this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4186 readers
25 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.

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:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
Elara@lemmygrad.ml
ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml
American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml
19
Why doesn't China get involved more? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by Effort0499@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

China could easily just declare that they'd be willing to support Niger against the ecowas terrorists and then those dogs wouldn't dare to invade the country. I understand how China delivering arms to Russian forces in Ukraine might be too risky (although even then I seriously doubt the West would be stubborn enough to crash the entire world economy and cripple themselves just for their fascist puppet state) but what does China have to loose in Africa?

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The PRC has a strict policy of non-interference, informed by china's long history of live and let live with its neighbors, their own historical experiences and foreign-policy miss-steps, as well as in-depth study of the factors that lead to the downfall of the USSR, of which the arms race sucking tons of labor and vital resources away from other important economic sectors was a main reason.

They rightly view military involvement and weaponry as extremely dangerous traps, that can spiral out of control quickly. And unless you're using your own troops like Cuba did in Angola, you're going to lose control of that weaponry.

Africa has seen so much unecessary bloodshed because the west and Israel armed the Apartheid powers, and various other reactionary parties in the 70s-80s, most of those weapons being used to kill innocent people.

The west wants to keep Africa unstable, ruled by petty warlords and tearing itself apart. The CPC desires a stable Africa focused on economic development and construction.

It's not a strict dogmatism to never get involved ever, but a waryness informed by history.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Do you understand that China jumping to defend Niger would be a casus belli for ww3?

China absolutely shouldn't get involved and they should focus on their national affairs. Solidarity and self-reliance between african nations is the only way forward.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What would be in it for China? Uranium?

[–] Effort0499@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well yes. Also, we've seen African countries with investments from China grow their economies and I'm sure that's mutually beneficial.

[–] GiantSpoonWielder@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems to me they don't want to get embroiled in a proxy war with NATO. They have a longstanding policy of non-intervention which has kept them free of conflict and able to focus on improving the economic life of their citizens. Avoiding conflict allows the CPC more time to develop its economy and global connections in ways that will defeat the American hegemony in the long run. Every year the forces of capital hollow out western economies, particularly in actual industrial production, while China continues planned development.

We cannot place all our hope for the defeat of capitalism and imperialism in the CPC. It is weird to expect China to stand in open opposition to the global order before it makes strategic sense and will benefit their people.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 year ago

It's probably relevant to point out that the proxy war that the US staged in Afghanistan was pretty devastating to the SU. The CPC is acutely aware of this and has developed a strategy to avoid this very same situation.

[–] coderade@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I assume there would be mutual benefits, probably leaning towards Niger, but I think the good will long term would be great for China. I feel like they could reach out and offer BRICS membership or something

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A free Africa is one that trades with China, that buys goods from China, that doesn't participate in blockades against China, that sells minerals to China, that has markets open to Chinese goods, etc.

If the west can lock down Africa through a combination of terrorism and sewing instability as they've done in the middle east and installing brutal fascist dictatorships as they did in South America back in the 20th century, well, China is going to have a much tougher time of things because then the west can cut them out of a lot of raw materials as well as most markets and it could be the go-signal for the west to really launch the full embargo and lock-down they're itching to throw on China to create the full new cold war situation where they try and choke them out. Because they have Europe under their thumb, their navy can cut them off from markets in the Americas, Russia while a market isn't big enough to form a healthy, thriving isolated economic bloc with China.

Purely from a tactical standpoint if tomorrow an advanced alien communist civilization showed up, handed China a ton of super advanced weapons and tech knowledge for everything they could possibly need then peaced out, it would be the tactically smart thing to immediately send troops and support Africa. However, as that has not and is not likely to happen, China still wants to benefit from the west and their markets and bringing in capital as long as they can. Also they still have reliance on the west for many things.

For example, Xi has recently been stressing food security and growing more food in China, this is because though the US economy would crash and burn if trade were shut down, people in China would be hungry, not necessarily starving but the age of plenty, of great food whatever you want would be over as they import a ton of food from the US and cutting that off would be disastrous to the quality of life of the Chinese people and would require stringent state-led measures, rationing, etc. So pissing the US off too much in addition to being a trap the USSR fell into and sucked too many of its resources into is simply not one that China can bear without more hardship than the party or most people would find ideal.

I do think though the time is coming where China will have to make choices, not if but when to pull the trigger on confronting the west militarily and standing with oppressed peoples against their exploitation. But there are many things left to be done to fortify China for such a confrontation. China is expected to be potentially able to leap-frog the west in tech within the next 6 years in many areas at which point their blockades and "de-risking" become moot and if the food situation is resolved by then with Chinese growers and deals with Russia and neighboring countries, well then they're in a position of strength.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder what we're learning from the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine. Russia today is potentially a model for the US in 10-20 more years. Both states have lost a lot of the first/bestest/mostest superlatives that made them admired world leaders. Among the major ones remaining for both nations is their military strength.

There are plenty of ways to read the Russian rationale for the Ukraine conflict-- supporting the Russian-language community, de-Nazification, securing territorial and economic needs, red-lining NATO, but there's definitely an subtext of projecting power and relevance, re-establishing a sphere of influence. They have to say to the West that it can't spend 30 years poking the bear and expect to not get swatted at.

I could see America moving similarly if conditions continue to falter; with their economic dominance being lapped, how much of their self-perceived legitimacy revolves around "we have nukes and Marvel movies" (military power and cultural dominance). Would they similarly lean into the military and antagonize over Taiwan to remind the world of their importance? (Given current educational standards, they would likely end up nuking a poor Chinese takeaway because it happened to be called "Beijing Palace")

I wonder if there are ways where China can help get the US to a "soft landing"-- a setup where the they can still consider itself a major power, while having to acknowlege a global order where it can no longer act unilaterally without consequence. Steer their attention to

I also wonder if failure in the Ukraine itself could accelerate the emotional-breakdown process. Is it really a powerful military if it can invoke WWIII on demand, but lacks the finesse to win a proxied regional war? Or is it just an expensive, narrow-use tool that will inevitably demand to be misused?

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Russia today is potentially a model for the US in 10-20 more years. Both states have lost a lot of the first/bestest/mostest superlatives that made them admired world leaders. Among the major ones remaining for both nations is their military strength.

I disagree. Fundamentally they're arriving at these places from different historical trends and in different material situations. Russia as much as it might have tried to move beyond it has and will have forever its history as the Soviet Union for 70 years. It has the connections to and loyalty of the global south it helped. It does not have friendship among the Atlantacist western european nations who form the former major colonizing nations of the 18th through 20th centuries and who have as their defender, champion, chosen successor and rescuer (in WW2 from the Soviet forces who would have liberated all of Europe, instead these colonial powers were saved from communism but occupied by another capitalist power and bent the knee, becoming its vassals, retaining wealth but diminished influence and power). There are other things but that's a very big one. The US just shot one of Germany's knees off with the Nordstream sabotage and they took it and asked for more. Russia could not do that to China or any other country really and not have a major incident where they have to either make it right with reparations and an apology or relations would deteriorate and they'd be at the edge of war with them or certainly sour the region against them. The US not only did it, it's now planting misinfo to point the fingers at Ukraine so when all the dust settles and they're destroyed they'll be saddled with the blame and the US can walk away with clean hands.

Fundamentally the US is the last in a line of consolidated inheritors of the white supremacist anglo-colonial-capitalist project of imperialism, domination, racism, colonialism (including neo-colonialism via the world bank and other funds) that goes back at least 300 years to the beginnings of capitalism and global empire. It has subjugated western Europe, Ukraine situation has proven they will bend the knee and take any whippings or punishments the US pleases to inflict on them. Russia on the other hand is stuck. It has no friendships among these colonial powers, it is not their inheritor or guarantor, it benefits from their overthrow in trade with Africa which would be denied it as long as Africa is subjugated to the French.

Comparing the US to Russia is like comparing Apples to Olives.

So the problem with the soft-landing idea and I hope for it myself but I must recognize this. The US is the last of a line. Britain peacefully handed over the reigns and allowed their empire to slip from them to the US because it would continue the white supremacist capitalist project. China will not do that. Russia will not do that. For the first time in over 300 years that project is in danger of completely imploding and being lost forever. This is unprecedented for them. They are panicking in a way none of them ever did when the European empires slipped to become controlled by neo-colonialist means with US capital taking most of the lion's share because they were still part of the family of whiteness, of the trans-Atlantic bourgeoisie elite, though many didn't realize they'd become junior partners they can accept even that without bitterness because their interests will be looked after before those of colored folk, before those of the proles.

Indeed the Vietnam war was perhaps in a way the US signaling to all the European empires it was taking up the slack, it would carry their burden in controlling these post-colonies for them one way or another and though the US eventually lost they punished Vietnam and hurt them, made a huge show of what they do to those who stand up to them and a huge show to their European vassals what they would do for them despite the fact they were now junior partners.

Thing is Russia never had world hegemony. The USSR was a super-power yes but they had challenges. They had shortages, they were besieged and embargoed and attacked their entire existence. They never got a decade or two on top as sole hegemon as the US did and they certainly never had a situation where they inherited colonial holdings and shifted them to the new neo-colonial model only for that to begin to slip through their fingers. Russian bourgeoisie certainly wish they could find themselves in that position but alas they do not. The Americans and Europeans shut the doors of their Atlantacist bourgeoisie club to them in their face every time they approached. They will not share the plunder, the methods, the intelligence, anything. They will rebuff them at every turn. They missed out on the 19th-20th century colonial grabs and the neo-colonialism that followed, there is no room for plunder in the modern world with the Atlantacist set sucking up all the oxygen in the room.

So when the US declines it will not look like Russia in the 90s or the 2000s or now. It will look different because of the connections, material interests, forces, and existing concentrations of capital, influence, multi-national spy operations (eyes alliances), blackmail and power it exercises over many other first world global north countries. If Russia falls China will be in trouble. If the US falls its vassals worry they will be destroyed, that western Europe, Israel, Japan, occupied Korea, etc will all now be weak so they will prop it up to some degree, maybe even to their dying breath at knife-point who knows. That is why the US is stronger too. It is not simply a bunch of cowboy yankees, it is the will, collected loot, influence, heritage of centuries of colonialism and plunder from a dozen nations that it guards and ensures continue on a certain scale. It is a collective stay rich and on-top club for whites generally (labor aristocracy) and for the Atlantacist bourgeoisie set.

[–] qwename@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Others have mentioned China's non-interference policy, I'd like to add that I think the only way for China to get more involved is through the UN, that means the Security Council or Peacekeeping or some other UN organization.