social sciences departments decades ago.
Oh yes there is certainly a strong element of this political economic miseducation. It is not quite that dire, as even the Shanghai School integrates Marxist thought, and not just for show. Similarly, nerds like Liu Yuanchun and Hu Angang have substantial influence and intersect with the Tsinghua crowd. China’s governance has finance sector veterans following the plans of Marxist SOE advocates. These things get mixed together. Much of the strength of the anti-finance (or at least finance-critical) crowd focuses on the anarchy of production when finance capital becomes too strong, for example. Attempts to reign in real estate highlighted these struggles and with, appropriately, mixed bag outcomes.
From a historical standpoint, China’s reform and opening up model was designed by the Chicago school and Milton Friedman was even invited twice to China to educate Chinese policymakers. Shanghai’s financial sector was designed by the Chicago school lol.
Reform and Opening Up absolutely drew from neoliberal schools of thought, openly and intentionally, but also balanced by ML critique and retaining a very different political economic system than the Chicago Boys implemented on, say, Chile via Pinochet.
I do also want to note, however, that much of this is not in real service of whether China’s economy is fundamentally neoliberal. It could basically all be true in fact and intent while China’s actual economic function is not neoliberal.
Perhaps the most prominent economist and policy advisor in China today, Justin Lin Yifu […]
He headed the World Bank, too! Very enmeshed in the explicitly political structures of global capital. But again this just reads as an attempt at association but without strong thesis. And NSE, while easy to criticize, is a departure from neoliberal economics in quite a few ways, particularly when it comes to the role of the state and private capital.
Again, you are confusing a country having industrial policy and some level of capital control, which I remind you, that exist in many countries in the world today, as being not neoliberal.
I don’t believe I’ve said or implied either of those things. In fact, the comment you replied to was very very short and just doubted China being neoliberal. Are you thinking of a different person or comment?
Many people don’t even understand how the Chinese economy works and its history think they know China better than myself lol, and I don’t even claim to be an expert.
I’m not sure I’d make a blanket statement that I simply understand a given country’s economy. I can often identify salient aspects.
China is not going to be the second USSR because its economic model is inherently neoliberal
really wish you would stop using this wildly inappropriate term for China, it’s like your definition of neoliberal comes from an alternate universe
Everyone reading this thread should fucking read Losurdo’s Class Struggle. China’s proletarian party is working in the long term interests of the proletariat by allowing bourgeois management of the economy and slowly learning from and then replacing it. But applying the Unity of Action principle means also letting specific models succes and fail of their own accords after attempting to apply them well. And right now, the economic model is working and being slightly shifted where needed, but achieving the long term goals. If China were to give all this up, and attack and then be destroyed by the imperialist west to stop the current atrocities (as much as I care about it too), the genocides that would follow would be even larger and worse. I’m not starry eyed enough to think China would actually win a global war right now, because the enemy is genuinely very powerful.
Stalin wanted to win in Spain but knew that destroying themselves there would prevent their survival in the coming war. It’s a fundamentally future and empirically oriented position, and that feels horrible and harsh at any given moment of inability.
Can you explain how is it inappropriate?
Definitionally, China’s economy fits fully into the neoliberal framework and adheres closely to the IMF prescription (balancing the budget, export-led growth, privatization etc.). Please don’t say just because China has industrial policy that it is not neoliberal. Many countries, including Japan and South Korea, have industrial policies and still fit fully into the neoliberal framework.
From an academic standpoint, economics departments across Chinese academia are already dominated by Western neoclassical and Austrian school economists who studied in Western universities. You want to find Marxist economists? They’ve all been banished to the humanities and social sciences departments decades ago.
From a historical standpoint, China’s reform and opening up model was designed by the Chicago school and Milton Friedman was even invited twice to China to educate Chinese policymakers. Shanghai’s financial sector was designed by the Chicago school lol.
Perhaps the most prominent economist and policy advisor in China today, Justin Lin Yifu, who pioneered the New Structural Economics that defined the Chinese economic model for the past 30 years, was the first ever Chinese PhD graduate from the Chicago school of economics and the protege of Theodore Schultz himself, the co-founder of Chicago school of neoclassical economics together with Milton Friedman.
Again, you are confusing a country having industrial policy and some level of capital control, which I remind you, that exist in many countries in the world today, as being not neoliberal.
Again, you are confusing a country having industrial policy and some level of capital control, which I remind you, that exist in many countries in the world today, as being not neoliberal.
No, I’m talking about a country where the biggest companies and the banking sector and land are owned by the state. I’m talking about a country like this:
State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China’s market capitalization in 2019[4] and estimates suggest that they generated about 23-28% of China’s GDP in 2017 and employ between 5% and 16% of the workforce.
