Like, let’s say that hypothetically China is not socialist. Why do they feel the need to equate it to the USA or to constantly diss it? Literally, no other country has 800 military bases abroad, and no other country will vulture the resources away from a fallen China like the USA would. So, being a Maoist to me just is helping the USA Intelligence departments. Literally, NATO and Western Imperialism are the main enemies, I don’t get why some groups wouldn’t want to take China as an ally. Even if they were ultra capitalist like the Maoist say, if the West falls is not like China would even be able to become the USA 2.0. They make up a dystopian future based on lies and fears and then equate that fake future to our current world, and end up equating an evil empire to a country that just wants to give the rest of the world another option.
Maoists feel like an “us vs the world” exclusive club to me
China began its period of peaceful development and opened up to Western markets while the US was bombing Vietnam and Laos, while there were coups in Indonesia and Congo and Chile and throughout the third world, and while the US was pulling farther and farther ahead in the Cold War. It implemented sweeping reforms that rolled back collectivization and opened up its people to Western exploitation.
In hindsight it’s clear this was a strategic choice to buy time to peacefully develop their productive capacity and geopolitical strength, and it worked, but for fourty years it looked like a betrayal of the revolution and liberal revisionism and capitulation to capital etc etc
Even now, it seems China would be fully willing to go back to collaboration with the US to continue peaceful development. China will let allies fall and let genocide wipe out other potential allies without taking action, won’t support revolutionary guerilla movements or risk international peace to engage in international militant struggle, and will let their own people be used as cheap disposable labor 48+ hours a week making US toys.
The extreme caution is definitely frustrating, even as China keeps being proven right and their caution keeps paying off. I think Maoists will have to confront the fact that there’s a new Cold War eventually, and I’m interested in seeing how they respond politically.
I think I want to point out that for every guerrilla movement not supported by china, there’s probably two countries being lifted out of poverty and indentured servitude to thr imperialist powers.
Ive been reading wretched of the Earth lately and this quote on pg. 105 really struck me. “The Cold War must be ended, for it leads nowhere. The plans for nuclearizing the world must stop, and large-scale investments and technical aid must be given to underdeveloped regions. The fate of the world depends on the answer that is given to this question.” Is this not exactly what China has done?
Absolutely correct, I didn’t mean to imply China is isolationist. They are just extremely cautious, but the Belt and Road initiative and the Developmental Bank are still revolutionary projects.
But while China peacefully fights underdevelopment, the US spreads underdevelopment violently and without mercy. Their dedication to peace is in contradiction with the realities of US-backed dirty wars and expansionism.
But I’m prepared to be proven wrong. China has done it before, after all!
and will let their own people be used as cheap disposable labor 48+ hours a week making US toys.
This hasn’t been happening for years, it’s come to a point where factories have trouble finding workers and have to offer more and more incentives, and most people pick it up as a summer job to save some money. Of course, development is unequal and this is true across generations too; there are people in China who have been factory workers all of their adult life (and maybe even their teenage life), but this is rarely the case with the newer generations.
Retirement age for them is something like 55 for women and 58 for men.
In general it’s safe to say China plays the long game. It’s not unique to the CPC; even imperial dynasties planned ahead like that. Deng, Xi etc plan ahead for centuries after their death. We can see that with Hong Kong for example, the lease was 100 years. After 100 years (and the fall of the original government that signed the lease) , China came knocking and said time’s up, give it back now. They understand that there are short(ish) terms sacrifices to make for long term prosperity.
In general it’s safe to say China plays the long game.
I remember the astonished vibes of articles coming out in Polish press for 2008 Olyimpic in Beijing, they were absolutely unable to believe a country can plan 30 years ahead and deliver. Sinophobic ones then shat bricks in fear. Truly a Napoleon quote moment.
When considering the difference between how Ultras see things and we do; I think it comes down to something extremely simple. A question.
What is the goal of the socialist movement?
For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this. They think the goal should be strict adherance to a political philosphy. To the teachings and writings of whatever hodgeposh of socialist thinkers they’ve put together as “the good ones”.
When any “real” socialist- that is a socialist actually furthering the cause of socialism/participating in an active communist party -will probably tell you its something along the lines of improving the lives of the greatest number of people by preventing their oppression and exploitation. Its to unite the working class and use that solidarity to push for our own best interests.
