If your priority during an imperialist war is to put down the biggest anti-imperialist country there is in the world for not being militarily anti-imperialist in exactly the way that you want, you just come out sounding like an imperialist with extra steps. The superficial level appearance is like you’re on the side of anti-imperialism, but the character of the action is attacking supposed allies. This is what the imperialists want. Divide and conquer is one of their favorite tactics.
If your priority during an imperialist war is to put down the biggest anti-imperialist country there is in the world for not being militarily anti-imperialist in exactly the way that you want, you just come out sounding like an imperialist with extra steps
There is a difference doing this in a communist-majority space like hexbear or lemmygrad, where people can make valid criticism and not just “China bad”, and doing this towards the general public. It’s good to have inwards critique constantly, even if it’s not good to let this get into the propaganda war. Seeing as this is a post with 80 upvotes on a minor instance, it’s not the latter but the former.
China’s “do-nothing” approach has been extremely positive since 1991 for their international prospects, but in 2026 the world needs soviet-style interventionism in geopolitics: intelligence and covert missions, usage of soft and hard power, and even military intervention.
Even within a communist space, it’s still important for self crit to be principled, not sloppy finger-pointing. What I find repeatedly is that the people who show up as the most critical of China for “not doing enough” also don’t have a clear picture of what China has been doing in the first place. It would appear that the absence of shared headlines like “China sends troops to X country” leads some to believe that all they are doing internationally is profiting off of trade deals and enjoying the benefits of that or something.
I’ve yet to see a discussion about China here that digs into what all they are doing in detail and then tries to critique from the standpoint of being grounded in that detail.
I get what some people want. Desire for “military intervention” is the “can be seen from space” part of it that keeps popping up. So far, from the people who express desire for it, I can’t recall seeing an explanation of why it would make logistical sense for China to do so in a blatant and overt way, and how it would be overall more beneficial for the international struggle in the current state of things than them specifically not doing it. In other words, is there an argument that it is the superior strategic choice to meet the moment or is it pure moralizing and a desire to see China flex to defend the victims of imperialism? Simply saying it’s what the world needs is not such an argument alone. The world needed powerful international liberation forces a long time ago. The need did not magic them into being.
This is an internet forum. There are effortposts about the topic, but not all critique of policy of socialist projects must be a 20-paragraph in a forum format.
If China had provided, say, radars and interceptors to the Iranian military, Iranian lives could have been saved. I’m not even asking for offensive equipment as in “give nukes and dongfengs to Iran”, because of the associated escalation from the west in the economic and diplomatic war against China.
Principled communists in this community often critically support Russia’s military efforts against Ukraine with the main reasons being the net weakening of the currently-dominating western imperialism. Can this analysis not be expanded to China?
Additional well-informed criticism, such as that of Chinese comrade Xiaohongshu, points to the effect of US rapid strikes on anti-imperialist nations in which China economically invests: since Chinese investment is guided by market relations, even comparably small western military action (see 12 day war) can have tremendous effects on Chinese investment in the region due to perceived insecurity by investors.
Cool copy-pasta, I appreciate the resource. I did not say China is doing nothing, though, I specifically talked of using soft and especially hard power, and I gave good arguments for it. Wanna address that?
If China had provided, say, radars and interceptors to the Iranian military, Iranian lives could have been saved. I’m not even asking for offensive equipment as in “give nukes and dongfengs to Iran”, because of the associated escalation from the west in the economic and diplomatic war against China.
from the post I linked:
Iran – Primary buyer of sanctioned oil; infrastructure investment; 25-year cooperation framework; diplomatic resistance to U.S. isolation. Military aid and intelligence assistance.
It really just proves the point where I said:
What I find repeatedly is that the people who show up as the most critical of China for “not doing enough” also don’t have a clear picture of what China has been doing in the first place.
Odds are it’s not going to be fully public knowledge what all they have helped with for security reasons, but if you’re willing to believe that list, it directly addresses what you were talking about.
Just to expand on this slightly: Iran has received YLC-8B anti-stealth radars, access to BeiDou’s secure navigation/messaging satellite network, and dual-use inputs like perchlorate solid-rocket oxidizers, drone guidance modules, and SAM battery components. The radar and satellite integration directly support strike accuracy; the chemical and electronic supplies are harder to trace but show up in US Treasury sanctions designations and OSINT export records.
On complete systems like the CM-302 missile or HQ-9B air defense: multiple reports exist, but Beijing denies them as “disinformation.” The lack of acknowledgment doesn’t rule out transfer; it may just be the cost of maintaining plausible deniability but this is much more conspiracy/speculation than the well documented and also extremely useful aid in the previous paragraph.
My obvious point is that the extent of military aid is insufficient. I don’t know why you need to treat this as disinformed within a primarily communist community. I’m not accusing you of lack of awareness about the extent of aid by China, I’m just criticizing the scope of China’s aid to Iran, not as a left-punching weapon but as genuine will of increase in the scope of aid to anti-imperialist struggle.
China’s “do-nothing” approach has been extremely positive since 1991 for their international prospects, but in 2026 the world needs soviet-style interventionism in geopolitics: intelligence and covert missions, usage of soft and hard power, and even military intervention.
Well, you will be happy to hear that in many cases China is doing almost all of those things, then?
Ah yes, because it’s China, every time, everywhere
The people, en masse, don’t need to organise and do something for themselves, creating new revolutions, just sit here on their asses, whining about PRC not being smth they wanted
Useful approach to revolution, builds an argument for purges in those little vanguard parties that ou there
Why do you have a five year old account that has never commented until the last three months, and why is every single one of those comments whinging about China not doing enough to save the world from us?
