On the one hand, hooray for supporting the development of infrastructure in Africa and stuff. On the other hand, booooo for being a top trading partner with the Zionist Entity, and selling drones to Indonesia, and all that.

So what the Hell do you make of it all! Like I get that there's this term called "realpolitik" which is somehow relevant, but I'd like a longer explanation than just one word. Like how does the good and the bad fit together at its core?

You could certainly write tomes about this topic — many people have done exactly that — and maybe I'm being a bit incurious to expect someone to serve me a quick answer on a silver platter instead of diving into as many articles and PDF books as I can get my hands on... But I'm also just kind of tired of having such extremely underdeveloped views on the most populous AES state and country in general, after I came to unlearn or mistrust whichever views I'd had on China previously.

top 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] xiaohongshu@hexbear.net 10 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

China only has two allies: the People’s Liberation Army and the PLA Navy.

That’s all you need to know. The history of modern PRC is shaped by its unique position of being on a precipice and caught between the imperialist struggles between the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

Note: in China, it is not controversial to say that the USSR had imperialist ambitions against China, even if I don’t personally agree with it.

It has always been a balancing act. When the US is strong, we support the USSR as a counterbalance force against US imperialism. And when the USSR is threatening us, we side with the US to get rid of the USSR.

Play between the interests of both sides and win - that’s all you need to know about modern China’s geopolitical stance. This is the means of survival of a weak country caught between two strong powers. We have had 5000 years of history - the rise and fall of countless ruling regimes spanning dozens of dynasties - to learn from. It boils down to pragmatism and survival.

The success of modern China is a testament of how well this strategy has worked. After all, it is the PRC, not the USSR, that prevailed in the end.

[–] SocialistDovahkiin@hexbear.net 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

While I am not even remotely educated enough to weigh in on whether China Good or Bad, I can say that "it worked" is not a good defense of anything in nearly any context. The United States still exists as the world's (fading, but still) premier warmonger-bully and has for hundreds of years. That's not going to make me endorse any of their economic policies. I know there are probably other arguments in defense of the PRC's foreign policy and decisions over the years, I am not trying to argue China Bad. I in fact think it is probably Quite Good. I'm just also a nerd who wants to point out an argument that doesn't make sense to me.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I've always admired China because of their geopolitical strategy and history has proven them right. I wish Mexico has a similar strategy moving forward, we are in an unique position to benefit from China/US cold war.

[–] Vidiwell@hexbear.net 6 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

China is interested in Raison d'État. same as any other modern state. They are capitalist because their economy obeys the law of value, even the SOE's are subject to this if anyone here took the time to read about it. This website's darling Michael Hudson, despite having some interesting contributions in american fiscal policy, has a remarkably weak defense of china, boiling down to "they dont have a federal reserve". Comrades here trying to run defense and tie themselves into knots for its foreign policy decisions are being very silly to be frank. The sharp contrast between pre and post maoist china's foreign policy can be explained simply, the capitalist roaders won the struggle, they have no interest at this point in time of fighting for global revolution. Their material support for cuba is a pittance, and possibly a strange artifact of cold war antagonisms. The extended loans with interest, they have privatized healthcare, and their economy runs on the extraction of raw materials from Africa and South America. None of this is to paint them as "imperialist" obviously we can defend them against western depredations, but trying to call them some bastion of socialism is bananas. And to paint them as some sort of special economy who succeeded because of the magic of "market socialism"is also a mistake. Their success is in fact highly similar with other "tiger" economies of Asia. Highly Prudent governance and massive state investment to ward off the falling rate of profit non-withstanding.

The red sails article linked below is the classic example of lazy dengist analysis that honestly falls apart with a little thinking. there is almost no political economic explanation of why billionaires must exist and the same, borderline gnostic, claim of a "master plan" by the CPC. Taking trite quotes from deng and saying "historical materialism" does not absolve people of actually having to defend their economic explanations. I have deconstructed myths about chinas "need" for market socialism, capitalist penetration, etc before and will do so again if asked, but this stuff is straight out of lenin and was functionally settled almost 100 years ago at this point.

Their decision to open up their economy and subject hundreds of millions was the force that saved capitalism. Those people labor now so the rich of the world can live lives in abject splendor. There is no such force waiting in the wings for next time. Who knows how that contradiction will resolve. Who knows how the seeming impending showdown with the USA will go.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 1 points 1 minute ago

The sharp contrast between pre and post maoist china's foreign policy can be explained simply, the capitalist roaders won the struggle,

Mao had plenty of skeletons in his closet when it comes to foreign policy and you can't pin that on Deng since Deng was expelled from the party and shoved into some factory. I would argue that Mao's skeletons were as bad as Deng.

People who try to divide China's foreign policy between Mao and Deng don't know what they're talking about. Mao-Deng vs Jiang-Hu-Xi makes a lot more sense than Mao vs Deng-Jiang-Hu-Xi.