So when China does very pragmatic things in order to do the 2nd thing, and protect themselves for the long term it enrages the people who think the first way. They’ve spent all this time studying theory and learning its ins, and outs. Mostly because their own country is devoid of a real party apparatus to put them to work, and they end up doing that as an outlet for their frustrations instead.
“How dare China come out here, and be super successful while not doing things the way they’re supposed to. It can’t be “real socialism” because it doesn’t look like what i pictured in my head.”
That’s basically the mindset i think they are stuck in.
It is a very human thing to do. To latch on to something specific and get upset when things don’t work out how you wanted exactly. People just need to get over it.
The Chinese are trailblazing for socialism in an era with new technologies no other socialist figures of the past knew about, and with new geopolitical situations nobody 50 years ago could have imagined. They have no choice, but to just make it up as they go. To be pragmatic, and cautious, and do the best they can. Because the stakes are quite literally humanities future.
If China fails there is a pretty good chance we just go extinct sometime in the next few centuries. Even if we don’t life won’t be good for most people. The entire species fate is literally riding on the Chinese’s shoulders. Luckily everything I’ve seen suggests that the people running the CPC are some of the greatest tactical minds in history.
Very well put. Though i don’t know that i entirely agree with your last paragraph. It seems a bit too fatalistic. China is definitely the biggest cause for hope but it is not the only one. When i see things like what is happening in Burkina Faso at the moment, it gives me hope for the Global South as a whole, hope that the revolutionary spirit will never be permanently crushed and will emerge time and time again from the ashes. The most that the enemies of the working class can do is delay it, yes they can cause more suffering, but they can’t stop the progression of history. Perhaps my optimistic faith in humanity is misguided, but this is the way i see it at the moment.
I don’t disagree with your view on those movements i just think that time runs too short. Like they’d need far too much time to get off the ground to be able to actually prevent the massive ecological and humanitarian disasters that are coming. Which need a lot of productive capacity to combat. And as climate change gets worse, and the west gets more overtly violent building those sorts of things just gets more difficult.
Its just a right time right place situation. China got a lot of the work done already and even places like Vietnam still need more time to get to the point they are at. Time which we really don’t have anymore sadly imo.
I think that China has more or less single-handedly saved the world, and just in-time.
Obviously, history is made by people and productive forces, and it’s an hyperbole to say that China by itself saved the world. And nothing is locked in stone.
But China has done an extremely fucking excellent job over the past several decades, and managed to get it’s hands and tentacles into every orifice of the capitalist’s, to prevent socialism from being destroyed. China’s policies have been lifting hundreds of millions of people, likely even billions, as the BRI advances, out of poverty, and fights back some of the worst excesses of capitalism.
And crucially, it’s China’s socialist model that is leading the charge in renewable energy/green technology, at massive goddamn scales, and is exporting and selling all of this to countries all over the world, especially the global south, allowing them to further develop and wrestle off the chains of capital.
While there is still a really long road ahead, and we shouldn’t be complacent, I think/hope that the toughest part of this socialist/vs capitalist war is already over. It would take multiple acts of god to even slightly slow China down, and I doubt that even they would make a dent in China’s heroic leadership and resolve.
And while climate change, pollution, environmental damage and ecocide will unfortunately likely remain a problem for a long time to come, China’s initiatives have severely reduced the potential warming of the Earth, and just in the nick of time, to prevent the worst of the worst of the worst from happening.
If the CPC had waited even just a decade longer to begin it’s process of revolutionizing green energy/renewable technology, A.I., microchips, I would be even more suicidal than I currently am.
It fucking horrifies me how easily China could have been successfully sabotaged/invaded/destroyed, and humanity likely being doomed, and global runaway climate change failing to be mitigated by China, and the green revolution/4th industrial revolution never kicking off or being delayed by just a few years, if Xi Jinping hadn’t come into power and further mobilized the proletariat, or if Deng’s gamble didn’t pay off.
I hope to move with my family and I to China and be granted asylum/refugee status, and we’re exploring our options.
But even if it doesn’t pan out, I have an extremely small amount of solace, in the fact that China has likely already won and outmaneuvered the imperialists, before the war could turn hot. Socialism is the inescapable future.
