• Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    You know, I’ve been reading and re-reading your reply for about a day now, trying to decipher why it bothers me so much. I think it essentially boils down to two points:

    • USA doesn’t spread revolution. It spreads Maidan. A change of government is not a revolution, despite attempts by statedep to cement this definition. Revolution requires a change of social organisation and (as part of that) change of the way of thinking. China doesn’t have to fund agent provocateurs to overthrow governments, in fact I am glad that it does not. But helping spread Marxist thought? Why not?

    • The term “stability”. There’s capitalist “stability” too, just look at USA - it had the same capitalist system for centuries. Heck, stability is a beloved talking point of capitalists! That’s one of the most favourite notions of the current Russian government, in fact. But we both know there is no true “stability” under capitalism, I’d go as far as to say the notion itself is undialectical.

    • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Those are good points. Honestly, I don’t really have an answer – will have to think a bit more about it. It might very well be that China has overcorrected from the ultraleftism of late Mao and the Gang of Four, and fallen somewhat into the opposite error, that simply advancing the forces of production will automatically and by itself bring about socialism. I don’t believe Xi thinks this way, given a lot of his public statements. But many Chinese politicians during the 1990s and early 2000s clearly did.

    • The_Monocle_Debacle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      capitalist ‘stability’ is when the economy is cyclical by design with no regard for the people, and kills millions through neglect and malice