Neoliberalism is first and foremost about privatization. After that it is about deregulation. It is not about the college an economic advisor went to or who their professor was a student of. None of the processes that have historically defined neoliberalism are dominant in the actual Chinese economy. China’s economy is probably the least neoliberal on earth outside of the other four ML states.
“SOE” is an economist weasel word, it covers everything from a soviet factory to a public corp handling contracts for 90% privatized services in post soviet countries. there isn’t even a percent of public ownership that makes an SOE an SOE.
Not saying Chinese SOEs function a specific way, but simply having them doesn’t pass muster imo, we need to interrogate the characteristics of them to actually know if they’re neoliberal or not.
Sounds to me like western leftists need to organize and get a revolution going as the contradictions in neoliberalism continue to escalate towards fascism. We can’t rely on China to save us, or Palestine.
It sounds depressing and hopeless now, but western leftists should remember how fast things progress sometime. At one point, Lenin was convinced he wouldn’t see the revolution during his lifetime. Hell, all the stuff with the Paris Commune happened in like three months.
I simply don’t see how China can save the working class in the Imperial Core if they don’t have organized movements themselves to perform revolutionary defeatism from within.
Without left wing movements, declining economies and the amplifying effects of climate change will simply accelerate into fascism like you said. You have millions of people getting radicalized in real time but with no (serious) movements to join (organizing milquetoast protests do not count lol!) - and so in a world where everyone is out for themselves, even those with left leaning sympathies will be forced to adopt reactionary stance just for their own survival.
Also, History is always marching on and full of surprises. You can never truly plan for what’s coming - there are so many historical precedences where accidents or unanticipated incidents can tilt the balance in one way or the other very quickly, and those who were not in the position to capitalize on the changing order will be swept away by the winds of History and became nothing more than a footnote.
Sadly, a lot of people try to engage in mind reading the leadership of the PRC and claim that they will definitely dismantle colonialism from inside, despite the fact that their current economic (i.e. ‘material’) interests lie in perpetuating it. For some reason, people forget about the base and the superstructure stuff when it comes to the PRC. And they also generally seem to forget about the consequences of the presence of the profit motive in an economy in this case for some reason.
The PRC being dominant instead of NATO would be an improvement over the current state of affairs, but people are way too blindly optimistic in this regard.
EDIT: Actually, going to use this opportunity and address one of the arguments for the privatisation of the PRC’s economy (and the corresponding damage done to workers’ rights in the PRC):
The PRC has been increasing living standards very quickly for more than a billion people. If you think that the PRC’s economy is capitalist/not socialist, you must conclude that capitalism is the best economic system there is. Therefore, this criticism of the PRC is incorrect.
There are a few issues with that:
- Seeing that one system is achieving the results that look good on the surface, and concluding from that that that must mean it’s the system that you liked beforehand is silly in a way that should be obvious. It’s just some wishful thinking - making a conclusion based on what one wants to see, rather than on how things are. Also, the PRC, the USSR, etc. had more impressive improvements made under planned economies, and the current PRC can’t replicate some of their achievements, so what the PRC has now is not even managing to be the ‘best’ system that we have seen.
- The fact that the current PRC has more people than the states that maintain/maintained planned economies isn’t really relevant, unless one wants to argue that, when a state implements a policy, it picks some number of people for the policy to affect, and the policy then can’t affect any more people, rather than for policies to affect groups of people regardless of how numerous those groups are.
- The way the PRC managed to get ahead after the privatisation, is by attracting some of the colonial spoils from the imperial core. It has become a semi-peripheral state, and is currently both a victim of colonialism, but also maintains relations of unequal exchange with other countries that are beneficial to the PRC. Colonial exploitation is, in the end, the only way for states that maintain economies with the profit motive to ‘win’ economically. Being the beneficiary of relations of unequal exchange are much better predictors of great economic power of a state than an economy being privatised.
pezeshkian is saying please help us
Is this before or after Pezeshkian saying please help us to the USians and Euros?
we keep buying your oil for way cheaper than it should be
who the fuck else is buying it?
Agreed, fuck China. Keep watching while a genocide is happening. The Japanese Red Army did fucking more with nothing while China sits on their ass as the 2nd most powerful country in the world.
5 year old account resurrects just to post against China for not doing enough per their own unstated standards.
The Japanese Red Army is disbanded and its members dead or in prison, having accomplished very little organizationally or to build power. The PRC has prevented billions of deaths even just in its own borders - and still exists as a project in which to struggle. So should we be sayinh, “fuck The Japanese Red Army” based on these objectiveoutcomes? That seems unprincipled.
Stalking post history doesn’t change what I said. The PRC with all its power has done fuck all is my point. The USSR did more for the world with a fraction of the economic power of China. Why should I care if China becomes powerful when all they do is care about themselves. Useless country.