When you look deeply into it you realize how its socialism in general that made it possible too. Like China wouldn’t exist as it does today without the early support of the USSR. Also Cuba, the DPRK and Vietnam taking the punishment they did at the hands of the US and WINNING. If Vietnam lost its war China would have been next. That much is a certainty imo. All these socialist nations did what they could, and China’s one big advantage was its massive pool of labor. So it became the industrial hub of the world. All those little puzzle pieces laid the groundwork for this. Every socialist movement contributed in its own way. Every strike, every protest, slightly weakened the empire giving China the room it needed to grow. If Unions in the US hadn’t been such a big threat, forcing them to make concessions and raise wages, then companies wouldn’t have wanted to produce goods overseas instead for example. China has become the vehicle through which the wrath of generations of the global working class will finally slam down upon the capitalist world order. Will finally turn the tables against them.
I think most imagined a more direct conflict, and each nation being turned one at a time. But for the Chinese to have done what they did; Convincing the capitalists to GIVE them the means of production freely. Is mind boggling.
The Sprectre of Communism is an apt phrase. Many of the people who laid the groundwork for this are no longer with us. The seeds they planted though are. Perhaps the Americans were right in fearing communism would spread like dominos falling. Except instead of dominos its a dam finally breaking, and a tidal wave rushing forth the blanket the earth.
For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this.
I think the materialist explanation is two fold.
Western Marxists are completely divorced from the real material struggle for socialism. Whether we read theory or not (and a lot don’t) we don’t have the actual lived experience of revolution or running socialist experiments.
And of course, imperial superprofits are redistributed to the labor aristocracy and bourgeoisified labor force in the imperial core. Anything which threatens this, like China, is in material contradiction to maintaining lavish first world lifestyles.
Both of these things are lessening. While the struggle for socialism in the West is still theoretical, we are connected with our comrades around the world and their struggle is ours.
And as the empire declines the limits to growth and superprofits mean a state of permanent austerity for the imperial core. That means the collapse of the labor aristocracy and debourgeoisification/proletarianisation of workers.
There’s hope for them yet!
In hindsight it’s clear this was a strategic choice to buy time to peacefully develop their productive capacity and geopolitical strength, and it worked, but for fourty years it looked like a betrayal of the revolution and liberal revisionism and capitulation to capital etc etc
This is so important. I think, frankly, it would have been naive to defend China as a socialist project in the 90s and early 2000s, the height of capitalist restoration. What possible reason would an observer, internal or external, have to believe that China was sticking to a socialist path and not undergoing a total surrender to capital? The only thing to go off of was a frankly ridiculous promise from the CPC that they were actually definitely pulling off history’s greatest long game to dupe the capitalist west into building up their productive forces for a big socialist switcheroo. It’s preposterous, unprecedented, and unbelievable.
But… time has proven
to be perhaps the greatest long-term geopolitical strategist of all time, the CPC to be a genuine vehicle for working class democracy, and 
to be a world-historical contributor to the development of socialism. If people remain stuck in the old analysis (which, again, was obviously the reasonable conclusion at the time!), then they are not doing living, materialist Marxism. Our understanding must continually evolve and incorporate the new lessons being learned by those struggling for socialism around the world, and at this point that clearly includes the PRC.I really enjoyed reading Socialism Betrayed. But I did take note of the page or two when they talked about contemporary China. They did kinda say “this sure seems like what the USSR did wrong under Khrushchev only on a much larger scale”. But that book was written in 2004, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for western Marxists to come to that conclusion, albeit incorrectly, at that time. Not to mention the authors did approach it with some humility, not outright saying China was doomed but still pointing out it sure seemed the same as revisionism the USSR in 2004.
Even Parenti made that mistake in Blackshirts and Reds. I don’t hold it against him, since it came from his methodology of using western sources, but it was a mistake after all.
I think, frankly, it would have been naive to defend China as a socialist project in the 90s and early 2000s, the height of capitalist restoration.
What? Did the CPC keep flipping the switch back and forth? What definition of socialism allows you to say this?
That is basically what it looked like, yes. The only historical examples to go off of were all socialist societies embracing market and private property systems to the destruction of their socialist ones. And China had quite willingly participated in US imperial schemes against Vietnam in the post-Mao era, along with a general abandonment of proletarian internationalism. If you were applying the historical lessons available at the time, the evidence-based conclusion would have been that China was on a path to full capitalist restoration.
