I haven’t read a lot of these sources myself yet, but the first one at least by the Communist Party of India is worth a read.
I haven’t read a lot of these sources myself yet, but the first one at least by the Communist Party of India is worth a read.
That’s more substantive and mostly makes sense, I just don’t agree that choosing neither empire constitutes fence-sitting…that attitude seems to me like liberal lesser evilism.
I don’t know, should I call an American who didn’t fight for America in the second world war because they didn’t want to fight for America’s imperialist project a fence-sitter because German fascism was the greater evil? Even if they were involved in anti-fascist activism at home? To me that sounds ridiculous and incredibly convenient for any force that is not literally the absolute worst on the planet…all they have to do is oppose the bigger bad.
That argument is based on the premise of false equivocation of Nazi Germany and China, a narrative in which equating deradicalisation camps with concentration camps plays a large part. China is not an expansionist state. They claim Tibet, Taiwan, which is a separate discussion but they have no intentions of expanding beyond that. They haven’t been in any war in the last fifty years. Similar argument could be used to justify Americans fighting in the Vietnam war which I am sure you know was not a justified invasion.
deleted by creator
Oh no, in that example I’m equating China now and the US in that era. Meaning a force that opposes the greater evil (Germany then, the US now) but that itself has imperial interests. (In this case maybe not literal territorial expansion, but exerting control through business…much like the US but, yknow, not as aggressive)