[–] CleverOleg@hexbear.net 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

“China is capitalist because it still has the law of value” is a bunch of leftcom nonsense.

[–] Vidiwell@hexbear.net 1 points 4 minutes ago

Fascinating. Explain further? How does commodity production and firms chasing profit not define capitalism? If you are not a Marxist feel free to assert that and come up with some new method of defining these things. Or did the soviet unions failed struggle over commodity production and revisionism under Khrushchev not make that point clear? Is it merely the Communist parties perceived dominance, despite many other commenters on this website explaining how the "Marxist" theory that is produced and consumed by the party being of extremely mediocre quality? Or perhaps the recent plenum's assertion that the "free market" will continue to define every aspect of state investment? This is fundamental stuff, the ability of the state to stave off the falling rate of profit, but the reality that that continues to define literally every aspect of china's economy can not be divorced from its politics. http://www.news.cn/politics/20240721/cec09ea2bde840dfb99331c48ab5523a/c.html

How does this opinion square with Lenin and Stalin's writings on the nature of external trade controls, "the tax in kind" or any other sorts of works on the NEP and its understanding as the literal inverse of what occurred during china's opening up period, regarding specifically the imposition of capitalism upon collective farming? Stalin would critically ask if the rate of value is predominant or controlled, and clearly the chinese states massive investments in propping up vast portions of the economy that are suffering capitalisms depredations is indicating the economy is critically defined by that aspect, in stark contrast to NEP or stalin era soviet union.

Again, as I have previously laid out here, whether it be the claim that the market is superior to the state, that import substitution is necessary, or that this is just a neo-NEP, all fail with a fairly basic reading of lenin, stalin, or mao's writings? If you believe capitalism is a superior method of production than socialism than we might as well discard the entirely of the soviet union and north korea's experiences regarding this and start from square one.

Again comrade, we arent among liberals, we can have sincere and in depth discussions about the nature of the modern political economy and china's place in that world. and not sugarcoat anything. I am happy to provide additional reading and discuss with you on any of these topics.

I am genuinely curious in the thoughts of a modern dengist. If leftcommunism is just everything to the left of your given ideological strata, then thats a profound disappointment compared to Mao's intense debates on the topic. if its something more substantial, I would hear it. None of this is to criticize china's vast accomplishments, although again as laid out in previous comments almost all of those accomplishments can be attributed to the maoist period, with the deng period merely cannibalizing everything the socialist period built up.

[–] Chapo_is_Red@hexbear.net 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.

:de-gaulle:

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Ahahahahahahhhahaha I didn't even realize when somebody else posted that quote that it was an actual quote and not just a silly joke

De Gaulle of all people hahahahahah

[–] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 3 points 1 hour ago

Historical facts that sound like shitposts is my favourite subgenre of history.

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 22 points 5 hours ago

To add to the rest of the comments.

To put it metaphorically, the USSR helped revolutionary forces cross the river, a river they were never quite strong enough to cross on their own. China instead stands across that same river, offering help to those who manage to cross it. China’s history of undermining US sanctions against Cuba, the DPRK, and Venezuela does not in itself help any individual revolutionary party succeed. However, whoever succeeds knows they won’t have to deal with US subterfuge without support. The success or failure of any revolution will once again be up to national forces, not Washington, ex machina.

[–] ComradeMonotreme@hexbear.net 19 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

A large country inhabited by many Chinese.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 8 points 5 hours ago

Unbelievable!

[–] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

China has seized the means of production.

China has taken the grill pill. They are just minding their business waiting for the US to collapse then they will just start being nice to people till everyone likes them and communism has won. That means they are helping a little worldwide as they can but they are only doing so if it doesn't mean any risk to their future position. They are using comunsit principles and theybare working and everything is getting better and that's rad. Unless things change

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I went back and forth and deleted like, 3 or 4 full comments, lol. To do any justice to understand why the PRC takes the specific stances it does economically and from a foreign policy perspective requires looking into their history, and the history of the CPC in particular. What's the gist of your understanding there? Are you familiar with how the modern economy worke, as opposed to the Deng era, and the later Mao era? I could oversimplify and say that Mao, Deng, and Xi each applied Marxism-Leninism to the conditions they saw in their own time periods, and that regularly new analysis is needed to correct as conditions change, but that isn't an answer so much as it is a cop out.

I'll leave you with a famous proverb the CPC can be described as operating by: "cross the river by feeling for the stones."

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

China is a large semi-peripheral country that attempted to implement a market economy, without abandoning its proletarian dictatorship, in order to develop its productive forces. That's the elevator pitch and about where my understanding ends. So I couldn't confidently speak at all as to the differences between how the economy worked in different periods.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Okay! That's a good place to start. I'm not a China expert, but have been digging into it myself over the last few months because I had similar questions.

