cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/794993
Archived version: https://archive.ph/YHzBc
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230728005938/https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-report-says-china-likely-supplying-tech-russian-military-2023-07-27/
The USSR famously subsidized and gave autonomy to the non Russian SSRs. Russofication was obviously a problem but much less of a problem than during the monarchy or the post union capitalist state. There is a reason why the non Russian SSRs voted at higher rates than the Russian SSR to stay in the USSR during the referendum before the illegitimate dissolution of the soviet union.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1920/11/13.htm
China famously exempted all ethnic minorities from the one child policy.
Yeah but we are today, and I fail to see what’s actually “left wing” about the present situation. Is Russia (a fascist kleptocracy) being helped by China (state capitalist and only communist in name) somehow contributing to spreading socialism ideals? In retrospect that was maybe a rhetorical question.
>(state capitalist and only communist in name)
I would read an English translation of “On the Governance of China” as well as this https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Even Lenin acknowledged that you can’t get rid of capitalism quickly, and China started from an even worse position than the USSR.
Empires competing and creating multipolarity benefits China, other socialist nations, and the imperial periphery looking to break free. Keep in mind that mao’s three worlds theory is a major influence on some socialist factions in China, even if it is reductionist. Russia maintaining strength to challenge the US(including if it comes through a defeat or truce in ukraine)(note that China is pushing for a truce which would maintain Russia’s ability to defend itself from NATO better, but supplying them to maintain their strength) is a good thing in their calculus, and I haven’t seen any compelling rebuttals to it.
Realistically, China, as an hegemony seeking super power, would do the same thing no matter what century and flavor of autocratic regime is at the helm at that particular time. No need to make it more than what it is, really.
> as an hegemony seeking super power
Citation needed.
Also you didn’t really respond to anything said.
>> as an hegemony seeking super power
> Citation needed.
Have you ever listen to the CCP’s rhetoric? Especially Xi’s neo-traditionnalism and “restoring China’s just place at the center of the world”.
> Also you didn’t really respond to anything said.
And neither did you, you were off-topic from the get go.
> Have you ever listen to the CCP’s rhetoric? Especially Xi’s neo-traditionnalism and “restoring China’s just place at the center of the world”.
When China historically was the “center of the world” did they exert imperial hegemony over the rest of the known world?
This is a rhetorical question, because they didn’t.
When you look at the way China has been making itself “center of the world” you’ll note the lack of imperialism in their policy. They do not rely on financial and military control in foreign countries the way empires do.
> And neither did you, you were off-topic from the get go.
You were claiming they weren’t left wing and were state capitalist, I was addressing that misconception. Did you just try to say this as a “no you!”?