And China had quite willingly participated in US imperial schemes against Vietnam in the post-Mao era, along with a general abandonment of proletarian internationalism.
That’s very debatable, especially claiming that the PRC was willingly doing the US’s bidding during its war with Vietnam. But to the point: Is foreign policy what makes an economy socialist or not? And what evidence do you have that the CPC suddenly became capitalist, and gave up its control over the land and economy to private capital?
And what evidence do you have that the CPC suddenly became capitalist, and gave up its control over the land and economy to private capital?
Did you not finish reading my comment? I don’t think they did.
This is a very reasonable take.
It wasn’t a completely peaceful development and opening up. During that time they fought Vietnam, too, and ended up setting themselves against the USSR, which also set socialism back a century as far as I’m concerned.
But if China pulls through and is able to successfully break with the Shanghai liberals, especially if they can pull through and continue the trajectory after Xi and not go the way of the USSR, it will be a great victory for all of humanity and will make up for any past foreign policy mistakes as far as I’m concerned.
“Maoists” are often westerners who have inherited decades of failure to achieve socialist revolutions in their own countries. They are free to spend too much time thinking about what socialism should be and could be in their heads rather than what socialism is. To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions. China doesn’t always live up to these expectations.
If you’ve never actually lived under socialism, you have no frame of reference for understanding how it’s different from capitalism. If you’ve never seen anything but capitalism, you don’t know how to identify its absence. This, more than anything, is what ultras struggle with. I think that’s something we can all relate to on some level, even if some have a better handle on it than others.
To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions.
I have been thinking about this since I read it a couple hours ago. Brilliant insight, thank you for sharing.
To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions. China doesn’t always live up to these expectations.
I would say a couple important components of this that are hard for some of us to grapple with at times (if only because of how complex it is to understand):
-
The realities of socialist states operating in a global economy dominated by the capitalist mode and its imperial tendrils. Had socialist China developed in a world where socialist states were common, it might be they’d look a lot more socialist right now even on a surface level. But they instead had to develop under a kind of siege from global Red Scare violence and it was critical to develop their “productive forces” in order to be capable of meeting the moment. As far as I can tell, they effectively decided the way for them to do this was to couple themselves up intricately in the global economy and its capitalist mechanisms, while taking care to maintain collective control over the means of production and distribution at home.
-
The nature of transition itself. If I understand right, China came from being largely feudalist prior to the revolution and from fighting off imperial Japan. It wasn’t like they had highly developed capitalist, industrial forces already and for reasons unknown, decided to make them less restricted. They didn’t have that kind of development yet, or at least, not at scale. So they essentially had to spend decades playing catch up with the world’s biggest industrial powers to be able to stand up to them properly, much less do what they’re doing now and surpass them. They could have tried to do this while also being as dogmatically “true socialist” as possible, but they needed rapid growth and were probably not going to get that from dogma.
And in spite of this, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and is a much more equitable and helpful government than anything western capitalist governments tend to provide. So even despite the limitations of the conditions, they’re still something to look to as a good example.
It’s sort of a funny thing in a way, seemingly contradictory. I think China may be the most successful example of applied marxist theory, or “scientific socialism”, in spite of how they can look on the surface. When the conditions were more fitting for revolution and the dismantling of the old reactionary ways, they were led by Mao. When the conditions were more fitting for industrializing as fast as possible, they were led by Deng. Obviously it was not all neat and tidy along the way, and even internally there were splits on how to do things, but overall, what they appear to have done is faced down “contradictions” (in the dialectical meaning) on both a global and local scale.
And one way I think ultras can get tripped up is in viewing the struggle as primarily local and that if you make allowances for geopolitical scale contradictions, you’re betraying the cause at the local level somehow. But it truly is about the global proletariat and liberating the local is sometimes inexplicably intertwined with the global as well. And in this way, China’s Belt and Road, and other such forms of interdependence, are strides toward increasing the quality of life for thousands or millions beyond themselves, while also helping those places to extricate themselves from western imperialist exploitation and dependence.
I feel like in some sense, you could say they are working to build “dual power” on a global scale context, which might be a lot harder if not possible, if they were not so thoroughly coupled into global trade and production. And they are already so far into the transition, that one of the western empire’s more clumsy attempts to punish the world and decouple (the tariff nonsense) has more helped secure China as an alternative to others than reaffirmed the bullying mob boss that is the western empire.