Ah yes the roads, hospitals, ports, airports, schools, trains, manufacturing facilities, and green energy initiatives done in dozens of global south countries has only helped themselves. I guess Africans can’t use roads or something, is that what you think? Only the Chinese get to use the railway in Kenya?
Stalking post history
As of writing my comment you had 3 thinga in your posting history. Two from 5 years ago and one from today. Don’t you think it’s exaggerative to call it stalking to simply make note of that?
doesn’t change what I said.
It means, most likely, that you registered many accounts ages ago and are using it as an alt. This does actually cast your comment in a particular light.
The PRC with all its power has done fuck all is my point.
I believe your point, your thesis, which you led with, is, “fuck China”. And for, as I already noted, not doing enough. Your rehashing here is pointless. If you want to die on the hill of it doing, “fuck all” then that is certainly a choice.
The USSR did more for the world with a fraction of the economic power of China.
The USSR did many great things. It also collapsed and took scores of socialist countries with it. It was also Zionist and integral to the creation of this settler-colonial genocidal project. As scientific socialists we must acknowledge not just what factors favor revolution and that we can impact, but what factors destabilize a state after the early stages. Much of the collapse of the USSR was due to failed internal struggles and organization, with Kruschev’s nonsense as a canary in the coal mine.
I also would never accept the claim that the USSR had a fraction of China’s economic power, it was massively productive and for more useful things. Much of China’s productivity is for garbage products (not low-quality, just ridiculous products) for export to the US et al. But China is certainly powerful.
Why should I care if China becomes powerful when all they do is care about themselves.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned billions of averted deaths? Do you see zero benefit to the continued existence of a socialist project governing a state eith 1.4 billion people? And China does have a very conservative internationalism that nevertheless benefits the global south.
Useless country.
Objectively wrong.
The Japanese Red Army did fucking more with nothing while China sits on their ass as the 2nd most powerful country in the world.
Go charge with rifle and bayonet into Israeli lines, then, if that means anything.
Lol what a response for criticizing China. And ya Yemen, another poor broke country does exactly that and has tangibly hurt Israel bankrupting one of their ports while China abets a genocide. Never forget that.
Yup. Tired of everyone in here providing cover for China. They aren’t doing shit except words of condemnation.
Why are you tired of it? Do you live in a country that does not have rampant sinophobia and anticommunist tendencies?
People in here seem to forget what critical means when they say critical support.
Aside from Iran, Yemen, and Hezbollah, and The DPRK, China is probably next in line for their support to Palestine, but that isn’t saying much.
Have they sanctioned israel in any way? No, they restricted the sale of Chinese drones for military purposes, but they still end up in the hands of the apartheid regime.
They haven’t restricted any trade on the basis of “israel’s” genocidal onslaught. At least Colombia stopped exporting coal to them.
And you believe Hexbear doesn’t already have regular criticism of China’s conservative foreign policy on this? I see this kind of thing mentioned every week.
Critical support honestly means very little when it is just anonymous people sharing opinions on the internet. What support? Pushing back on the predominant anti-China bullshit? Pushing back on the useless and incorrect Western leftist tendency to become ultras? It’s not like a Hexbear from Florida is volunteering for the PLA or something. The extent of critical support in any of these spaces is just a rejection of anticommunist propaganda and unprincipled tendencies.
This kind of comment is why I hate the term critical support. It’s been turned into some nonsense lol
Critical support honestly means very little when it is just anonymous people sharing opinions on the internet.
Then one can say the same thing for support as well.
I still think China is the best country in the world right now, and have plans to move there in the near future.
But I also don’t see how China directly funding a “country” committing genocide is excusable, and any criticism is labeled as anticommunist.
This comment just sidesteps what I said
China ( mainland and HK) are Israel’s second biggest importers behind the U.S. 3rd is Ireland
The bare minimum at this point would be to do something economically to pressure Israel. Like c’mon your telling me the world’s manufacturing hub can’t replace imports of optical equipment and chemicals, theres been plenty of time to find alternative suppliers.
Imports from Israel to China have dropped about 40% since 2022. I agree that it would be more beneficial for Palestine for us to see clear and overt economic pressure rather than quiet moves like this.
Since the Deng reforms, China’s primary focus is rapid development. It has certainly achieved at record time, but for that it requires stability of global capitalism, China played a big part in saving global capitalism in 2008. China will maintain its strategy of non-interference for the foreseeable future.
The primary enemy of Palestine and Oppressed Nations is the United States and the dominance of the US dollar. The weakening of these the US will give Nations under the jackboot of US Imperialism some breathing space. The weakening of US/NATO and the rise of China and Russia does not mean that China/Russia will seek justice for the sake of justice, but it will give these Oppressed Nations some cards to play through geo-strategic manoeuvring in a Multi-Polar World.
