Edit: Damn already so many replies.
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
88 points (95.8% liked)
The Deprogram
1806 readers
235 users here now
"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985
International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.
Rules:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
- Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.
Resources:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Rehearsed responses" motherfucker, THE TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE.
Y'all always reveal yourself with that exact bullshit. Of course the responses are gonna sound the same, they were forged in truth and there is only one mold.
There are no opinions to be had here, it's just you being wrong. All your arguments have been defeated thoroughly in this very thread by others already
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Stop being a dogmatic idealist, Read it and weep.
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.
Yep, that's kinda how truth works actually. We base our view on material analysis and see the truth that China can't do much more than they already are.
I mean, you are clearly putting principles and ideals over material analysis. There is simply no way that you tried to materially analyse the position of China and got to the conclusion that they should intervene more than they already are. China is the number 1 enemy for the west and you want them to ruin all hard earned relations with them for what exactly?
Throwing out moralist opinions based on dogmatic ideals is not criticism. Again, read the thread and you can find actual criticisms and their answers.
Of course you won't actually read anything in here and just keep on holding unto your liberal opinions on how the biggest enemy of the western world should act.
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.
? 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.
Enough of this now.
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.
What good are those hard earned relations if they can and will just be steamrolled by the fascist war machine unless they capitulate?
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.
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 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.