Would China support an international revolution?

[x371322]

I think it's somewhat commonly accepted around here that despite their ruling party, China is about as capitalist as they come these days... but I'm bored and have been playing some "what if" games in my head... Let's say, hypothetically, an international socialist effort became huge and we were on the brink of global revolution. Would the Chinese government support that effort with aid, military power, propaganda, etc.? Or would they join the U.S. and other capitalist powers? Or maybe even stay neutral?

I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks.

[Muzk]

Even though the national bourgeoise fight each other, there's no reason why they shouldn't join forces at any time if their regimes are threatened by a proletarian revolution.


TL;DR: Chinese bourgeoise are still bourgeoise, therefore they share the same interests as the american bourgeoise class.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks.

No, because the chinese bourgeoisie would view it as a threat to its own interests in just the same way as any other national bourgeoisie.

The only difference is that china might be less hesitant to shoot its own people.

[red cat]

The only difference is that china might be less hesitant to shoot its own people.

It won't. Not until the "people" are organized into a red army at least.

[RedStarOverChina]

No, it won't. China adopts a realist approach in international relations, and prefers to deal with states infinitely more than other bodies.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It will not support revolution, China is a capitalist power which will defend private property if a revolution arose.

[Dimentio]

When there was a revolution in France in 1789, which was led by the bourgeoisie at a period in time when power was shifting from one class to another, the surrounding powers simply sat idly and watched how the French monarchy sank down the drains, in the ultimately misled notion that France would collapse without the monarchy. That led to all of Europe being under French control in 1810. Since that, there has been a sort of silent agreement at least between the great powers to stand up for one another when one country is falling for a popular revolution. That is why for example Austria allowed itself to be raped by Russia in 1849, or why the revolution in Hungary in 1919 failed, or why the Allies invaded Soviet Russia in 1918.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well India claims that China is arming the Maoists, though Beijing officials deny the claim.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/maoists-getting-arms-from-china-india-lead_100271802.html

Who knows? China is still an enigma to me.

[Dimentio]

If China is arming the naxalites, it is not because of any ideological preferences, but to weaken a regional competitor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When there was a revolution in France in 1789, which was led by the bourgeoisie at a period in time when power was shifting from one class to another, the surrounding powers simply sat idly and watched how the French monarchy sank down the drains, in the ultimately misled notion that France would collapse without the monarchy. That led to all of Europe being under French control in 1810. Since that, there has been a sort of silent agreement at least between the great powers to stand up for one another when one country is falling for a popular revolution. That is why for example Austria allowed itself to be raped by Russia in 1849, or why the revolution in Hungary in 1919 failed, or why the Allies invaded Soviet Russia in 1918.

I think even in the French revolution you saw the other powers supporting attempts to bring full power back to the king - this was the argument for executing the royal family.

But I agree that any contemporary bottom-up working class revolution is going to be opposed by the contemporary world powers - and these powers would close-ranks and put aside their competition momentarily to try and put down a real worker's movement. I think a better bet for China, if there was a working class revolutionary movement, is that people in China would begin to feel emboldened to challenge the ruling class there. And for this reason, China's rulers would oppose working class revolution in other places.

[Dimentio]

Actually, the only monarch who tried to save the French royal family before France declared war against Austria and all of Europe in 1792, was the eccentric Swedish king Gustav III who had spent his adolescence in France and was in love with the French culture of that time. Moreover, when the republic did not collapse instantly, the other monarchs started to become uneasy.

[RedStarOverChina]

Well India claims that China is arming the Maoists, though Beijing officials deny the claim.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/maoists-getting-arms-from-china-india-lead_100271802.html

Who knows? China is still an enigma to me.


First, it removes the blame on the Indian government for its mal-governing which caused the rebellion in the first place. It becomes an "external threat" caused by the Chinese, not the Indian ruling class.

Then, it nurtures nationalism, which is always useful in times of turmoil.




