For a supposed Communist, they seem to ignore how the export of capital in itself is not problemaltic. Lenin explains this in depth, the matter is HOW THE CAPITAL IS USED. Is it used to create and/or take over foreign monopolies or extract super profits? Then It’d be imperialism. Is it part of equal trade? Then it is not.
The export of capital in itself is insufficient evidence to conclude imperialism.
Furthermore to be Socialist would be to aid comrades internationally, yet China not only has not promised to ever do this (nor is this something Communist would ever dare hide from the Global masses), but they’ve actually done the opposite on multiple occasions."
But China does aid “comrades” by working with any country, regardless of the complaints of the imperial core, and promoting mutually beneficial, win-win cooperation and pro-Global South industrialization and modernization. Just recently, China pledged to help defend Venezuela’s national sovereignty and economic transition into an industrial economy rather than simply existing as a raw material exporter. China’s foreign policy in the past has not always been great, but that does not mean that we should let the mistakes overshadow the accomplishments. That would just be historical nihilism. The commenter’s idea of internationalism seems to be incessantly lending arms and money into so-called Maoist armies, but this is not China’s approach to diplomacy—China is not the USSR and shouldn’t strive to be!
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of this childish take—nothing but rhetoric and overzealous dogmatism over material reality.
Removed by mod
I remember reading about Sri Lanka, how it’s a prime example of the lie about Chinese debt diplomacy. To quote the article: “Research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota”
Removed by mod
aggressive payment program
I don’t know much about them, but in what way are they aggressive?
Or that they don’t really care if they get the money back
To some extent, yes.
The second problem with the narrative is that it relies on the assumption that it is Chinese policy to advance predatory loans with onerous terms and conditions to ensnare countries into debt. In reality, China often advances loans at fairly low interest rates, and is often willing to restructure the terms of existing loans to be more favorable to the borrowing country, or even forgive loans altogether. In fact, in August of 2022, the Chinese government announced it was forgiving 23 interest-free loans in 17 African countries. Prior to that, between 2000 and 2019, China had also restructured a total of $15 billion of debt and forgiven $3.4 billion in loans they had given to African countries.
https://www.liberationnews.org/why-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-a-lie/
Removed by mod
China is successful and thus it can’t be socialist.
MF can’t see that China is successful because it IS socialist.
Western maoism is just a cult of failure and poverty at this point.
Wtf is a western Maoist? The only Maoists I’ve met are old dudes who were part of the red guard
I will say that Jason Unruhe has a good take once in a blue moon. But over the past multiple years he’s become more reactionary.
Internet people throwing around quotes from Lenin, Stalin and Mao but hating current China and all other AES. At least they used to be like that because lately they are forgetting even the quotes. Example from OP is a gonzaloist which is extreme sectarian case.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
what no dialectical materialism does to a mfer.
As comrade transcendentalempire said, a big part of the argument put forward makes sense, quite a few of the premises hold up, Deng fucked shit up quite a bit, but the recent direction that xi is setting are much more hopeful and where I think it gets dishonest is the implications that current day China is equivalent to Deng’s China, which I don’t believe it to be, recently China gave a lot of support to the DRPK, and its striving(with the help of the BRICS) to lift the commercial blockades against Cuba and Venezuela. So yeah China did some backtracking on the long struggle towards the ultimate goals but to think that everything China does is capitalism in disguise is absolutely untrue. The part that makes me so sad is how close we are with people who think things like this, like I know the points we disagree makes our lines incompatible, but a lot of what we think to he and good thing and a bad thing is similar, and it breaks my heart to see such a rift (at times quite hostile one) between us, it is a sad issue that needs tending to, although the solution seems quite elusive
How did Deng “fuck shit up?”
In what reasonable way could China have amassed any sort of capital and standing without the actions that deng took? If deng didn’t play ball with western capital, China would have been treated the way North Korea or the Soviet Union were/are treated and they would have been starved until submission and destroyed.
Dengs concessions built the entire bridge that Xi can now cross and push towards socialism.
deleted by creator
Mao should have Min-Maxed his civ factories till 1960 then requested military access to the Soviet Union to place a 2 width Chinese cavalry unit in each Soviet city.
They then could justify a war goal on socialist Poland in order to not raise world tension to much and because justifying on puppets causes the Soviets AI to not mobilize troops.
Then you can save scum the Sino-Soviet War, and instantly capitulate the entire Warsaw Pact and annex all the territory to trigger the 5th internationale event and create the Mega China 100 Empire.
This way you can avoid the Deng event from firing and you can get a juche necromancy corpse of Mao to lead the new eternal Chinese Communist Empire.