Essentially, from the POV of the modern CPC, growth was positive, but unstable towards the end of the Mao era and with the Gang of Four. During the Cultural Revolution, there was a real drive to achieve Communism soon, and this led to some degree of dogmatism over practicality. Deng adjusted, and set up an economy along with Zhou Enlai that would fold in foreign Capital while maintaining absolute supremacy, and leaving key sectors like energy, banking, steel, etc. Completely state owned, or close to it.

All along the way, the PRC watched the Soviet Union. They split, they sort of revonvened, and then the USSR fell. The PRC did not want to follow in the same footsteps, so they adopted a different policy with foreign policy. They shifted, along with Deng, to a more open form of foreign policy based on the concept of "mutual development."

Under Xi, there has been a leftward shift, with the official line being that both Mao and Deng were principled Marxist-Leninists and that a balance of the two is what is correct. This extends to foreign policy, the economy, and more. Under Xi, there has been increasing control over the markets, trapped in a "birdcage model," and BRICS and the BRI serve as driving factors towards destabilizing Imperialism without open conflict with the United States (though, if you ask me, such an event is very likely). They also always stand there for any AES country that comes into existence, so that others will not be alone, though they don't assist with revolution the way the USSR did.

That serves as a massive oversimplification, and maybe didn't even tell you anything new, but hopefully it helped!

[–] blight@hexbear.net 18 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Since Deng Xiaoping, the focus has been developing the productive forces, basically having a little capitalism as a treat, specifically trading internationally. The first and biggest of the trading partners was of course the US. So if they could trade with them, they could trade with anyone. They made a point of never interfering in the internal politics of other countries, however atrocious. I can only speculate that the legacy of the Sino-Soviet Split made them a little desperate, and maybe they were a little ashamed of having attacked Vietnam.

So the idea is that now they’re building the productive forces by trading with literally everyone until they can hold off the West. Just waiting to finally press that communism button. Any day now.

xi-button

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 13 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

This was the basic idea I'd heard, and I guess if it works it works, but the "trade with literally anyone" strategy just always struck me as kind of odd and obviously a bit gross. Like you'd think that doing things like selling weapons to imperialist forces would be counterproductive to the ends of fighting imperialism, even if it does domestically help build the productive forces... But I suppose the alternative would lead to China becoming isolated or something, right?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 11 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Like you'd think that doing things like selling weapons to imperialist forces would be counterproductive to the ends of fighting imperialism, even if it does domestically help build the productive forces... But I suppose the alternative would lead to China becoming isolated or something, right?

Correct. What this achieves is personal investment by the bourgeoisie in the free participation of China in world markets. They lose money if China is disconnected, and thus they as individuals want it to stay connected even if they understand that for the wider interests of their class it is a negative in the longterm. Each individual member of the bourgeoisie still wants personal enrichment and is still driven by the pursuit of capital, since keeping China connected means they can acquire more capital then that's what they want.

In essence the entire strategy is to disincentivise the bourgeoisie from seeking to destroy China, as they did with the USSR, or as they do with Cuba, the DPRK, etc.

What this leads to however is untested. We can only speculate. What they have done with placing branches of the CPC inside every large business however is the infrastructural groundwork for a transition partial/fully socialist economy with a minimum of pushback.

[–] Biggay@hexbear.net 4 points 4 hours ago

There's a lot to measure there, suppose a border nation is engaging in blatant capitalist style imperialism (kyrgyzstan invades the uzbeks) they need resources to create and build that imperial machine; do you continue to trade raw resources and garner influence as even the rest of the global community begins to draw away from them? Do you try to use that influence to reign in that neighbor, or even try to develop your own productive forces by staking a larger claimin those industries? Do you also draw away from the nation and continue to isolate them, weakening your industry, perhaps putting a target on yourself? Do you use you own miltary forces to put a stop to it? All of these approaches have been tried in some form or another in recent history, the only one which seems to result in anything remotely positive is to be the trading partner. Come hell or high water, non intervention has always proven an effective and politically easy solution, and theres historical precedent for China especially to act in such a way, when it didnt throughout the mid century (this had some to do with the Sino-Soviet split) it lead to insane outcomes like buddying up with the US to beat up Afghanistan and Vietnam, fund Pol Pot, etc. All are actions we can say didnt help China in the long run and are frankly embarrassing.

[–] blight@hexbear.net 4 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, it is odd, but it is as you say, the alternative is isolation. You could argue that selling arms to imperialists is kind of like paying a “don’t kill us” tribute. You could argue that China is not yet self-sufficient enough to pull the rug, or you could argue that they have actually reached that maturity, or you could argue that they are stuck in a trap and will never pull any rug, or that they never even had any intention of it.

