this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
44 points (100.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2395 readers
35 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
China trades with every govenrment. This included monarchist Nepal in the past and now the Republic of Nepal. China also does not meddle in other countries internal affairs.
That means no support for foreign groups or revolutions. Dunno what is so hard to understand about that.
internationalism is supposed to be a main characteristic of socialists. Where was post-Mao China internationalist?
The over-reliance on Soviet aid, which is how internationalism became so big in socialist circles, ultimately paved the way to destroy the communist movement in the West and the USSR. The US waged a war of economic attrition, pushing the USSR to participate in "proxy" conflicts (I don't like that word) that they orchestrated, but the USSR could not sustain as easily. See Afghanistan for example.
On top of which, the union was bankrolling most european parties. they were probably also helping other parties, but i mostly know about their participation in europe. after the dissolution, these parties found themselves in an ideological crisis and are now all reformist. Most of them switched to eurocommunism and completely abandoned any actual theory.
Ultimately the end of the USSR caused worldwide economic crises, the Arduous March in DPRK, the special period in cuba, the looting and selling of the GDR, etc. It was of course difficult for these countries to build their own economic base under the sanctions, but the USSR seemed to have operated under the impression they would continue to exist forever (no doubt Kruschev actually believed his own ego), and so not a lot was done either to build economic autonomy.
China has learned from the USSR's mistakes, and is not keen to repeat them. It is also not their responsibility to fight the revolution for us. Under Mao -- which also saw the deal with Pol Pot that later led to the invasion of Vietnam -- the PRC sent millions of $ to Albania, which were ultimately all lost and given out at a time China could barely bear to.
They learned from this, and now have stopped signing these deals. They have taken the point of view that they can't decide what's best for a country, and this is correct. It's easy to say "Maoists want China to do this, communists want China to do that," but who are worth supporting? Pol Pot called himself a communist. The USSR recognized the Khmer Rouge for what they were, but they were not free of mistakes either. They supported the establishment of "Israel" initially. So who's to say what is correct to meddle in, and what is not? Should socialist states send money to the ACP because they call themselves communists? That's the kind of things China has said, we can't decide. It's not our place to decide.
Do you have a source on China saying this?