The Chinese ruling class, on the other hand, has much more to lose in aiding the Maoists (either in India or Nepal), and hardly anything to gain.

Capitalist China owes its rise to its (more or less) stable relations to the West. To maintain that relationship China did everything it can think of to distance itself from revolutionary movements everywhere. China's rulers avoid foreign leftists like the plague.


I think there is some room for changes in China's international relations policies in the future. But as of now, it's role in the world is almost completely reactionary.

[AK]

If China is arming the naxalites, it is not because of any ideological preferences, but to weaken a regional competitor.
Ah... market competition :wub:
It now takes the form of a peoples' war :blink:

[Small Geezer]

When the maoist-led government in Nepal was elected, didn't the chinese say they wouldn't tolerate any destabilisation by foreign forces?

I would also like to hear what some CBGB-ML members have to say on this issue.

[bailey_187]

China has been helping to train the Nepal National Army.

They denounce the Maoists in Nepal and India or "misusing Mao's name"

[Spawn of Stalin]

Over the past month or so I have seriously revised my stance on China, and would have to say, I don't know, but if recent history is anything to go by, probably not.

[Spawn of Stalin]

A progressive socialist movement in some countries I have absolutely no doubt they would support, take Venezuela as an example, all out overthrow of the government coupled with a dictatorship of the proletariat, no, they would not.

[RedStarOverChina]

A progressive socialist movement in some countries I have absolutely no doubt they would support, take Venezuela as an example,
Only to a certain degree. China is treading carefully in Venezuela, due to fears of angering the US. Also I think China isn't entirely convinced that Chavez's party would stay in power for the long haul.

[red cat]

If China is arming the naxalites, it is not because of any ideological preferences, but to weaken a regional competitor.

India is not a competitor, but a potential colony for China. China already has its political puppets in India, who are at war with the Maoists. Therefore it would not be beneficial for China to aid a communist revolution in India.

[A.R.Amistad]

Not only will China not be a supporter of international revolution: it would be a great obstacle against it. Behind the United State's, I think China is the biggest threat to the international working class. My theory is that for international revolution to be successful its going to have to strike at the very nerve center of world capitalism: the United States or some other major western power. But looking at the changing milieu of international economics and politics I think the USA is on its way out as the world's top superpower. Everyone bases the grandeur of American life (such as the suburbia fairytale) based on the few years of the DotCom generation, but that is long gone now and I don't think the United States under capitalism will ever reach that pinnacle again. Standard of living is dropping in the US and its only a matter of time before we get to a point where we aren't seen by the world, or even by ourselves, as the land of riches. We may not be poor and weak but we will certainly be weaker and poorer, and I have my serious doubts that we will have a comeback like after the Great Depression. So that means within the next couple of decades or so China will be the nerve center of world capitalism. If all goes as I predict it, the weakening of the American economy and of world influence will radicalize the American masses and prepare them to be led to revolution. I think if that were to happen, China would be the first nation to try to invade and suppress the revolution, especially since the own all of our bourgeois debts which would be totally disregarded in the case of an American revolution.

[danyboy27]

India is not a competitor, but a potential colony for China. China already has its political puppets in India, who are at war with the Maoists. Therefore it would not be beneficial for China to aid a communist revolution in India.

would you please stop using the word colony for a day?

china would be unable to maintain one, this time is over.

On the other hand, China would be pleased to have a friendly neighbor, and i am sure they are doing effort in that dirrection by giving gun to Various groups in Africa and asia.

[A.R.Amistad]

On the other hand, China would be pleased to have a friendly neighbor, and i am sure they are doing effort in that dirrection by giving gun to Various groups in Africa and asia.

