this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
57 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5034 readers
95 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course you are correct to point out that ideology results from material conditions, which can and do change. What is necessary and correct today may not be the right policy tomorrow.
That being said, i think the point that is being made here, if i can paraphrase a little, is that you cannot force liberation on people who don't understand that they need it yet. That just leads to resentment.
If the liberation movement is not organically grown through the experience of struggle but imposed from outside, then the resulting system is inevitably going to be fragile. If you do that then people will continue to cling to the idea that there was a better path that they weren't allowed to try.
People need to be allowed to make their own mistakes and experience first hand why those are mistakes. Just like China had to first experiment with the bourgeois model during the Republican period before understanding that only the socialist path could lead to liberation, sovereignty and prosperity.
The other argument for China's form of non-interference, which offers development and economic benefits but does not get involved in military conflicts, is that it allows imperialism to expose and discredit itself without being able to justify itself with the excuse of countering interference and global maneuvering by socialist states.
Meanwhile China presents itself as a beacon of stability, a stark contrast to the chaos of the declining imperial hegemony, an always reliable economic partner, a principled respecter of sovereignty, and ultimately a role model for other states to follow if they want stability, sovereignty, development and prosperity.
The biggest blunder that the dying US empire is currently making is giving up on its soft power, blowing up the ideological framework that had justified its hegemony for decades. They are falling into the trap of believing that you can dispense with the ideological pretense and just use hard power. But that pretense was necessary, even if it was understood by most to be a figleaf in front of the threat of hard power.
China is building up the new ideological framework to justify the post-hegemonic, multipolar world order. And for that it is vital that they cultivate an appearance of non-interventionism.
This also helps us understand the rise of communism in the Russian Federation. Capitalism has been disastrous, both imperialized and post-imperialized, and only socialism presents a genuine path forward for Russia.
We see from the failures of the USSR's socialist state-building attempts after WW2 that unless the people of a country fought and built their socialist system themselves, they will be more susceptible to counter-revolutionary ideas that things could be done some "nebulous better way".
This is a big reason why you see so many Eastern European dumbasses who think that everything wrong with their lives is due to the Soviet Union, forgetting that they were all shithole countries before the Soviet Union built them up.
Research shows that people put more pride and value in something they build themselves, termed the IKEA effect. The same seems true of governance systems.
I'm sure there's truths to that, but I'd just like to say that it was not a shithole for everyone, it was a shithole for the working peasants, the fascists quite liked the arrangement they had going.
In fact they're quite happy to turn my birthplace into overexploited shithole again. The only reason we haven't collapsed yet is because Brussels sometimes subsidizes and how are we supposed to become independent now?
I am wondering how much of this drive for Nationalism is the tendency of history to over-correct itself, like how is it even going to work? We all agree to just stay within our own borders and I'm supposed to believe that my neighboring capitalist nations will just watch a socialist revolution going on and be like: "Heh I won't send in some death squads to help squash that."
But I'm ngl I don't see a way out of this. I think someone bigger is eventually just going to shallow us. I have been trying to find a more appealing proposal for the locals, but everything is either a horror show, slow death or idealistic dreams.
Depends on how small the Eastern European countries you're referring to are.
I personally believe that any country with a population under 80 million people is essentially irrelevant in global politics barring specific circumstances, and should probably merge with its neighbors to get more leverage for development.
I've written earlier that:
Of course, merging into larger states is unlikely to happen under bourgeois control because national bourgeoisies like to enjoy the minor insignificant spoil of leading a tiny country rather than joining up for the greater good. Also, Western capitalist powers enjoy the ease of pushing around these tiny countries, which might become harder to push around if they merged into larger collectives.
Yeah I suppose that's the crux of communism, it's a David vs Goliath scenario and even though a better version of USSR seems like an impossibility to me, that's probably where we'll end up and I'm sure it won't be called that and I probably won't get to see it, the more the bourgeoise class weaken the more room I have to breathe.
There's just this voice inside me telling me we'll suffer the same fate as the Spartacus league and that's the decent outcome, which just honestly really sucks even if it's inevitable and nothing can be done. Damn nato and everything they stand for.
Yeah, and that is also why recent Chinese history is a huge part of the education system from a very young age.
I may have to reflect on this more, but I'll still try to write something out and see if that clarifies where my head's at. I think this is something that gets more complicated than it might first look, especially when we factor in places that are historically colonized/imperialized vs. not.
