Alibaba Cloud is joining the Omacom Foundation as a Founding Corporate Patron, contributing $1 million a year for three years! That’s a $3 million commitment, matching DigitalOcean’s backing, to the development,…
If they don’t mind doing business with zionists or any country run by literal fascists, then they won’t do anything about this either. It’s the inescapable result of dropping ideological struggle in favor of unprincipled peace that Mao warned about. That’s how you end up with dog shit foreign policy like actively investing in countries that seek to destroy you and oppose everything you claim to stand for.
The entirety of Europe could resurrect and go full Nazi tomorrow, and the CPC would still push for “strengthening ties” and talk about being equal partners. 🤡
When Allende was coup’d by Pinnochet, most, if not all, Communist/Socialist countries broke diplomatic relations with Chile under Pinnochet’s military regime, but China maintained regular diplomatic relations with Chile. So if Europe went full Hitler 2.0 , China will be ok with that if it does not interfere with its own development and maintain the One-China policy.
Sorry for the length I got very into writing this before I call it a night.
In my view there is a fundamental flaw in the original comment: their idealist misinterpretation of the concept of ‘unprincipled peace’ (taken from Combat Liberalism) and a failure to apply dialectics to international relations. The ‘liberalism’ criticized by Chairman Mao in Combat Liberalism was an unprincipled attitude characterized by the abandonment of the Marxist stance and compromise with erroneous ideas within the ranks of institutions. Applying this internal critique to contemporary China’s external diplomatic strategy is a category error. The CPC has never abandoned ideological struggle; rather, it correctly distinguishes between internal ideological purity and the external reality.
Maintaining a stable external environment is not an unprincipled concession, it is a necessary material prerequisite for defending the fruits of the revolution. As noted by Professor Cheng Enfu, the core task of the primary stage of socialism is to liberate and develop productive forces. Only within a peaceful international environment can China concentrate on economic construction, providing the material base for the global struggle against neo imperialism. Take, for instance, the ‘Luban Workshops’ in Africa, a strategic move to break the knowledge monopolies of neo-imperialism. By exporting practical technologies, China helps the Global South cultivate endogenous development capabilities. Without stability, such internationalist practices could not be carried out replaced instead with the constant proxy war that was emblematic of the 50s-90s.
Regarding trade with countries whose political systems are reactionary, the commentary falls into the metaphysical error of equating economic interaction with political endorsement. In “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin pointedly defended the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (making a compromise with the German Kaiser) against the ‘pure’ leftists who cried betrayal. The proletariat must be adept at making necessary compromises with even reactionary states to preserve the socialist state. Chairman Mao similarly distinguished between economic engagement and political support. In the international economic cycle, we adhere to objective economic laws, utilizing capital and markets to develop socialist productive forces. This is grounded in a scientific assessment of the global balance of power, not an endorsement of any foreign superstructure.
I know you didn’t ask but I felt it prudent to add regarding the specific topic of Alibaba’s investment in Omarchy and lack of CPC intervention, it is essential to analyze this through the lens of Marxist political economy and the state’s regulation of capital. Within the socialist market economy, the state does not micromanage private capital so long as it complies with national laws and does not threaten the fundamental achievements of the revolution. Allowing the non-public sector to determine its investment direction based on profit-seeking objectively drives the socialization of production, creating material conditions for higher levels of socialist transition. This investment stands in stark contrast to the one which sparked regulatory crackdowns against Alibaba a few years ago. The fundamental reason for that state intervention was to prevent the disorderly expansion of capital and curb the aggressive financialization of the private sector, which threatened national economic security. Curbing the financialization of capital safeguards the economic foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas permitting investments in other sectors (even if misguided) represents a necessary stage in utilizing market mechanisms.
While comrades frustrated by contemporary international engagement may yearn for the seemingly purer Soviet model, we must analyze the USSR scientifically. The Soviet project was undeniably heroic in defeating fascism and advancing Marxist-Leninist theory. However, burdened by imperialist destabilization and exhausting constant geopolitical confrontation, its leadership eventually diverted from dialectics. A critical error was the rigid, administrative expropriation of small producers (held over from the war economy), rather than patiently leveraging the market’s inherent socializing tendency. These deviations alienated the masses and contributed to the project’s tragic collapse. Simply repeating past methods simply because they “feel” ideologically purer leads to stagnation.
