this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
58 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5036 readers
180 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.
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.
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.