This turned into a huge post more so than I meant to lol, but I was kind of thinking things through as I wrote. I think anyone who doubts China as a force of “scientific socialism” should look at what they mean for some of the most exploited, not just what they mean for people in a sense of transitioning from developed capitalism to more developed socialism. And that goes back to what you originally said. It really comes down to looking at things in their proper context.
-
Maoists threw out materialism and replaced it with idealism. This makes them the very revisionists they claim everyone else to be.
Ultimately they treat marxism as a religion and not as a science.
I’m starting a maoist peoples wars in the EVERGLADES TOMORROW and Everyone except this loser. Is invited. Time to hunt ice by airboats. Without this guy.
Maoists say China is not socialist?
The origin of “Maoism” as it’s used today goes back to China after Mao’s death, where there was a power struggle between those who stuck closer to Mao’s teachings (Peasant Democracy and political education/activism) and the more Technocratic, economically liberal elements.
In reality, the result was that moderates took power and did their best to appease both sides; but to the Maoists, they believe that after Mao’s death China fell to Liberal revisionism and the Gang of Four, the leaders of the Maoist movement, were exiled.
Maoism was popularized outside of China by Peru’s Shining Path, led by Chairman Gonzalo.
Ah, I wasn’t aware of that. I thought Maoism was just subscribing to communism with Chinese characteristics.
“Maoists” hate Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. They are ultras. Basically China’s version of Trotskyites. No existing socialism is good enough for them because it’s never pure enough, left enough, or revolutionary enough. It is deeply ironic that they call themselves “Maoists” because Mao himself made pragmatic compromises with the national bourgeoisie under the framework of New Democracy that today’s “Maoists” would call revisionist, liberal and a betrayal of socialism. Those who follow the real spirit of Mao’s teachings in China don’t call it “Maoism”, they call it Mao Zendong Thought. They view this as simply a part of Marxism-Leninism. China today takes a 70-30 view on Mao. 70% of what he did was good, 30% not so good. In particular they are very critical of the ultra-left tendencies of the chaotic Cultural Revolution era toward the end of Mao’s life.
Now, personally i’d put it more around 80-20 or even 90-10, because i see a lot of value in certain elements of the Cultural Revolution, even if mistakes were made and ultimately the overall strategy was misguided. So it’s not like i’m unsympathetic to Maoists who admire that period. I understand where they’re coming from, even if it’s idealist. But we also have to acknowledge that the more moderate post-Mao policies of the CPC have been a resounding success in terms of improving the material conditions of hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately Maoists refuse to see this reality. And like the Trotskyists, they make themselves unwitting accomplices of imperialism when they take their irrationally hostile stance against China and the other AES countries.
Is there a book recommendation you can give me where I can learn more about this?
You’ll have to be more specific. Which part? China under Mao? The Cultural Revolution? The phenomenon of “Maoism”? Socialism with Chinese Characteristics? Modern China’s view on the Mao period? These are big topics, i don’t know a single book that covers them all.
Some book that explains how Maoism emerged in the West and became the presence that it is today.
This might be a good start: https://archive.org/details/critiqueszymanski/mode/1up
Unfortunately it’s fairly outdated. When it was written the Soviet Union was still around and China had not yet opened up, and there are a lot of lessons that Marxists over the past four decades have had to draw from what happened to the CPSU, the dissolution of the USSR, and China’s successful rise. But this nonetheless explains basically the origins and problems of ultra-left Marxism in the post Chinese revolution era.
It’s not focused on Maoism specifically though. For that you’ll have to ask someone else for recommendations, i don’t have anything right at this moment. I will look into it.
No that’s just Marxism-Leninism
You may be confusing “Maoism” with “Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought” (MLMZT) which is the actual ideology of the People’s Republic of China. It’s confusing when you’re learning about it for the first time, and I do wish they had a more distinct name so as not to confuse sensible and successful ideologies with crackpot ultras so frequently.
Definitely was, thank you
I went to several meetings with some MLMZT folks in my neighborhood and all this time I referred to them as Maoists. I am still so fucking uneducated sometimes it’s unreal lol.
Just go with Marxist and you’re likely not offending anyone, safest bet in my experience.
Wait, and Gonzalo is Maoist or something else entirely?