When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.
Besides what you’ve said, OP isn’t even that accurate since the PRC has been feeding the IRI with satellite intelligence. There’s a reason why Iranian cruise missiles now hit with frightening accuracy and you can’t just handwave it away with “the IRGC was using their older less accurate cruise missiles and are now using their new shit.”
People criticize the PRC for breaking BDS by trading with the Zionist entity when BDS always existed within the context of Palestinians understanding that the citizens and orgs within the imperial core are completely domesticated and won’t follow in the footsteps of the very few undomesticated orgs like Palestine Action. BDS is basically Palestinians going, “well, none of you are brave enough to go sabotage British warplanes like Palestine Action, so can you at least not shove McDonalds slop and slurp Starbucks slop?” But boycotting inedible burgers and undrinkable coffee isn’t going to bring down the Zionist entity.
The way forward is debasification. And what helps debasification, boycotting a bunch of consumer products or handing out high-def satellite photos of US bases in need of debasification?
They absolutely should. They state in the announcement that they will use the money to push Omarchy to Chinese users, thereby getting them started in the fascist pipeline.
can you explain this a little more? i’m aware that the omarchy developers are personally fascists, and i get the point mentioned elsewhere in this thread about bring FOSS further under the control of financial capital, but what is omarchy’s interaction with the user that puts them into the alt-right pipeline?
Chinas foreign policy favors and wants stability (look how much effort theyve spent on keeping energy markets from not collapsing) why would they at the same time be doing weird 3D chess to destabilize things
shouldn’t the cpc intervene here?
If they don’t mind doing business with zionists or any country run by literal fascists, then they won’t do anything about this either. It’s the inescapable result of dropping ideological struggle in favor of unprincipled peace that Mao warned about. That’s how you end up with dog shit foreign policy like actively investing in countries that seek to destroy you and oppose everything you claim to stand for.
The entirety of Europe could resurrect
and go full Nazi tomorrow, and the CPC would still push for “strengthening ties” and talk about being equal partners. 🤡
When Allende was coup’d by Pinnochet, most, if not all, Communist/Socialist countries broke diplomatic relations with Chile under Pinnochet’s military regime, but China maintained regular diplomatic relations with Chile. So if Europe went full Hitler 2.0 , China will be ok with that if it does not interfere with its own development and maintain the One-China policy.
the sino soviet split and rapprochement with the West happened when Mao was still alive tho
People act like it was Deng who shook hands with Nixon and not Mao lol
I like China, but the whole “Yeah trading with fascist regimes is fine” thing isn’t uh… Yeah I don’t like that.
The Chinese position is essentially “If they don’t want to work with us, then trying to force them too will only cause problems”.
Which that’s all well and good until the US swoops in, topples governments, and severs whatever projects China and some other country were working on.
@gualudengren@lemmy.ml what’s your perspective on this?
Which part?
the parts where china’s accused of pursuing the unprincipled peace that mao apparently warned about and giving fascist entities too much assistance
Sorry for the length I got very into writing this before I call it a night.
In my view there is a fundamental flaw in the original comment: their idealist misinterpretation of the concept of ‘unprincipled peace’ (taken from Combat Liberalism) and a failure to apply dialectics to international relations. The ‘liberalism’ criticized by Chairman Mao in Combat Liberalism was an unprincipled attitude characterized by the abandonment of the Marxist stance and compromise with erroneous ideas within the ranks of institutions. Applying this internal critique to contemporary China’s external diplomatic strategy is a category error. The CPC has never abandoned ideological struggle; rather, it correctly distinguishes between internal ideological purity and the external reality.
Maintaining a stable external environment is not an unprincipled concession, it is a necessary material prerequisite for defending the fruits of the revolution. As noted by Professor Cheng Enfu, the core task of the primary stage of socialism is to liberate and develop productive forces. Only within a peaceful international environment can China concentrate on economic construction, providing the material base for the global struggle against neo imperialism. Take, for instance, the ‘Luban Workshops’ in Africa, a strategic move to break the knowledge monopolies of neo-imperialism. By exporting practical technologies, China helps the Global South cultivate endogenous development capabilities. Without stability, such internationalist practices could not be carried out replaced instead with the constant proxy war that was emblematic of the 50s-90s.