Don’t worry, China will do something in 150 years.
If your priority during an imperialist war is to put down the biggest anti-imperialist country there is in the world for not being militarily anti-imperialist in exactly the way that you want, you just come out sounding like an imperialist with extra steps. The superficial level appearance is like you’re on the side of anti-imperialism, but the character of the action is attacking supposed allies. This is what the imperialists want. Divide and conquer is one of their favorite tactics.
There is a difference doing this in a communist-majority space like hexbear or lemmygrad, where people can make valid criticism and not just “China bad”, and doing this towards the general public. It’s good to have inwards critique constantly, even if it’s not good to let this get into the propaganda war. Seeing as this is a post with 80 upvotes on a minor instance, it’s not the latter but the former.
China’s “do-nothing” approach has been extremely positive since 1991 for their international prospects, but in 2026 the world needs soviet-style interventionism in geopolitics: intelligence and covert missions, usage of soft and hard power, and even military intervention.
Even within a communist space, it’s still important for self crit to be principled, not sloppy finger-pointing. What I find repeatedly is that the people who show up as the most critical of China for “not doing enough” also don’t have a clear picture of what China has been doing in the first place. It would appear that the absence of shared headlines like “China sends troops to X country” leads some to believe that all they are doing internationally is profiting off of trade deals and enjoying the benefits of that or something.
I’ve yet to see a discussion about China here that digs into what all they are doing in detail and then tries to critique from the standpoint of being grounded in that detail.
I get what some people want. Desire for “military intervention” is the “can be seen from space” part of it that keeps popping up. So far, from the people who express desire for it, I can’t recall seeing an explanation of why it would make logistical sense for China to do so in a blatant and overt way, and how it would be overall more beneficial for the international struggle in the current state of things than them specifically not doing it. In other words, is there an argument that it is the superior strategic choice to meet the moment or is it pure moralizing and a desire to see China flex to defend the victims of imperialism? Simply saying it’s what the world needs is not such an argument alone. The world needed powerful international liberation forces a long time ago. The need did not magic them into being.
This is an internet forum. There are effortposts about the topic, but not all critique of policy of socialist projects must be a 20-paragraph in a forum format.
If China had provided, say, radars and interceptors to the Iranian military, Iranian lives could have been saved. I’m not even asking for offensive equipment as in “give nukes and dongfengs to Iran”, because of the associated escalation from the west in the economic and diplomatic war against China.
Principled communists in this community often critically support Russia’s military efforts against Ukraine with the main reasons being the net weakening of the currently-dominating western imperialism. Can this analysis not be expanded to China?
Additional well-informed criticism, such as that of Chinese comrade Xiaohongshu, points to the effect of US rapid strikes on anti-imperialist nations in which China economically invests: since Chinese investment is guided by market relations, even comparably small western military action (see 12 day war) can have tremendous effects on Chinese investment in the region due to perceived insecurity by investors.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10742177/7766919
Cool copy-pasta, I appreciate the resource. I did not say China is doing nothing, though, I specifically talked of using soft and especially hard power, and I gave good arguments for it. Wanna address that?
I did…
from the post I linked:
It really just proves the point where I said:
Odds are it’s not going to be fully public knowledge what all they have helped with for security reasons, but if you’re willing to believe that list, it directly addresses what you were talking about.
Just to expand on this slightly: Iran has received YLC-8B anti-stealth radars, access to BeiDou’s secure navigation/messaging satellite network, and dual-use inputs like perchlorate solid-rocket oxidizers, drone guidance modules, and SAM battery components. The radar and satellite integration directly support strike accuracy; the chemical and electronic supplies are harder to trace but show up in US Treasury sanctions designations and OSINT export records.
On complete systems like the CM-302 missile or HQ-9B air defense: multiple reports exist, but Beijing denies them as “disinformation.” The lack of acknowledgment doesn’t rule out transfer; it may just be the cost of maintaining plausible deniability but this is much more conspiracy/speculation than the well documented and also extremely useful aid in the previous paragraph.
My obvious point is that the extent of military aid is insufficient. I don’t know why you need to treat this as disinformed within a primarily communist community. I’m not accusing you of lack of awareness about the extent of aid by China, I’m just criticizing the scope of China’s aid to Iran, not as a left-punching weapon but as genuine will of increase in the scope of aid to anti-imperialist struggle.
Well, you will be happy to hear that in many cases China is doing almost all of those things, then?
Ah yes, because it’s China, every time, everywhere The people, en masse, don’t need to organise and do something for themselves, creating new revolutions, just sit here on their asses, whining about PRC not being smth they wanted
Useful approach to revolution, builds an argument for purges in those little vanguard parties that ou there
Don’t worry, we’re doing the same as the entirety of China right now, absolutely nothing.
Why do you have a five year old account that has never commented until the last three months, and why is every single one of those comments whinging about China not doing enough to save the world from us?
Don’t worry, the average CPC member has done more for others in their first year in the Party than you will do in your whole life
Touch grass and make sure to throw your phone down deep abyss
The bolsheviks famously waited for X nation to stop their tsarist regime.
They are providing intel and equipment, and granting Iran a foundation to stand on even if they don’t join the war
I’m not sure what’s the problem here, china will likely do more as time goes on
They give Iran access to their military version of BeiDou. In Chinese there’s an idiom, borrow a knife to kill someone.