calidris [he/him, comrade/them]

I agree with your first point. The US has essentially always been at war. It may not have changed it’s modus operandi, but it certainly has both accelerated and intensified. I, for one, don’t believe I can recall so many operations within the span of one year. Neither have they been done so brazenly. But such is nature of rising fascism.

I do stand firm in thinking the beast has transformed though. The empire is certainly in decline as you said (the inevitable outcome of an imperialist state). But I think that has turned the angry, hungry dog into a cornered angry, hungry dog.

Taking a step back for a moment, who could possibly say what the right course of action would be against something so wild and unpredictable?

All that being said, I don’t necessarily support dramatic action being taken by China (depending on your definition of such), but providing more support to nations that have good relations opens the possibility of providing them the means of prolonged resistance. This in turn would benefit China in the long run. If nothing else, it would buy them more time.

Then you should also know through the dialectical method that everything is constantly changing and material conditions are never static. Therefore, this monolithic truth you’re clinging to is also constantly evolving, requiring regular reanalysis.

China is the number 1 enemy for the west and you want them to ruin all hard earned relations with them for what exactly?

What good are those hard earned relations if they can and will just be steamrolled by the fascist war machine unless they capitulate?

Throwing out moralist opinions based on dogmatic ideals is not criticism. Again, read the thread and you can find actual criticisms and their answers.

I derived my conclusion from material and historical analysis. What happened when other nations attempted appeasement with the last expanding fascist empire? Another user used an analogy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in regard to China’s reserved strategy. Should the same nightmare scenario unfold, who would join them in the fight as the other Allies joined the USSR? Now these are considerably different material conditions from the present day, especially with the absence of nukes at that time. Nonetheless, China could have provided more support to the states that it has friendly relations with. They’re certainly not making the case that they are trustworthy allies to the rest of the world.

I’m beginning to digress a bit with that point.

Other historical examples that support my argument are Korea and Vietnam. Providing support allowed them to hold the US empire at bay, bogging them down in an unwinnable guerilla war on foreign soil.

I’m not calling for open warfare here. I’m suggesting some material/intelligence/advisory support could’ve made some difference in the numerous theaters the US has engaged in over the last year. Also stopping trade with a state actively involved in genocide. Most of the current liberal/neoliberal governments may not have agreed with the move, but it would’ve likely changed some opinions on China for the better amongst the general populous who appear to mostly disagree with their governments opinions on the matter.

China has enough economic weight from manufacturing and now imports of consumer goods that they could have kept any significant economic retaliation at bay. Just look at the back and forth with the US with tariffs.

I’m willing to admit they could be making the right move. Looking at all the variables, my analysis leans towards no. We won’t know for sure until things play out.

They have done insanely well so far and you should have some respect towards the people that are actually fighting against the empire and are getting closer in over taking it. Just an insane amount of hubris that you think that your “criticisms” can hold any water to the communist party of china and their decision making.

Is it really hubris to speak my mind and disagree? Should I just blindly accept the decisions of a state apparatus I have no involvement with? Were it my own and I a contributing member, I would still speak my mind. Then I would follow the collective decision, as democratic centralism instructs.

You are the one that has refused to engage in discussion and debate. I told you multiple time to take to the thread and actually read it.

You responded to my comment with yada yada, then called me a racist failure. That’s no way to engage in discussion. I read the comments. They took entirely different routes than what I was saying. Your insults do nothing but erode any perception of sincerity or credibility you might have.

No need to apologize, I appreciate the effort towards genuine discourse.

The US has historically leaned heavily on “soft power.” Relying on statecraft, various levels of espionage, and throwing around it’s economic muscle. They have always been militarily imperialist as well, but this has been increasing steadily since the turn of the century. Rapidly in the last year as it descends into outright fascism.

I will not deny the merits of this overall strategy, nor the benefits it has provided up until now. But the beast it now faces is very different from the one it dealt with in the past.

I hold no ill will towards China. On the contrary, I hope they succeed. I disagree with some of their revisions and methods, but there are no other bearers of the torch of progress, so to speak.

I fear China is going to far with it’s isolationism. I’ve yet to see them show concrete support for their “allies” beyond promises of said support (except Russia if you count supplies for their war effort, but that looks more like it’s supporting the continuation of the war to keep attention on that part of the world).

What hope does it have to gain allies in the future if it maintains this course? The Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy may prove to be accurate in time, but if it did come to a end in the same horrific fashion, they may stand alone.

We’re veering into speculation, but I believe the destabilization and chaos caused by the new US regime both internally and externally could’ve been capitalized on to a much greater degree. Latin American governments are becoming predominantly right-wing. Maduro was kidnapped and Venezuela is now mostly conceding to US demands. Cuba is under siege. Israel is expanding outwards, Saudi Arabia as well (by proxy). Both the US and Israel are launching military strikes into East Africa, and other Arabian nations are supporting regime change. Iran is in the cross hairs.

Only time will tell and things can turn around as we saw in WW2. But while the Soviet Union predominantly defeated Nazi Germany, it took the Allies to complete the job in it’s entirety. The peripheral dominos appear to be falling. China appears to be taking a stronger stance in support of Iran. Hopefully it’s not too little too late.

Ah yes. There is one unshakable truth, yet I am dogmatic for criticizing one decision made by the entity that must not be questioned.

I will continue to criticize what I feel needs to be criticized for the possible betterment of the movement and people as a whole. You are welcome to join me and engage in discussion and debate that will inevitability lead to our mutual growth. I hope you do.

You idealist China shills are nothing if not consistent.

You respond to differing opinions with a haughty demeanor. Then, when a counter argument is made, you resort to childish name calling when your rehearsed responses are no longer sufficiently up to the task.

What Is To Be Done?

I will concede the trade point in a general sense. But the point I was trying to make is that, to our collective dismay I’m sure, the US is tightening a noose around China.

Russia is floating the idea of trading with dollars again in Ukraine negotiations. India recently made a trade deal with the US for oil. Depending on how these things play out, BRICS will be considerably weakened.

The US is moving a large amount of armaments to the Philippines. They are amassing a fleet to strike Iran. South Korea is still… South Korea.

I disagree with what I assume is you and your comrades support of China’s lack of direct support for socialist movements abroad. It looks to me as though they will soon be in a very weak position on the global playing field. In my opinion, that direct support could have made a difference. Reeling in trade with their ideological enemies could as well. Should this play out in favor of the US, they will likely have to make more concessions to the bourgeoisie than they already have.

Unless the US economy finally gives way to the rot that has been spreading across it’s foundations. Which China may be banking on. The “gamble” I mentioned previously.

Thank you for the well thought out eloquent response. It contributed much to the discussion.

Seems like sound logic. Trade with the genocidal ally of the increasingly fascistic global military super power while they systematically eliminate all other smaller “AES” states and major trade partners you have (or economically force them into submission) while you sit back and shore up your metaphorical walls.

Sounds like a one hell of a gamble to me.

They could stop profiting off of a genocidal fascist state for one.