Only in ultraleft and trotskyist circles is the export of revolution via warfare considered a requirement.

Also this ignores the two main reasons for the USSR’s downfall: the cold war arms race, and de-linking from the world economy. This:

• Required an enormous amount of resources to be dedicated solely to the defense sector.
• Took away vital brainpower that could’ve been used in other areas.
• Alienated potential trade partners and forced the Eastern bloc to “de-link” from the world economy, severely limiting not only its trade potential, but its ability to absorb technology and expertise developed in the imperialist countries.

The fact that China adheres strictly to non-interventionism, refuses to get embroiled in conflicts, and refuses to take the bait, means they can focus on the main task of socialism: building up its productive forces to eliminate poverty, and building peaceful relationships with all countries.

I suggest reading this article also. Relevant passage:

Other contradictions include those which result from the strict non-interference in the affairs of foreign states, which has characterised Chinese foreign policy for thousands of years, and the prioritising of larger international trade relationships over ideological conflicts. One example is unscrupulous business deals with right-wing or even fascist governments, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel. The “live and let live” ethic of this modus operandi even applies to ideological enemies: China also trades with the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, the USA, without even criticising its long list of illegal wars and heinous crimes against humanity. Another is not supporting local leftist struggles in partner nations, such as guerrilla Maoist insurrections in SE Asia, if it might jeopardise trade relations with state entities. If the temporary “ethical net-losses” of these contradictions lead to larger “net-gains” and positive results in the future, they are calculated as worthwhile or unavoidable.

These myopic and short-sighted “left com” or “ultra-left” types love to denounce modern China as a betrayal of the socialism project, without considering that it is the failure of the Western left to do successful revolutions which made it necessary for existing socialist states to adapt to the global conditions of entrenched neo-liberal capitalism.The struggle for global socialisation and eventually, communisation, via peaceful trade, rather than violent revolution (at least for now), means that it is in the interest of the CCP to improve conditions for workers, fix labor issues, fight pollution, increase equality, and address uneven development, on its own terms, and according to its plans. But at the same time, grass roots labor movements are not only allowed, but are encouraged. The vast majority of wildcat strikes against private corporations in China are not suppressed, as they are under capitalist regimes. The ones which are suppressed mostly belong to the category of trouble makers with ties to malignant imperialist entities, as part of destabilisation efforts. Social unrest at home is not only dangerous for stability, but hinders China’s ability to beat capitalists at their own game. It is a long and treacherous game on a grand global chessboard shaped by layers of devastating historical injustice and the cascading chaos produced by exploitative and oppressive processes, and in order to win, relatively minor contradictions and problematic particularities must not obscure or impede the realisation of larger goals.

What China should clearly be doing is pointlessly antagonising the west and the US for no material benefit, but just to remain “morally pure.” In the process starting WW3 with the US and escalate it to the point of a nuclear conflict that wipes out 90% of humanity, because we can never negotiate with the capitalists, even for the survival of most of humankind. It’s ok though, because I’m sure the limping and injured survivors of nuclear hellfire will be able to build socialism from the ashes. I am very intelligent.

I’m going to say something controversial here but…

You shouldn’t be afraid to put your principles on hold, and take a couple steps backwards, as long as you’re still moving towards your goal.

The road is not straight, and there will not only be obstacles but also other players.

My interpretation of “capitalism shall provide the means to its own destruction” is that capitalism can be used to advance socialism. Nothing is off the table. You may use Capitalist ideals, capitalist technology, capitalist nations, capitalist allies, and capitalist modes of production.

Socialism must necessarily be rooted in capitalism for it to have a material basis, and in order for it to transition into communism. The movement must understand capitalism, engage with capitalism, and prove capitalism wrong through not words, not martyrdom, but results. And it must do this continuously.

Countries who don’t embrace socialism and seek to resolve its internal contradictions, will cannibalize itself. That extends to the US and Israel.

With that being said, China is not complicit in the Palestinian genocide because China cannot have any real effect on the situation.

It says a lot about the poster that they choose to criticize China than the US.

Ultras being wrong in just about every sentence here, that is ultrawrong.

It’s Langley VA area online leftist horseshit.

betray all your core values

Moralistic leftism isn’t Marxist

Bonus for treating entire nations as if they were individuals

China did make a lot of errors but this one ain’t it.

The USSR was not able to grow its economy “just fine”. Stalin said many times that he wanted peace with the west for trade to help the economy. The economic problems of the 80s were a definite reason why the Union collapsed. Yes, F Israel, but China already gets a ton of heat from the west for practically doing nothing. They are playing so nice with the west, and they still get treated like they are the devil as the west is so arrogant and childish.

How can one have a proper take on a context-free half-baked brain fart like this? Some parts sound sarcastic, but without context I can’t make heads or tails.

The person who made that take actually does not understand China and Chinese history, and does not understand the works by those who influenced China. We can safely discard this person as someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are, and not useful to the conversation.

“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder

Awful take, dunno about the apartheid thing they are talking about, in fact I would like to know where this take comes from. But again, the thing about the apartheid on China, I believe I saw some comrades here mocking something that I believe to be this idea of apartheid. Furthermore China does have some capitalist characteristics, but that does not mean its a lost case. One of the things I like to point at, is the way the pandemic was handled and how little of their population died, and their plans for the future look good, and show a positive direction, and they have a very good track record of achieving the goals they set on their future plans. And to finish it Mao himself said that the road of a socialist state would be a winding one, that will go forward some times back other times. And I think that China is on a good direction lately specially looking at their support for the DPRK, I think China brings a lot of hope.

deleted by creator

I think it’s an awful take. If you want to know why let me know. I’ll respond when I’m sober.