Gonzalo was marxist-leninist-maoist-principally-maoist. But it’s mostly splitting hairs by now, if you say maoism it means maoism.
I came up with an acronym to describe Maoists and other annoying Westoids.
TOWEL
Terminally Online Western Leftist
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
For them, ownership of land/resources/companies are completely irrelevant. The “socialism switch” flips back and forth whenever they read a news article affirming a new trade deal and confirms for them that “capitalist roaders” are now in charge.
They all should read the myth of chinese “state capitalism”.
It’s sad that there’s a few of these ultralefts below.
Thanks for this. I wonder why they left 1 bank to not be state owned
The nice part is that despite Huawei being a private company, it is a cooperative. An ESOP, to be more exact.
Because the people that call themselves “Maoist” are dogmatists. Which ironically is not “Maoist”, Mao even directly adressed Dogmatism and why it is bad. ‘Mao Zedong Thought’ is something that was right for the specific circumstamces of China during the specific timeframe in which he lived. It is not a guide that should be read like a holy scripture that needs to be followed word by word.
Doing so would be against Marxist philosophy, it just makes 0 sense.
But why they are like that I dont know. Maybe someone can tell me that.
Equating China to the US is wrong, but their development since Mao’s death and the takeover of the party by the capitalist roaders hasn’t been socialist in any sort.
Also, Maoists don’t see China as potential allies because China calls them ultras and routinely sells guns to the reactionary Filipino and Indian (and the former Nepali government) governments to shoot them.
edit: India doesn’t receive Chinese support
edit 2: nevermind
They are wrong about the second thing - China does not sell weapons to the Philippines, but equipment. There was one (a single one) instance where they sent a handful of rifles after an isis affiliated group took over a major town on Mindanao island. Considering their relations with India I also doubt they provide weapons, but I’m too lazy to look it up right now.
my mistake, apparently India doesn’t receive Chinese support. But Phillipines and Nepal certainly did.
Yes, this was the first part of that single shipment they made to fight against the ISIS terrorists who captured Marawi city on Mindanao island in 2017. Note that the Reuters report is what the Filipino government said (that they hope there are weapons in it), and gives no timeline on when they would receive this shipment. The shipment referred to here (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2114152/china-arms-philippine-police-counterterrorism-mission), in late 2017, has actual evidence of delivery and calls it a second batch.
The takeover of Marawi was an outright siege of the city and it took the government months to take it back. An estimated 100 civilians died during the takeover, most of them killed by the terrorists.
There are an estimated 4 million guns in circulation in the Philippines, plus around 1 million owned by the police. 3000 M4 rifles is a drop in the ocean - it comes out to less than 0.1% guns added to the country. If you’ve been to the Philippines there are security guards everywhere, even patrolling the streets, and they carry guns openly.
edit: moreover the “maoist” Nepali government is social democrat at best. I don’t think they’re all that relevant or worth considering their point of view, they clearly don’t know what marxism even is.
edit: moreover the “maoist” Nepali government is social democrat at best. I don’t think they’re all that relevant or worth considering their point of view, they clearly don’t know what marxism even is.
What makes you say this?
There are 6 maoist parties in nepal, and these are just the ‘relevant’ ones (in quotes because I can’t say how relevant they actually are, just that these are the ones you’ll hear about). the CPN (self-proclaimed maoist), government leader until 2024, was defeated in elections and is now part of the opposition. The CPN was ruling alongside socdem parties in a coalition. Not to be confused with the CPN-UML, Unified Marxist-Leninist, which despite using the hammer and sickle are also closer to socdems
The extent of the revolution in Nepal was to drive out the monarchy, which is good, but even liberals have done that (famously). It’s not a sufficient feat to call them communists over this. They haven’t removed monarchists either, there is a monarchist party (Rastriya Prajatantra) still in congress.
Do you think that the Filipino police only used those guns to combat actual ISIS terrorists? They probably killed communists or worse, ordinary people with those weapons later. Even if China isn’t the main supplier of the Philippines, they are still involved.
And about Nepal, Nepalese Maoists controlled 80% of the country before capitulating, and managed to abolish a literal feudal monarchy. How many parties post-1991 did anything close to that? Its true there’s a lot of opportunism in Nepal nowadays, but the parties are slowly starting to merge into the RCPN.
Establishing workers councils in all companies isn’t socialist?
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.
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?