Regarding trade with countries whose political systems are reactionary, the commentary falls into the metaphysical error of equating economic interaction with political endorsement. In “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin pointedly defended the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (making a compromise with the German Kaiser) against the ‘pure’ leftists who cried betrayal. The proletariat must be adept at making necessary compromises with even reactionary states to preserve the socialist state. Chairman Mao similarly distinguished between economic engagement and political support. In the international economic cycle, we adhere to objective economic laws, utilizing capital and markets to develop socialist productive forces. This is grounded in a scientific assessment of the global balance of power, not an endorsement of any foreign superstructure.
I know you didn’t ask but I felt it prudent to add regarding the specific topic of Alibaba’s investment in Omarchy and lack of CPC intervention, it is essential to analyze this through the lens of Marxist political economy and the state’s regulation of capital. Within the socialist market economy, the state does not micromanage private capital so long as it complies with national laws and does not threaten the fundamental achievements of the revolution. Allowing the non-public sector to determine its investment direction based on profit-seeking objectively drives the socialization of production, creating material conditions for higher levels of socialist transition. This investment stands in stark contrast to the one which sparked regulatory crackdowns against Alibaba a few years ago. The fundamental reason for that state intervention was to prevent the disorderly expansion of capital and curb the aggressive financialization of the private sector, which threatened national economic security. Curbing the financialization of capital safeguards the economic foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas permitting investments in other sectors (even if misguided) represents a necessary stage in utilizing market mechanisms.
While comrades frustrated by contemporary international engagement may yearn for the seemingly purer Soviet model, we must analyze the USSR scientifically. The Soviet project was undeniably heroic in defeating fascism and advancing Marxist-Leninist theory. However, burdened by imperialist destabilization and exhausting constant geopolitical confrontation, its leadership eventually diverted from dialectics. A critical error was the rigid, administrative expropriation of small producers (held over from the war economy), rather than patiently leveraging the market’s inherent socializing tendency. These deviations alienated the masses and contributed to the project’s tragic collapse. Simply repeating past methods simply because they “feel” ideologically purer leads to stagnation.
We should be linking to this in the news mega whenever the subject appears. Very nice writeup.
ⓘ Remember to enable JPEG-XL support in your browser, even on your phone!
Thank you
Besides what you’ve said, OP isn’t even that accurate since the PRC has been feeding the IRI with satellite intelligence. There’s a reason why Iranian cruise missiles now hit with frightening accuracy and you can’t just handwave it away with “the IRGC was using their older less accurate cruise missiles and are now using their new shit.”
People criticize the PRC for breaking BDS by trading with the Zionist entity when BDS always existed within the context of Palestinians understanding that the citizens and orgs within the imperial core are completely domesticated and won’t follow in the footsteps of the very few undomesticated orgs like Palestine Action. BDS is basically Palestinians going, “well, none of you are brave enough to go sabotage British warplanes like Palestine Action, so can you at least not shove McDonalds slop and slurp Starbucks slop?” But boycotting inedible burgers and undrinkable coffee isn’t going to bring down the Zionist entity.
The way forward is debasification. And what helps debasification, boycotting a bunch of consumer products or handing out high-def satellite photos of US bases in need of debasification?
They absolutely should. They state in the announcement that they will use the money to push Omarchy to Chinese users, thereby getting them started in the fascist pipeline.
can you explain this a little more? i’m aware that the omarchy developers are personally fascists, and i get the point mentioned elsewhere in this thread about bring FOSS further under the control of financial capital, but what is omarchy’s interaction with the user that puts them into the alt-right pipeline?
Users of a “distro” like Omarchy will inevitably end up as part of the community, into which the leaders’ ideology will leech.
I wonder if its a 3D chess move to destabilize specific things in the west.
Chinas foreign policy favors and wants stability (look how much effort theyve spent on keeping energy markets from not collapsing) why would they at the same time be doing weird 3D chess to destabilize things
you can even go back to 2008, China saved global capitalism