would you condemn seemingly imperialist behaviour from countries like Russia and China as much as you would condemn imperialist behaviour from western countries
The only example you produced of China’s “imperialism” was settling some uninhabited islands in the Pacific. Compare that to the unprovoked invasion and decades long occupation of Afghanistan, and the comparison is obviously spurious and if that’s really your position then you’re obviously trolling and can be dismissed without further comment.
Surely we should hold every country to consistent standards.
I don’t actually agree with that, for a number of reasons, some of which I’ve already expressed: you should of course hold your own country to a higher standard than any other country, because you have a greater responsibility for how it behaves.
On top of that, I’m also partial to Lenin’s arguments for “revolutionary defeatism”. Let me explain.
Before the first world war, a bunch of socialists and social democrats got together in the Second International, and they issued a statement called the Basel Manifesto. The Basel Manifesto warned of the looming conflict, and expressed that, should socialists fail to prevent it, they should use the opportunity to launch a global revolution - ideally, the threat of revolution would be a deterrent that would prevent the war in the first place.
But the war happened anyway, and the revolution did not materialize, at least not I’m Britain, France, or Germany. In fact, the social democrats of each country, who had previously agreed in principle to that course of action, all suddenly found reasons to rally around their respective flags and support the war effort. The British social democrats pointed to Germany’s more autocratic system, while the German social democrats pointed to Russia’s serfdom, and so on. Or they said, all sides are bad, and we’re not trying to win or conquer anybody, we’re just fighting “against defeat.” And so they all kept killing each other, and countless lives were lost for no good reason.
Lenin, however, argued that, in that situation, the proper response is for the socialists of each country to be primarily opposed to their own respective countries, to advocate for their own country’s defeat. I cite him here because he expresses it much better that I could:
On closer examination, this slogan [“neither victory nor defeat”] will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption of the “class truce”, of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one’s own government and without contributing to that defeat.
When, before the war, the Italian Social-Democrats raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie replied, no doubt correctly from their own point of view, that this would be high treason, and that Social-Democrats would be dealt with as traitors. That is true, just as it is true that fraternisation in the trenches is high treason. Those who write against “high treason”, as Bukvoyed does, or against the “disintegration of Russia”, as Semkovsky does, are adopting the bourgeois, not the proletarian point of view. A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the “foreign” country which is at war with “our side”, without committing “high treason”, without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his “own”, imperialist “Great” Power.
Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes.
To put it another way, the most important conflict is class conflict, and my most immediate enemy is the ruling class of my own country. Even if the ruling class of another country is just as bad, or even marginally worse, that’s a bridge to be crossed later.
Once our own rulers have been justly tried but a revolutionary tribunal and received whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for hundreds of thousands of counts of murder, then after that we can deal with Putin next. Not before.
the most important conflict is class conflict, and my most immediate enemy is the ruling class of my own country
In some situations that might be true but I think it depends. In some cases, the ruling class of your own country might be investing in a military which protects you, while a foreign government might want to invade your country and oppress you. For example, if you were an American Jew in WW2 then surely the US ruling class was a better friend to you than the foreign country of Germany, who wanted to exterminate all Jews.
Through diplomacy and voluntary trade deals? I don’t see a problem with that. If that was how the US went about things, I’d feel pretty differently about the US than I do.
making friends with other world leaders who want to expand their power
I don’t really see “making friends” as being imperialist. China’s foreign policy is, generally speaking, to stay out of political questions and trade with everyone. This isn’t a perfect position, but it’s at least a degree of separation from imperialism.
In some situations that might be true but I think it depends. In some cases, the ruling class of your own country might be investing in a military which protects you, while a foreign government might want to invade your country and oppress you.
Yes, in some situations, I agree. This is a perspective argued by other theorists like Franz Fanon, who’s position was that developing countries escaping colonialism have more to worry about from foreign colonizers than from their domestic “bourgeoisie,” who are still relatively poor.
This is also why the CCP formed coalitions with the KMT in order to repell the Japanese fascists (and previously, to put down the warlords that emerged following the fall of the Qing). Likewise, the USSR condemned strikes that took place in the US during WWII, because defeating the Nazis was more important.
But these are exceptional cases, where either the class dynamics are different from developed countries, or where a truly existential threat exists, such as Germany and Japan in WWII. Of course, since WWII, US politicians have attempted to compare every conflict to it and to argue that there’s an existential threat, even when it’s completely absurd, including Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically. And that threat is caused by declining economic conditions, perpetuated by maintaining status quo policies. And the only options we are offered in the existing political system are to maintain those policies and sink further into decline, or to move closer to fascism directly. This makes the rise of fascism inevitable, unless victories are won by the working class to, at minimum, extract the necessary policy concessions to restore stability and stave off decline. Therefore, in my position, class conflict should come before anything else.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights… for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy. China will obviously do what it wants for the time being, but I think I will remain a bit wary of what seems to be expansionist ambitions.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
My perspective on that is that I’m not really convinced that Poland’s government is really that much better than Russia’s to the point to be worth fighting for. They’re both right-wing capitalist governments that don’t seem to do a lot for their people. If I were a Pole, or a Russian or Ukrainian, and the government tried to draft me to fight, I’d probably just flee. Is the average person’s life really going to be that different? A government is only worth fighting for if it actually does things for the people (or if the enemy is genocidal like the Nazis).