China has no ideological motive behind selling weapons to anyone. China doesn't even really have a concrete foreign policy motive to sell weapons to people. Selling weapons to this or that nation, organization, resistance movement and what have you are simply lucrative markets. China sold guns and Machetes to the Interahamwe militia and the Rwandan Genocidal Government in the 1990s. China is selling weapons to the genocide perpetuaters in Darfur. I would not be surprised (although I admit I have no source) if China were selling weapons to groups in the Eastern Congo who were actually fighting the remnants of the exiled Interahamwe in the Eastern Congo, who are also fighting with Chinese AKs and Tokarevs. Business, business, business. China has no international interests outside of economic ones, and selling arms to willing buyers is a nice moneymaking job. Its not like the Chinese are sending military advisers to any of the nations or organizations that it sells arms to for support, these are just places were the money comes from. Whether they sell weapons to this or that regime does not mean that China sees an interest in their taking power. Friendly neighbors to China are ones that are good spenders, not ideological comrades.

[AK]

India is not a competitor, but a potential colony for China. China already has its political puppets in India, who are at war with the Maoists. Therefore it would not be beneficial for China to aid a communist revolution in India.
So the PRC is admitting it is reactionary...

[RedStarOverChina]

India is not a competitor, but a potential colony for China. China already has its political puppets in India, who are at war with the Maoists.
:confused::confused::confused:

[bailey_187]

So the PRC is admitting it is reactionary...

Is this a shit attempt at a joke?

Of course, red cat, a Maoist, is going to call the PRC how it exists today reactionary

[AK]

Is this a shit attempt at a joke?
No, actually.

Of course, red cat, a Maoist, is going to call the PRC how it exists today reactionary
Silly red cat.

[bailey_187]

What was your point?

[AK]

What was your point?
My point is, two trolls don't make a right.

[Ztrain]

No,the USA is Chinas top buyer and China is mereley a pig with a chairman Mao mask on so to speak.The Chinese would never support a revolution as it would mean less money for them

[red cat]

My point is, two trolls don't make a right.

But so far no other troll has joined you in this thread. :confused:

[red cat]

:confused::confused::confused:

A faction of the CPI(M).

[Scary Monster]

China has never supported a progressive revolution. Look at their policies on south africa during apartheid, Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, relations with the USA, etc. China sent troops to fight with european colonialists against the africans, supplied the US-backed islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen against the Soviets and the democratically-elected communist Afghan government, and Mao himself meeting with Richard Nixon, proclaiming how much he favors US republicans. This combined with the fact that China is capitalist, means that China's ruling class would definitely not support a real proletarian revolution that threatens capitalism itself.

[red cat]

China has never supported a progressive revolution. Look at their policies on south africa during apartheid, Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, relations with the USA, etc. China sent troops to fight with european colonialists against the africans, supplied the US-backed islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen against the Soviets and the democratically-elected communist Afghan government, and Mao himself meeting with Richard Nixon, proclaiming how much he favors US republicans. This combined with the fact that China is capitalist, means that China's ruling class would definitely not support a real proletarian revolution that threatens capitalism itself.

There are many distortions of history by revisionists. These will become clearer as Maoist revolutions progress.

One example of China supporting a revolution is the supply of arms to Filipino communists in their early days of struggle.

[AK]

But so far no other troll has joined you in this thread. :confused:
Bailey's reply to my first post was troll-like :lol:

[AK]

China has never supported a progressive revolution. Look at their policies on south africa during apartheid, Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, relations with the USA, etc. China sent troops to fight with european colonialists against the africans, supplied the US-backed islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen against the Soviets and the democratically-elected communist Afghan government, and Mao himself meeting with Richard Nixon, proclaiming how much he favors US republicans. This combined with the fact that China is capitalist, means that China's ruling class would definitely not support a real proletarian revolution that threatens capitalism itself.
Good points but the Afghanistan bits really made me lol.

Because the Soviet Red Army was the real bringer of revolution and social change :lol:

Despite this:

The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class itself.

[red cat]

Good points but the Afghanistan bits really made me lol.

