Maoo [none/use name] @ Maoo @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

366

Joined

2 yr. ago

NATO and BRICS are just not comparable? Like... they're both acronyms I guess.

Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO

You'll just ignore their relevance to why NATO approaching your doorstep is, in fact, hostile and aggressive.

NATO was literally created to oppose the USSR and the left in Europe generally, and did not disband after the fall of the USSR, instead taking up further aggression and at greater range, and keeping a very clear encirclement position around Russia. The bases got larger, the spending increased, and membership was sought to undermine any countries stepping out of line of the American-imposed order.

non hostile sovereign state

Non-hostility is when you do ethnic cleansing against the ethnicity the neighboring country is named after, engage in a war right by the borders to support that ethnic ckeansing, violate your treaties to end that war, and cozy up your coup government to the military organization intended to encircle that country, an org that regularly engages in aggression.

The Balts were immediately used as forward positions for NATO and were allowed to keep their state programs and industry. Belarus got the same treatment as Russia.

You should probably know the answer to your own snarky questions before you ask them.

Siri, what's imperialism?

I don't have the time for the classic tankie "reply with a wall of text and deflections"

This is literally a deflection to avoid dealing with the (inconvenient) basic facts you should've learned before having any opinion on this topic in the first place.

People who start and end the conversation on China with a one-liner like that aren't really part of a Maoist program either, since they should be explaining themselves and trying to recruit. Instead, they are employing a conversation-stopper, which will really just be a way to feel good about themselves, or to protect themselves.

If they're even Maoists, they're not very good ones.

China is kinda revisionist. It is making a gamble through its special economic zones and embedding in global capital, and there are real fights among those with power about which direction(s) to go. There are even neoliberals, usually Western-trained, vying for power and influence over policy. Under Xi, many of these elements have been weakened, but hardly totally. There are also various kinds of communist there all pulling in other directions.

On the plus side, the gamble is working out pretty great so far. The need to reign in the great satan is paramount and China is doing that. The communist party also has primary control over the country, including making sweeping decisions about whole sectors and preventing the takeover of finance capital (it really needs to do even more on that, though).

Anyways revisionism tends to be a silly word. Orthodoxy doesn't matter, only accurate analysis and socialist revolution matter (in that domain). The conditions of countries all over the planet would require "revisionism" for any real revolution to happen there and Mao was called a revisionist in his time. Building revolution primarily from the peasantry was a big deal, quite different from other folks who had tried purist approaches of building the proletarian class up first (including a similar suggestion by the USSR itself that this is how revolution must develop in China).

The key to a healthy perspective on revisionism is really just whether someone, or some project, is incorrect. Whether they understand their country, the people, the material base, and can apply Marxist theory nevertheless to reach truth.

They're a target of the US Empire and folks that can't do media criticism gladly take the bait.

The first rule of propaganda is emphasis, which is what you're astutely picking up on. Why are stories about X and not A, B, C? When they're about X, what context is emphasized, what is fact and what is allusion, who is interviewed and given the opportunity to comment and who is not? "World news" stories are very frequently just stenography of various think tanks, often ones that are more or less in agreement with one another.

The entirety of China's actions reported in this story are that China (exactly who isn't stated, not even a group) invited an AfD delegation to meet with them. No source is cited, but maybe it's Weidel. From this they create an entire narrative by retelling past articles about AfD's foreign policy statements and ask one person to comment: "political scientist Wolfgang Schroeder from the University of Kassel". They don't mention that he's also an SPD politician and associated with a government-funded research institute with a dodgy past. Maybe his takes are good, but why they asked him and not others isn't stated, of course.

This is just folks getting easily hoodwinked by a propaganda push. Same as folks were suddenly very concerned about WMDs in Iraq or the political powers in Afghanistan and so on. They weren't, not organically - a network of think tanks, government stooges, etc all rally to provide jobs for these kinds of nerds to write these kinds of articles and have these kinds of takes. Several think tanks in Washington have converted from focusing on Syria or Iraq to focusing on Russia or China, as they know who butters their bread.

Anyways that's a long ramble in response to a simple question.

You wouldn't download a car