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights…
Of course. Every country, or at least every superpower, gets there because they’re willing to play the game, because they have their eye on the ball. That’s just the way the world works, realistically.
But China’s approach is mostly about winning the peace. China expands through economic investment and the production of goods. Every year, more and more small countries that used to be neutral are turning towards China and countries that used to be oriented towards the US are becoming neutral and dealing with both. Colombia, for example. Because the US is at best neglectful of these countries, at worst, it’s outright hostile, it maintains and expands control through outright invasions, bombing campaigns, funding insurgencies, covert regime change, and freezing assets. Every time it does this for the sake of controlling one country, a hundred countries see it and wonder if they’re next. In the past, they had little choice but to tolerate it, but now that China is a viable challenger, they have options.
Multipolarity restricts the abuse any country can commit, because of the option of turning to an alternative. Likely, part of why China offers more generous and less restrictive deals is simply because they’re trying to break into the market.
China is not my ideal system. Tbh, my ideals might be incompatible with achieving superpower status. But China makes it more likely that something closer to my ideals could be implemented in smaller countries around the globe, and, having been tested and proven in that context, those policies could spread further.
But ultimately my point is, you don’t make it to the top without stepping on people’s toes sometimes. You might say, “Well then maybe you shouldn’t try to make it to the top,” and that’s a valid point, but someone’s going to be on top, and the further up that person is from everyone else, the more ruthless they probably had to be to get there - and the more they are able to act with impunity. If you’re trying to bring the top down to a lower level, that is not achieved by primarily focusing on the top’s main rivals or competitors.
for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy
It might be good if the US had political freedom and democracy too.
I don’t really know how to evaluate how democratic a system is, from the outside. China has elections, and the government has a high degree of support (according to Western polls). It’s true that the system is dominated by one party but there were also reforms made to allow more ideological diversity to exist within the party than previously. Not having lived there, I find it difficult to evaluate.
But I can tell you that the American system is certainly not democratic. We have tons of untraceable dark money going into campaigns, our system is designed to only allow two parties, both of which are corrupt and serve the interests of the rich, polls consistently show overwhelming dissatisfaction with congress regardless of who’s in charge, people are being abducted off the streets without due process, taken to secret prisons (such as the one at Guantanamo, which has existed for decades under both parties), etc.
How am I supposed to worry about what’s going on in China? I have bigger fish to fry, don’t you think?
The only example you produced of China’s “imperialism” was settling some uninhabited islands in the Pacific. Compare that to the unprovoked invasion and decades long occupation of Afghanistan, and the comparison is obviously spurious and if that’s really your position then you’re obviously trolling and can be dismissed without further comment.
I don’t actually agree with that, for a number of reasons, some of which I’ve already expressed: you should of course hold your own country to a higher standard than any other country, because you have a greater responsibility for how it behaves.
On top of that, I’m also partial to Lenin’s arguments for “revolutionary defeatism”. Let me explain.
Before the first world war, a bunch of socialists and social democrats got together in the Second International, and they issued a statement called the Basel Manifesto. The Basel Manifesto warned of the looming conflict, and expressed that, should socialists fail to prevent it, they should use the opportunity to launch a global revolution - ideally, the threat of revolution would be a deterrent that would prevent the war in the first place.
But the war happened anyway, and the revolution did not materialize, at least not I’m Britain, France, or Germany. In fact, the social democrats of each country, who had previously agreed in principle to that course of action, all suddenly found reasons to rally around their respective flags and support the war effort. The British social democrats pointed to Germany’s more autocratic system, while the German social democrats pointed to Russia’s serfdom, and so on. Or they said, all sides are bad, and we’re not trying to win or conquer anybody, we’re just fighting “against defeat.” And so they all kept killing each other, and countless lives were lost for no good reason.
Lenin, however, argued that, in that situation, the proper response is for the socialists of each country to be primarily opposed to their own respective countries, to advocate for their own country’s defeat. I cite him here because he expresses it much better that I could:
To put it another way, the most important conflict is class conflict, and my most immediate enemy is the ruling class of my own country. Even if the ruling class of another country is just as bad, or even marginally worse, that’s a bridge to be crossed later.
Once our own rulers have been justly tried but a revolutionary tribunal and received whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for hundreds of thousands of counts of murder, then after that we can deal with Putin next. Not before.
