we have anti-imperialist states, yeah, but not exactly socialist ones (outside of the 5 aes countries rn). hell, some of them are even outright reactionary (like iran).
i’m going to get downvoted for this, but the impression i get from the prc is that the prc doesn’t seem to really give a shit about exporting socialism like the ussr did. all the prc seems to care about is keeping themselves afloat however they can; the rest of the world can burn in hell for all they care. as long as they’re fine.
sorry, i just feel disillusioned and apathetic of the prc at this point. like, so what if they’re doing this and that, they’re just gonna keep the benefits to themselves. not try to nudge other countries to the path of socialism and progress like the ussr did.
Their reasons for not exporting socialism is their reading that it was one of the main factors for soviet instability that eventually led to Gorbachev. One particular example would be the Afghan revolution and civil war.
If they were to invite instability, make mistakes and eventually end up losing ground or even being toppled like the USSR, it would be a much harsher blow to the global communist movement. They are a bulwark against global imperialism, not a frontal assault army. It’s up to the communist parties of each nation to actually produce their revolutions.
quote context
Howard : May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?
Stalin : There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.
Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.
Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.
You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means
saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.
Their reasons for not exporting socialism is their reading that it was one of the main factors for soviet instability that eventually led to Gorbachev.
how was that a cause for soviet instability? i don’t get it. is there not other factors at play here too? ^^; /genq
One particular example would be the Afghan revolution and civil war.
okay, but what about cuba and the revolutions in africa? they seem to have succeeded without the USSR becoming unstable.
If they were to invite instability, make mistakes and eventually end up losing ground or even being toppled like the USSR, it would be a much harsher blow to the global communist movement. They are a bulwark against global imperialism, not a frontal assault army. It’s up to the communist parties of each nation to actually produce their revolutions.
like, i’m not asking to “force it upon them”, that’s obviously gonna push back progress for global socialism (if there even is any). i’m simply asking that the prc advocate for socialism and progressivism in the world stage and don’t be such a fence-sitter. gently encouraging/nudging other countries to follow socialism.
or hell, help out the commie parties in other countries if they ask for help. especially at a time where people are more interested in becoming fascists than socialists like they should be. the voice of the socialist left worldwide has become very weak post-ussr as it is, especially with the US happily interfering every time a new country tries to actually embrace socialism or socialism gets popular in other countries on their own volition. i feel like the prc advocating for socialism would give it a boost. especially when they have the receipts to show for it.
but i didn’t know that that was inviting instability or being a “frontal assault army”, damn.
For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
this is the same country whose people wanted the USSR to stay back in the late 80s/early 90s, but pizza hut man still decided to kill it anyway for the lols.
i feel like the prc advocating for socialism would give it a boost. especially when they have the receipts to show for it.
Remember that they do have to survive in capitalist hegemony. To break the hegemonic power of the United States imperial system, they’re first breaking the systems that have been created to give full hegemonic dominance of the USD. New development bank, local currency trading, ignoring US sanctions, etc. Once the dollar cannot be weaponised by Washington against allies and enemies, I think we’ll see more and more push, especially with the developments occuring as part of BRI, towards peaceful cooperation, which will hopefully open further masses towards socialist and communist thoughts and actions.
Sorry for taking too long to reply, the questions were good but I was too busy irl to sit down and answer them appropriately.
how was that a cause for soviet instability? i don’t get it. is there not other factors at play here too? ^^; /genq
The policy of exporting revolution goes as far back as the Brest-Litovsk treaty negotiation to withdraw from WW1, with Trotsky as commissar of foreign affairs leading the peace delegation by trying to stall all negotiations while agitating for revolutions in Central Europe. This belligerence (from a position of weakness) meant not only harsher terms being imposed on Russia but also justifications for the foreign powers to invest in the badly named “Russian Civil War”.
After that the brand of “foreign agitators” always came along breaking of diplomatic relations whenever leftist movements became relevant, like the Spartacist uprising in Germany, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam and so many others, whether they participated or not. The Brazilian Communist Party, for instance, was temporarily banned under the justification of being “a foreign party”.
They also constantly had to be running the arms race, not because there was any actual Soviet interest in beating the US (their only significant “first” was the ICBM), but because every hiccup around the world could be the trigger for Nuclear War.
There are many other factors at play, of course. Left-Communism up to the 40s, WW2 and subsequent aggression from NATO. But opening too many battle fronts was a mistake, and Afghanistan is when the US wised up to that mistake.
The Afghan war was specifically propped up by the US as an entrapment against the USSR, with many in the US Department of “Defense” calling it the “Soviet Vietnam”.
okay, but what about cuba and the revolutions in africa? they seem to have succeeded without the USSR becoming unstable.
Cuba was only supported after the Bay of Pigs battle, and at that point the Revolution was already successful. They were supported economically rather than militarily for the most part, due to the US embargo, and Cuban-Soviet relations accidentally ended up in history books as “The Cuban Missile Crisis” any way. It wasn’t a mistake, but there were great risks involved.