Because the Soviet Red Army was the real bringer of revolution and social change :lol:

Despite this:

True. Revolutionary change cannot be brought from outside. A Maoist revolution was being started in Afghanistan when the Soviet forces invaded and crushed it.

[khad]

China sold guns and Machetes to the Interahamwe militia and the Rwandan Genocidal Government in the 1990s.
The RPF was equally if not more to blame for the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis. They had even infiltrated the Interhamwe militia and had used the genocide as a pretext to murder tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of Tutsis who could be potentially be opposed to the RPF's rule.


China is selling weapons to the genocide perpetuaters in Darfur.There is no genocide currently in Darfur. What you had is a civil war and a situation where the majority of deaths occurred in the initial displacement. People died due to disease and lack of shelter and food, but deaths have tapered off significantly now that humanitarian aid is in place. Since 2008, the level of violence has gone down to the point where it (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0819/p09s02-coop.html) cannot even be called a civil war. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0819/p09s02-coop.html/%28page%29/2)


I would not be surprised (although I admit I have no source) if China were selling weapons to groups in the Eastern Congo who were actually fighting the remnants of the exiled Interahamwe in the Eastern Congo, who are also fighting with Chinese AKs and Tokarevs.Well, obviously, China gives aid to the Tutsi imperialist regime in Rwanda as well as to the Congo government. They get their coltan either way. But this problem really lies far, far deeper than Chinese meddling.

Good points but the Afghanistan bits really made me lol.

Because the Soviet Red Army was the real bringer of revolution and social change :lol:

Despite this:
The Saur Revolution was a fact. The Afghan government requested Soviet aid to defend the gains of the revolution against Western imperialists. The goal had always been to give the Afghan government the means to survive and fight its own battles, as it did in 1989 in Jalalabad.


True. Revolutionary change cannot be brought from outside. A Maoist revolution was being started in Afghanistan when the Soviet forces invaded and crushed it.
That animal Amin deserved to be killed 100%. The USSR repeatedly begged the fucker to release jailed communists, but he passed the point of no return when he decided to murder President Taraki and cover it up (incompetently, I might add).


China has never supported a progressive revolution. Look at their policies on south africa during apartheid, Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, relations with the USA, etc. China sent troops to fight with european colonialists against the africans, supplied the US-backed islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen against the Soviets and the democratically-elected communist Afghan government, and Mao himself meeting with Richard Nixon, proclaiming how much he favors US republicans. This combined with the fact that China is capitalist, means that China's ruling class would definitely not support a real proletarian revolution that threatens capitalism itself.
Sensible post. Top marks.

[AK]

The Saur Revolution was a fact. The Afghan government requested Soviet aid to defend the gains of the revolution against Western imperialists. The goal had always been to give the Afghan government the means to survive and fight its own battles, as it did in 1989 in Jalalabad.
Yeah, and the USSR stood to gain nothing from this invasion at all. Rather, it supported true socialism, internationalism and working class revolution for the entire duration of it's existence :lol:

[red cat]

That animal Amin deserved to be killed 100%. The USSR repeatedly begged the fucker to release jailed communists, but he passed the point of no return when he decided to murder President Taraki and cover it up (incompetently, I might add).



Agreed, but at what cost ? The damage that USSR did, to which later the imperialist USA-Chinese bloc joined their own shares, was irreparable. As for the USSR, it killed more communists then it pretended to rescue. So great was the blow dealt by the anti Maoist operations, that only in the past few years have the Maoists been able to regroup on a significant scale, with all other revolutionary currents being replaced by Islamic organizations which too have now become a platform of mass struggle.

[khad]

Yeah, and the USSR stood to gain nothing from this invasion at all. Rather, it supported true socialism, internationalism and working class revolution for the entire duration of it's existence :lol:
Actually it did not. In fact the Afghan communists had to ask for military aid eleven times before it was granted. The stance of the Soviet Union was always that the Afghan communists work within the nationalist government under Daoud Khan. The revolution in fact took everyone by surprise and was the direct result the communists defending themselves against Daoud's repression.