…is what Lenin would probably say, anyway.
Settling islands, wanting to take over Taiwan, trying to expand their global power, making friends with other world leaders who want to expand their power, etc.
In some situations that might be true but I think it depends. In some cases, the ruling class of your own country might be investing in a military which protects you, while a foreign government might want to invade your country and oppress you. For example, if you were an American Jew in WW2 then surely the US ruling class was a better friend to you than the foreign country of Germany, who wanted to exterminate all Jews.
It’s just saber-rattling.
Through diplomacy and voluntary trade deals? I don’t see a problem with that. If that was how the US went about things, I’d feel pretty differently about the US than I do.
I don’t really see “making friends” as being imperialist. China’s foreign policy is, generally speaking, to stay out of political questions and trade with everyone. This isn’t a perfect position, but it’s at least a degree of separation from imperialism.
Yes, in some situations, I agree. This is a perspective argued by other theorists like Franz Fanon, who’s position was that developing countries escaping colonialism have more to worry about from foreign colonizers than from their domestic “bourgeoisie,” who are still relatively poor.
This is also why the CCP formed coalitions with the KMT in order to repell the Japanese fascists (and previously, to put down the warlords that emerged following the fall of the Qing). Likewise, the USSR condemned strikes that took place in the US during WWII, because defeating the Nazis was more important.
But these are exceptional cases, where either the class dynamics are different from developed countries, or where a truly existential threat exists, such as Germany and Japan in WWII. Of course, since WWII, US politicians have attempted to compare every conflict to it and to argue that there’s an existential threat, even when it’s completely absurd, including Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically. And that threat is caused by declining economic conditions, perpetuated by maintaining status quo policies. And the only options we are offered in the existing political system are to maintain those policies and sink further into decline, or to move closer to fascism directly. This makes the rise of fascism inevitable, unless victories are won by the working class to, at minimum, extract the necessary policy concessions to restore stability and stave off decline. Therefore, in my position, class conflict should come before anything else.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights… for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy. China will obviously do what it wants for the time being, but I think I will remain a bit wary of what seems to be expansionist ambitions.
My perspective on that is that I’m not really convinced that Poland’s government is really that much better than Russia’s to the point to be worth fighting for. They’re both right-wing capitalist governments that don’t seem to do a lot for their people. If I were a Pole, or a Russian or Ukrainian, and the government tried to draft me to fight, I’d probably just flee. Is the average person’s life really going to be that different? A government is only worth fighting for if it actually does things for the people (or if the enemy is genocidal like the Nazis).
Of course. Every country, or at least every superpower, gets there because they’re willing to play the game, because they have their eye on the ball. That’s just the way the world works, realistically.
But China’s approach is mostly about winning the peace. China expands through economic investment and the production of goods. Every year, more and more small countries that used to be neutral are turning towards China and countries that used to be oriented towards the US are becoming neutral and dealing with both. Colombia, for example. Because the US is at best neglectful of these countries, at worst, it’s outright hostile, it maintains and expands control through outright invasions, bombing campaigns, funding insurgencies, covert regime change, and freezing assets. Every time it does this for the sake of controlling one country, a hundred countries see it and wonder if they’re next. In the past, they had little choice but to tolerate it, but now that China is a viable challenger, they have options.
Multipolarity restricts the abuse any country can commit, because of the option of turning to an alternative. Likely, part of why China offers more generous and less restrictive deals is simply because they’re trying to break into the market.
China is not my ideal system. Tbh, my ideals might be incompatible with achieving superpower status. But China makes it more likely that something closer to my ideals could be implemented in smaller countries around the globe, and, having been tested and proven in that context, those policies could spread further.
But ultimately my point is, you don’t make it to the top without stepping on people’s toes sometimes. You might say, “Well then maybe you shouldn’t try to make it to the top,” and that’s a valid point, but someone’s going to be on top, and the further up that person is from everyone else, the more ruthless they probably had to be to get there - and the more they are able to act with impunity. If you’re trying to bring the top down to a lower level, that is not achieved by primarily focusing on the top’s main rivals or competitors.
It might be good if the US had political freedom and democracy too.
I don’t really know how to evaluate how democratic a system is, from the outside. China has elections, and the government has a high degree of support (according to Western polls). It’s true that the system is dominated by one party but there were also reforms made to allow more ideological diversity to exist within the party than previously. Not having lived there, I find it difficult to evaluate.
But I can tell you that the American system is certainly not democratic. We have tons of untraceable dark money going into campaigns, our system is designed to only allow two parties, both of which are corrupt and serve the interests of the rich, polls consistently show overwhelming dissatisfaction with congress regardless of who’s in charge, people are being abducted off the streets without due process, taken to secret prisons (such as the one at Guantanamo, which has existed for decades under both parties), etc.
How am I supposed to worry about what’s going on in China? I have bigger fish to fry, don’t you think?