I’m not well read on Africa, but I’m not aware of any revolution that was materially supported by the Soviets before their success either. Vietnam and Korea were costly, but those two countries already had their own strong and militant parties and armies.
or hell, help out the commie parties in other countries if they ask for help.
AFAIK they are not really opposed to that. I’ve seen CPC officers in some CPUSA events for instance. But it’s a hard dilemma to balance, both for the CPC (as a party on one hand but a state actor on another) and for the local parties (requiring support but also needing to build their own autonomous structure). Integrated as they are into the global economy and geopolitical landscape, they prefer to not be seen as “meddlers”. And local parties are often very sectarian against the CPC.
I won’t pretend to be in love with the CPC or that I would be unhappy with them giving material support to my personal favourite parties, but I would be very surprised. And in the end, I don’t think it would be that effective without a heavy dose of self-organising.
But at least they are not wavering in their support for Korea or Vietnam.
this is the same country whose people wanted the USSR to stay back in the late 80s/early 90s, but pizza hut man still decided to kill it anyway for the lols.
Killing the USSR was only possible due to very real stagnation in the living conditions, mostly caused by the liberalisation reforms, but partly also due to geopolitical realities.
I’m guessing you don’t live in one of the many countries that is gradually escaping Western Hegemony thanks to the Belt & Road breaking the global North’s ecnomic stranglehold and BRICS bringing us all back to a multi-polar world.
What we’re seeing in the Sahel wouldn’t be happening in a monopolar world. Will those countries become socialist? China certainly isn’t forcing, demanding or asking it of them because the whole point is to create a global environment where they can choose for themselves.
i’m from bangladesh (if the flag next to my name, the fact that i mod c/bangladesh, called myself a “shahbagi” and talked about bangladesh multiple times in this website didn’t make it obvious enough). while it’s true that yunus had ties with the clintons; and that BNP (they’re relevant because they’re the most likely party to win the next elections in 2026, due to being the 2nd most popular party after the former BAL) historically had ties with the US, that doesn’t mean i’m a westerner; if that’s what you were trying to imply.
not every leftist who immediately doesn’t start praising china is a westerner or pro-west.
is BD trying to escape western hegemony or is BD pulled back into it? i can’t tell yet. but given the situation i wouldn’t be surprised if the latter happened. not that i’m unhappy that hasina’s gone though.
What we’re seeing in the Sahel wouldn’t be happening in a monopolar world
this is assuming the west doesn’t try to launch a counterattack on the sahel states like they did with chile when allende was ELECTED INTO OFFICE DEMOCRATICALLY BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE. or funded reactionaries to slaughter millions of indonesian communists (jakarta method).
the west doesn’t give a shit if their own countries are slowly deteriorating, for them they must keep their influence on the world no matter what, and prevent any countries from trying to unshackle themselves and embrace socialism (which idk if any countries want to at this point, people seem more interested to be succdems instead at best. guess all the western backed anti-socialist movements have caused people to become demoralized and think of socialism as a failed ideology).
we have anti-imperialist states, yeah, but not exactly socialist ones (outside of the 5 aes countries rn). hell, some of them are even outright reactionary (like iran).
i’m going to get downvoted for this, but the impression i get from the prc is that the prc doesn’t seem to really give a shit about exporting socialism like the ussr did. all the prc seems to care about is keeping themselves afloat however they can; the rest of the world can burn in hell for all they care. as long as they’re fine.
sorry, i just feel disillusioned and apathetic of the prc at this point. like, so what if they’re doing this and that, they’re just gonna keep the benefits to themselves. not try to nudge other countries to the path of socialism and progress like the ussr did.
Their reasons for not exporting socialism is their reading that it was one of the main factors for soviet instability that eventually led to Gorbachev. One particular example would be the Afghan revolution and civil war.
If they were to invite instability, make mistakes and eventually end up losing ground or even being toppled like the USSR, it would be a much harsher blow to the global communist movement. They are a bulwark against global imperialism, not a frontal assault army. It’s up to the communist parties of each nation to actually produce their revolutions.
quote context
Source
how was that a cause for soviet instability? i don’t get it. is there not other factors at play here too? ^^; /genq
okay, but what about cuba and the revolutions in africa? they seem to have succeeded without the USSR becoming unstable.
like, i’m not asking to “force it upon them”, that’s obviously gonna push back progress for global socialism (if there even is any). i’m simply asking that the prc advocate for socialism and progressivism in the world stage and don’t be such a fence-sitter. gently encouraging/nudging other countries to follow socialism.
or hell, help out the commie parties in other countries if they ask for help. especially at a time where people are more interested in becoming fascists than socialists like they should be. the voice of the socialist left worldwide has become very weak post-ussr as it is, especially with the US happily interfering every time a new country tries to actually embrace socialism or socialism gets popular in other countries on their own volition. i feel like the prc advocating for socialism would give it a boost. especially when they have the receipts to show for it.
but i didn’t know that that was inviting instability or being a “frontal assault army”, damn.
this is the same country whose people wanted the USSR to stay back in the late 80s/early 90s, but pizza hut man still decided to kill it anyway for the lols.