It's always the case that you people put the USSR in a situation where anything they do will be interpreted as negative. If they intervene at the request of the Afghan communists, then they are imperialist genocidal maniacs. If they hold by their pre-Saur revolution line and refuse to intervene, then they are selling out true revolutionaries to bourgeois nationalists.

It's a sign of political maturity to choose from less than ideal courses of action and realistically deal with their consequences, something that sectarian leftists are loath to do.


Agreed, but at what cost ? The damage that USSR did, to which later the imperialist USA-Chinese bloc joined their own shares, was irreparable. As for the USSR, it killed more communists then it pretended to rescue. So great was the blow dealt by the anti Maoist operations,
The Maoists were already marginal and had to rely on Hekmatyar and the Islamic extremist resistance from early on. They lived and died (literally) by Hekmatyar's hand.

that only in the past few years have the Maoists been able to regroup on a significant scale, with all other revolutionary currents being replaced by Islamic organizations which too have now become a platform of mass struggle.Wait, the Taliban are now the Maoists? I think this might piss off just about every MLM on the board. :laugh:

[Glenn Beck]

There are many distortions of history by revisionists. These will become clearer as Maoist revolutions progress.

Clearly China never provided support to pro-imperialist organizations in South/Central Africa nor in Afghanistan. Nor did the PRC recognize Pinochet's dictatorship as legitimate, that's just a lie perpetuated by revisionist dogs to be swept away by the coming Maoist tide.

[red cat]

The Maoists were already marginal and had to rely on Hekmatyar and the Islamic extremist resistance from early on. They lived and died (literally) by Hekmatyar's hand.

In fact, Maoists were opposed to Islamic forces from the beginning. The "Young Muslims Organization" was created specially to counter the Maoists. Even Hekmatyar's attacks were not enough to break them. What prevented a solid Maoist line is the emergence of Hoxhaism in the later years. Otherwise the Maoists surely could have countered the USSR with a peoples' war.

But no matter how much marginalized they might have been, the USSR's attack played a final role in practically finishing them off. In other countries Maoists have overcome many greater threats due to the absence of direct imperialist intervention.



Wait, the Taliban are now the Maoists? I think this might piss off just about every MLM on the board. :laugh:

I didn't mean that !!! :lol:

What I want to say is that of all the earlier revolutionary forces, only Maoists remain and continue to increase in numbers. The rest of the mass movements is led by Islamic organizations.

[red cat]

Clearly China never provided support to pro-imperialist organizations in South/Central Africa nor in Afghanistan. Nor did the PRC recognize Pinochet's dictatorship as legitimate, that's just a lie perpetuated by revisionist dogs to be swept away by the coming Maoist tide.

Right. And needless to say, Maoists consider all actions of China correct and will not budge an inch from the dogmatic defense of the CPC. Maoists also believe that every revolutionary movement in the world should start only from the Jing Gang Mountains. :rolleyes:

[Scary Monster]

Good points but the Afghanistan bits really made me lol.

Because the Soviet Red Army was the real bringer of revolution and social change :lol:

Despite this:

Maybe instead of "lo-ling" you should be "reading". Although, I also used to believe that same thing you say about the soviets and afghanistan....before i started reading about it. The Afghans overthrew their theocracy in the '60s, and installed a democratically elected government. The soviets invaded only after the Afghan government requested Soviet military aid to fight off the Mujahideen and other western imperialist-backed militias. This Afghan government was putting women in political power, giving them equal rights, giving people the freedom of religion, etc. Plus, the soviets built schools for the afghans. Of course, the US didnt give a shit about Afghanistan's infrastructure. Because of the west, the taliban gained power and destroyed any progress that was made under the soviet-favored Afghan government of the late '70s and '80s. There's a whole thread on this with many facts about this whole thing in the OI section called "Opinions on Afghanistan". Read the last few pages.