In particular, a place that has been exploited by imperialism, it may be all the more imperative that they have a strong native liberation movement, in order to properly shake off the effects of imperialism.
Then there's weird shit like the US. It can technically have a strong working class movement without having a strong decolonial, liberation movement. It won't last that way in the long-term because it's failing to address the contradictions properly, but it can happen and I believe has in certain ways in the past - where white working class got concessions enough for what they wanted and threw non-white under the bus to do it. With how embedded fascism is in its makeup, and how warmongering it is, it may require intervention at some point to purge it of fascists if local efforts aren't successful in doing so, if nothing else to keep its neighbors safe from its terrorism and bullying.
I'm also just not sure the concept of sovereignty works the same way for a country that is founded on settler-colonialism. Indigenous nations need their sovereignty recognized, but the people of the US, that seems more complicated. On the one hand, it's not like 300+ million people can just up and leave and go back to the countries their ancestors came from. On the other hand, any alternative to the US in the region has to be purged/reeducated of chauvinist, colonial tendencies. There has to be a reckoning with the fundamental asymmetry of being the descendants of settlers on land occupied through genocide, who now greatly outnumber the natives.
The other thing I think of is like, Palestine for example has liberation forces of its own. Its people have been fighting for decades. It isn't a question of them being unprepared to fight for, or govern, themselves. They are more than capable of that. The problem is that the occupier has military power that they don't have and is willing to use it against them in the most ruthless and disgusting ways. This is a scenario where, if there were unified, global liberation forces, they could step in and make the difference, and push out the occupier. It's kind of a no-brainer if the organized military power was there and it would sound absurd to argue that doing so would be messing up some kind of struggle process for the Palestinian people.
On the other hand, if the world had such forces and they looked at an imperialized country that is being run by capitalists and struggling to build a socialist movement and said, "We're going to come in and start shooting", that I think more fits what we're talking about in terms of being paternal rather than working in solidarity.
Last thought is I think it's worth noting that China did successfully militarily intervene under Mao, when it helped Korean liberation forces push back US forces (whose forces asked for help, it's also worth noting), and it's possible that if they hadn't, the US would have occupied all of Korea and leveraged the positioning to war directly with China. And even if the US had stopped in its hot war there, it still would have been a much worse situation for the Korean people.
So I would say there is a dramatic difference between allying with existing liberation forces in a country vs. coming in and trying to quickly force development in a paternalistic way. China and its allies could become more equipped to do the first one militarily, but my read (which I think we are more or less in agreement on) is they are trying to minimize the need for it (and the resulting loss of life involved in such direct struggle) by first shifting the balance of power away from imperialism. Edit: And are also trying to ensure that any such effort would not be some over-extending effort they get mired in with no end in sight and undermines their socialist project at home.
This is my thought, but perhaps I need more faith in the US working class.
I guess how I kinda see it is: act like it's possible to overcome and organize for it, but also spend some time and energy thinking about what to do if things get even worse and what kind of options are going to be available. Kinda like how sovereign nations spend time on building and improving things, but also spend time on defensive and offensive tools, protocols, and training, and what they do if directly attacked. I don't think we need to have faith that things will work out, but we do need to have enough belief in the possibility that we're willing to try. One of the important factors here, I think, is keeping "quantitative changes lead to qualitative" in view. Broadly, it can be easy to look at the big picture, not see the desired progress, and adopt a demoralized view. But every bit of progress is changing something, which can lead to other changes, and we need to know better what is going on in the details so that we can move those details further along. Otherwise, we can wind up more as spectators, as in the "weeks where decades happen" feel where the shift to qualitative takes us by surprise.
Well said.
Indeed. And I think that what we have seen is that China is willing to offer help to liberation forces that have already become the dominant force in their country, like what happened in the AES (Sahel) states. But it would be damaging to the struggle if China were to throw their support behind groups that are still in the minority. That would make those groups look like proxies of an outside power, which would undermine their legitimacy.
The situation in Palestine is complicated because the officially recognized representative of the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, China, just like Russia, cannot give help that has not been asked for. Did for example Iran request direct Chinese help beyond economic engagement? Did Venezuela? China does have military deals with Pakistan and an alliance with the DPRK.
And of course their direct involvement in Korea was absolutely correct. Not only was it in their own immediate security interest, but more importantly it was in aid of the officially recognized government of the DPRK and completely in accordance with what the majority of the people there wanted.