Okay I'm drunk again. My point was that it's in the best interest of China to maintain a balanced world economy. Neither we nor China is pursuing a future where China takes over from the U.S. as world hegemon - and, in fact, I believe that a lack of strong competitors would put stress on China's political system and ultimately incentivize them towards Imperialist policy. This is why China does not pursue Hegemony, but instead Multipolarity.

The EU as it exists is a reactionary force and is bad for Europeans, yes, but insofar as it serves as a counterweight to U.S. interests in the West and as a willing trade and diplomatic partner to China, a strong Europe is a net benefit to the world as a whole.

In other words, the point of my post was that it is better for Western interests to be split between the U.S. and EU rather than just being consolidated under the U.S. and it's international organizations (such as NATO).

[–] Cletus@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

Hilarious thread. China really be doing its best to heard cats. Hopefully it goes well. But I doubt it.

Liberals "Its a great mystery why China prevented an oil crisis by decreasing imports"

Xi if you're reading this im trying to signal to you that I can hopefully be part of the the expedited re educations programs.

Hopefully I'm not encouraging a bender but I fear I am.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

a lack of strong competitors would put stress on China’s political system and ultimately incentivize them towards Imperialist policy

I would consider (re-?) studying the ML conception of how imperialism comes to be.

For example, if any mechanisms of the welfare state in Europe, example universal health care such as NHS in the UK, are not sufficient pressures* to turn those capitalist countries away from imperialism, should we then reconsider that capital mechanisms within a socialist state isn't runaway train to imperialism with or without competition from other capitalist countries? Capitalist countries are not the check on imperialism for other countries socialist or not; they are only a check on at most who gets the last word on where the most concentration of capital ends up in and where underdevelopment is maxmised as an expense to the global south.

(Eg WWII did not stop German - as part of a Western Hegemon - imperialism on the global stage, it only confirmed its shift of centre to the US)

In fact capitalist pressure is the opposite, it is to promote capitalism including in China (though failing).

Maybe consider studying the autodynamism aspect of dialectical materialism; for me personally Thinking In Systems by Meadows helped a great deal.

*they're not pressures against imperialism at all (1) in practice, unfortunately, when you reduce western workers' precarity as a whole their solidarity collectively with the global south proleteriat goes away with it (2) welfare state means those aspects the welfare state is targeting is somewhat removed from markets for capital to exploit, so capital chases investment in markets outside the border (3) that welfare state is being subsidised through the superexploitation of the global south via the unequal exchange.

Hope that helped.

[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think what I meant was more that, if China has a stronger trade relationship with Canada, it would incentivize China to support Canada and become complicit in its Imperialist policies.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There isn't a clean line. The soviet union tried isolation; it failed. The reform in China was to use capital mechanisms under a DOTP but with the understanding with the benefit of de-isolation you will be trading with those complicit in ongoing mass murder. That lack of "purity" is what separates survival from idealist "win". China is already "complicit" from the perspective of paper-socialists who never had a successful revolution in their own lands. Losurdo's take on Western Marxism is well worth a read.

[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'll have to do some thinking on this. Thanks for taking the time to respond constructively!

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

🫡 (no worries; we are all learning, myself included)

[–] GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

The EU as it exists is a reactionary force and is bad for Europeans, yes, but insofar as it serves as a counterweight to U.S. interests in the West and as a willing trade and diplomatic partner to China, a strong Europe is a net benefit to the world as a whole.

Is it though? (Pressing X to Doubt)

It's no counterweight to the US. And it's not a willing trade and diplomatic partner to China.