This is a grim outlook, from a Revolutionary Communist POV, but it’s the most realistic, don’t hold any illusions that CPC is still some Revolutionary Party.
That’s part of why the EU is initiating “Snapback” sanctions on Iran. It makes it very difficult to sell any military equipment to Iran, as China would risk sanctions.
I can’t imagine China gives a fuck about EU sanctions at this point.
Isn’t China’s economic model dependent on selling goods to the EU + United States? So in that respect, sanctions do matter to a degree. Snapback allows any JCPOA participant to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran. Said UN sanctions were were why Russia postponed the sale of the S-300P air defence systems to Iran until 2016 when JCPOA was implemented, after they were initially purchased by Iran in 2007. It seems like China and Russia very much care about this, which is why they’ve proposed a draft resolution that decides to extend for six months, until 18 April 2026, the ten-year term of the JCPOA.
Snapback is not something that can be hand waived away.
Exports to the US accounts for roughly 15% of China’s total exports, and just 2% of China’s overall GDP. The EU isn’t even a blip for China as you can see in the first link. The most trade happens with Germany at whooping 3.1%.
Literally anything the west does at this point can be waved away.
Isn’t the current tarrif situation that the US has 30% tarrifs on Chinese goods, and China has 15% on US goods? That BBC article is from April. Please correct it I’m wrong.
As for the first argument, you can’t just say that it’s only x amount of GDP so it doesn’t matter. There’s still a ton of factories and jobs involved in making those goods (15% of total exports), and the knock on effects will be much higher than 2% of GDP if trade was completely halted between the USA and China and all those factory workers lost their jobs.
If 18% of total exports are US and Germany, who is going to replace that market? These are developed economies consisting of people earning Dollars and Euros. People in lees developed economies can’t buy what US and European consumers buy, they don’t have the money. The rest of the world is almost at maximum capacity for Chinese goods anyway, if China does start dumping goods intended for the US and Europe on the rest of the world (the global south and wealthy nations outside of the US and Europe), it would absolutely crush the local industry in these countries, who already struggle to compete with Chinese manufacturing as is.
Literally anything the west does at this point can be waved away.
Well then why aren’t China and Russia doing so? With regards to Iran again, it seems as if they very much care about what the west does, hence proposing an extension of the JCPOA. What help did China and Russia offer Iran during the recent war with Israel? If they really thought that anything done by the west could be waived away, why did they not go in and shoot down Israeli aircraft over Iran? Why did they not attempt to stop direct US offensive intervention in bombing Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz? By all accounts Iran was left on it’s own here. There were no Su-35s, J-10s, S-400s or HQ-9s shooting down Israeli aircraft, and no attempt to interdict US offensive actions.
China’s response is not symmetric. The current situation is that China has choked off rare earths supply to the US and has been cutting off key imports from US entirely. For example, US farmers are now in a crisis because China switched to buying soy beans from Brazil. China has also cut out US energy imports in record time. China is also looking to cut out Nvidia chips.
The point here is that China’s dependence on the west is far lower than vice versa. If trade was halted between the US and China then the US economy would literally collapse within months. Meanwhile, for China it would be at most an inconvenience. Your premise that there would be factory closures and job losses is based on the notion that China isn’t able to redirect trade and increase domestic consumption. However, we can already see that China’s exports beat expectations in July. The reality is that the west is fighting a trade war with the whole world, which pushes countries outside the west to do more trade with China. Modi visiting China right now is a prime example of this dynamic.
If 18% of total exports are US and Germany, who is going to replace that market? T
The US and Germany are not in a position to cut out Chinese exports. This is why Trump has been consistently extending his tariffs break on China. Meanwhile, it’s pretty clear that the rest of the world is not in fact at maximum capacity as evidenced by China’s soaring exports outside the west.
Well then why aren’t China and Russia doing so?
What aren’t China and Russia doing exactly? Both are trading with Iran defying western sanctions, and both are supplying Iran with military tech. Neither China or Russia has any interest in Iran developing nuclear weapons. This has fuck all to do with JCPOA or any western demands.
What help did China and Russia offer Iran during the recent war with Israel?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202503044006
why did they not go in and shoot down Israeli aircraft over Iran?
Because Iran is a sovereign country and they didn’t ask them to do that? I love how you just take all agency away from Iran here.
Why did they not attempt to stop direct US offensive intervention in bombing Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz? By all accounts Iran was left on it’s own here.
See above.
What help did China and Russia offer Iran during the recent war with Israel
What help did Iran ask for?
This is fairly normal diplomat speak. But I will be more optimistic if agreements for tangible things emerge.
are SAM batteries involved or not
Real
hours who’s upthis will lead to nothing. nothing ever happens gang rise up