There’s another dimension of making the West economically dependent on them. So yes, selling some weapons now, but in the long term, replacing the West’s industrial capacity so that they can’t keep up. But even our ghouls are smart enough to realize this and have specifically prevented offshoring a lot of military production, at a huge cost.

[–] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

From my understanding they have a button labeled socialism they current plan to press in 2075 it was in a big speech given by the central committee one year. I can't begin to think of how to look it up to show you though

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

somewhere to the east

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 1 points 3 hours ago

For all you know could be somewhere to the west!

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

To help understand the background/history for their current strategy I’d recommend the 4/5 episodes of Guerrilla history podcast that has Ken Hammond on it. Here’s the link to the intro episode It’ll be detailed up to the 80s reform period and then briefly cover after that. It’s based on Kens book “China's revolution and the quest for a socialist future”. haven’t read the book yet but planning on getting it.

Basically they switched to a market economy to develop their country and raise the standard of living while keeping the core parts socialist.

As for more specific answers on stuff over the last decade I myself am looking for that currently so will share once I find some.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 5 points 5 hours ago

HELL yeah thanks for the podcast

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 3 points 5 hours ago

Being my one, my only, my everything.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

There are no quick answers or even an easy way to understand China. It's over 10k years of history and that's just what we know.

However, for your particular question, the one thing to understand is the ONLY thing China cares about is the Chinese people. The rest of the world could literally be on fire and everyone in the midst of genocide and China will do nothing. The Chinese strongly believe that every nation should just do whatever they want as long as they trade with China. The reasoning behind this is ironically from Europe, or at least Europe gets the credit. It's called westphanlian system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system

The basic core of this is that China doesn't know any better than the country itself on how to rule. Maybe that country needs to commit genocide, China doesn't know and it shouldn't fall on China to try to fix it. Just look at American Adventurism and how it's affected Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, I could go on. Why try to impose your way of life on someone else if they don't want it anyway and will result in terrorism when the people revolt.

Unless of course, it's within China. If you don't like it leave as USA likes to constantly report, many people do. There's no travel bans, there's no restrictions on their citizens to force them to stay. Their only rule seems to be don't leave and attack China trying to make them change if you do.

So, ultimately to your question, the answer is China will sell pretty much anything to anyone if they ask. They're not big on restrictions outside of the country. It leads to some very strange actions to people who think a country should meddle in the business of others, but if you have westphalian values, it all makes perfect sense.

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree since it seems that way with a lot of their actions but I wonder how you explain some things like the recent donations to Cuba to help build their energy infrastructure?

Stuff like that makes me think at least a portion of the party would like to do more but they’re careful since they still feel they have a bit to go before more confronting global capitalism more directly. Hopefully we see more things that to start pushing global socialism since we’re kind of on a time clock with climate change.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago

That's realpolitiks for China. If they see there's a political and financial advantage to donating, they'll do it. But that's super not transparent and anyone saying they know why is lying or would be arrested for leaks.

My theory is Cuba has a lot of fertile land that isn't properly maintained. China wants food, it makes sense to support them to get their export values up for Chinese consumers. Also, China owns habanos sa.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

I don't think that national self-determination is rooted in the Westfalian system. Nations predate states by a long while. The opposite of national self-determination is domination and the middle ground between them is chauvinism. Domination is when you force another nation of people to bend to your will directly. Chauvinism is when you make decisions based on your belief that another nation of people ought to choose the way you choose. Neither have historically worked out for anyone.

[–] SocialistDovahkiin@hexbear.net 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Sorry, I don't really care if it doesn't "work out", if someone is able to dominate Israel and force them to cease genocide and hand over their land to the Palestinian people then they should. All of the times it hasn't "worked out" has been because the domination of other countries has been done for colonialism and extraordinary levels of exploitation. Acting like the good-faith exporting of revolution is in any way similar to what the US does shows a disgusting amount of trust in the US' own reasoning. It is much more likely the PRC just doesn't export revolution because they would be carpet bombed if they did. Even if an ideological belief in self determination is the justification for it internally.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

I'm just quoting political theory professors. I agree with you that it probably didn't really originate in Europe. As I stated in my original post. That said, western nations stealing the credit is kind of their M.O.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Very interesting, thank you.

Edit: It does leave me wondering though, how average people in China feel about this principle.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Dunno, most people I've spoken to do not really think about the rest of the world. Though in fairness, you could say the same about US citizens.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Wow imagine not thinking about the rest of the world, couldn't be me (lives in a country with a population smaller than like 19 Chinese cities)

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

On a personal level I actually think it's sad. For both China as well as the US. They're both so large and vast that just exploring these nation's various geological and cultural differences would take a lifetime. Extensive journals and books have been written about their unique cities and states (zhou) that literally fill libraries.

However, I feel this amount of insularism creates ignorance and prevents people from a better understanding of the global community around them. I would argue that's why they're both the most hated tourists in the world. So it's not a good thing in my opinion.