Remember that they do have to survive in capitalist hegemony. To break the hegemonic power of the United States imperial system, they’re first breaking the systems that have been created to give full hegemonic dominance of the USD. New development bank, local currency trading, ignoring US sanctions, etc. Once the dollar cannot be weaponised by Washington against allies and enemies, I think we’ll see more and more push, especially with the developments occuring as part of BRI, towards peaceful cooperation, which will hopefully open further masses towards socialist and communist thoughts and actions.
Sorry for taking too long to reply, the questions were good but I was too busy irl to sit down and answer them appropriately.
The policy of exporting revolution goes as far back as the Brest-Litovsk treaty negotiation to withdraw from WW1, with Trotsky as commissar of foreign affairs leading the peace delegation by trying to stall all negotiations while agitating for revolutions in Central Europe. This belligerence (from a position of weakness) meant not only harsher terms being imposed on Russia but also justifications for the foreign powers to invest in the badly named “Russian Civil War”.
After that the brand of “foreign agitators” always came along breaking of diplomatic relations whenever leftist movements became relevant, like the Spartacist uprising in Germany, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam and so many others, whether they participated or not. The Brazilian Communist Party, for instance, was temporarily banned under the justification of being “a foreign party”.
They also constantly had to be running the arms race, not because there was any actual Soviet interest in beating the US (their only significant “first” was the ICBM), but because every hiccup around the world could be the trigger for Nuclear War.
There are many other factors at play, of course. Left-Communism up to the 40s, WW2 and subsequent aggression from NATO. But opening too many battle fronts was a mistake, and Afghanistan is when the US wised up to that mistake.
The Afghan war was specifically propped up by the US as an entrapment against the USSR, with many in the US Department of “Defense” calling it the “Soviet Vietnam”.
Cuba was only supported after the Bay of Pigs battle, and at that point the Revolution was already successful. They were supported economically rather than militarily for the most part, due to the US embargo, and Cuban-Soviet relations accidentally ended up in history books as “The Cuban Missile Crisis” any way. It wasn’t a mistake, but there were great risks involved.
I’m not well read on Africa, but I’m not aware of any revolution that was materially supported by the Soviets before their success either. Vietnam and Korea were costly, but those two countries already had their own strong and militant parties and armies.
AFAIK they are not really opposed to that. I’ve seen CPC officers in some CPUSA events for instance. But it’s a hard dilemma to balance, both for the CPC (as a party on one hand but a state actor on another) and for the local parties (requiring support but also needing to build their own autonomous structure). Integrated as they are into the global economy and geopolitical landscape, they prefer to not be seen as “meddlers”. And local parties are often very sectarian against the CPC.
I won’t pretend to be in love with the CPC or that I would be unhappy with them giving material support to my personal favourite parties, but I would be very surprised. And in the end, I don’t think it would be that effective without a heavy dose of self-organising.
But at least they are not wavering in their support for Korea or Vietnam.
Killing the USSR was only possible due to very real stagnation in the living conditions, mostly caused by the liberalisation reforms, but partly also due to geopolitical realities.
I’m guessing you don’t live in one of the many countries that is gradually escaping Western Hegemony thanks to the Belt & Road breaking the global North’s ecnomic stranglehold and BRICS bringing us all back to a multi-polar world.
What we’re seeing in the Sahel wouldn’t be happening in a monopolar world. Will those countries become socialist? China certainly isn’t forcing, demanding or asking it of them because the whole point is to create a global environment where they can choose for themselves.
i’m from bangladesh (if the flag next to my name, the fact that i mod c/bangladesh, called myself a “shahbagi” and talked about bangladesh multiple times in this website didn’t make it obvious enough). while it’s true that yunus had ties with the clintons; and that BNP (they’re relevant because they’re the most likely party to win the next elections in 2026, due to being the 2nd most popular party after the former BAL) historically had ties with the US, that doesn’t mean i’m a westerner; if that’s what you were trying to imply.
not every leftist who immediately doesn’t start praising china is a westerner or pro-west.
is BD trying to escape western hegemony or is BD pulled back into it? i can’t tell yet. but given the situation i wouldn’t be surprised if the latter happened. not that i’m unhappy that hasina’s gone though.
this is assuming the west doesn’t try to launch a counterattack on the sahel states like they did with chile when allende was ELECTED INTO OFFICE DEMOCRATICALLY BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE. or funded reactionaries to slaughter millions of indonesian communists (jakarta method).
the west doesn’t give a shit if their own countries are slowly deteriorating, for them they must keep their influence on the world no matter what, and prevent any countries from trying to unshackle themselves and embrace socialism (which idk if any countries want to at this point, people seem more interested to be succdems instead at best. guess all the western backed anti-socialist movements have caused people to become demoralized and think of socialism as a failed ideology).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator