Ok, then you’re saying China doesn’t care about and isn’t bound by international law because the bad guys aren’t doing it. Hardly a robust position, comrade. Look at Yemen. They’re upholding international law. One of the only ones to do anything about it. Is little Yemen more powerful than China, or are they just more bullish on humanity? “Critical support” means support with criticism. This thread lacks that criticism, imo.
What Yemen has contributed is commendable, especially for their size, there’s no doubt about it. However, in the broader scope of your point about international law, that’s not really what they’re doing. What they’re doing is what they’re able to do in defense of their own regional interests and their allies in the region, which is the same kind of thing China did with Korea in the past. What recognition there is of the attacks against Palestine being a genocide helps legitimize the position Yemen takes, but they would still have reason to take it, even if what was happening to Palestine was not considered a genocide in its damage and scope.
Is Yemen over in the Congo? Are they out in the seas right now attacking US war ships to prevent oil from being stolen from Venezuela? Maybe if they had the capability to do so, they would be, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t. And it would be strange to expect them to be off in an area they don’t have strategic control over trying to fight a war of attrition.
What I’m trying to get at here is, there just isn’t any such thing as international law being consistently enforced by an anti-imperialist coalition. If such existed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because such a coalition would have intervened in Palestine long ago and in numerous other parts of the world. “International law” is idea more than it is actual practice because it exists under the model of western imperial hegemony, which has terrorized the world for decades in post-WWII. To expect China to suddenly be enforcing international law when there is no precedent of it being consistently enforced in the first place, is a confusing and unfair standard to hold it to.
I’m trying to pull back the liberal decorum layer that says how nations are supposed to act and point at the mechanics of what some might call “realpolitik”, where nations and peoples are acting more out of raw pragmatism than out of strict moral code.
Prove me wrong if you have the evidence. Show me how international law has been consistently enforced in an anti-imperialist, ethical manner and show me how China in particular excuses itself from participating in that. I don’t think you can find any such evidence, but it seems pretty necessary for the legitimacy of the stance you are taking.
“International Law” is about as real as Scotland’s national animal.
IL is an excuse for Western empires to topple any regime they want. Pretending it’s anything more than that is as delusional as believing we can beat fascism by voting.
Do the good thing. North Korea can do it. Yemen can do it. Cuba can do it. China doesn’t get a pass from me just because you think it would hurt their PR (to do something that would make them heroes on the global stage! You think sanctioning Israel would hurt their PR? Or did you forget the topic of itnernational law that I’m talking about? Reminder: It’s the fucking genocide convention that you’re saying they aren’t obligated to enact.).
Look at Yemen. They’re upholding international law. One of the only ones to do anything about it. Is little Yemen more powerful than China, or are they just more bullish on humanity?
Yemen being weaker/irrelevant is likely exactly why the US is not afraid of their actions. China being stronger, but not overwhelmingly so, and more connected to the west might just be the reason why the US is more afraid of what China is doing and will react more harshly because of it.
“Critical support” means support with criticism. This thread lacks that criticism, imo.
Who said that we are only offering critical support to China? Also, critical support is more so used for the likes of Russia which are acting anti-imperialist, but still built on capitalist exploitation and generally not having an ML philosophy attached to their politics. At least that’s how I understood it.
I’m not saying China needs to go in guns blazing like Yemen, but they could unquestionably move the needle. If they did, you’d support it, right? If so, how could you defend them doing basically NOTHING about it? NOTHING about Gaza. NOTHING about Cuba. Propose something at the UN and say they support international law while not even asking for the GA to act outside the UNSC.
The alternative to critical support is uncritical support, and I’d hope no Marxist gives uncritical support to literally anything.
If you’d bothered to read the rest of the thread you would understand thats just your liberal bias coming out and that a proper investigation reveals that China is in fact, not doing nothing for any of those you just listed.
Here is a list of stuff China has done to help other countries, even if not in the sense of “exporting revolution” or “military intervention”. It was posted in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10742177/7766919
I am copy/pasting the parts that relate to Cuba and Palestine for emphasis.
Cuba – Massive solar rollout; grid support; equipment and financing replacing lost Russian capacity under U.S. blockade, food aid.
Palestine – Diplomatic support for statehood; humanitarian aid; rejection of Israeli/U.S. framing, support of PLO.
Keep in mind this is one person’s list too. There is probably more in the details with the right research.
Source? Jk, but you can’t just make that assumption. What does “move the needle” even mean? And what is the cost of moving it?
I assure you that our comrades over there have already thought about those things.
If they did, you’d support it, right? If so, how could you defend them doing basically NOTHING about it?
Sure, but only because them “doing something about it” would also mean that they have the material conditions to do so, which is the only reason they would make that decision.
That also means that them not doing something about it is based on their material analysis and I trust them when they say that they can’t do much more than they already are. Who am I to disagree? I simply don’t have the hubris to assume that I know better than the most successful socialist experiment of humanity.
They know more about their geopolitical standing than I do. I am just gonna refer to the experts and the experts in this case is the CPC
The alternative to critical support is uncritical support, and I’d hope no Marxist gives uncritical support to literally anything.
That would mean that everything we support, we support critically, which then removes the meaning of critical support imo.
I believe it is more so that it is critical for us to support something even if it hurts us. At least, again, that’s how I understood it.
I am also sure our comrades there have thought of these things. I am sure their calculus is different than ours. They are trying to build socialism in China. They have a long-standing policy of non-involvement. I support it until it comes to genocide.
Sure, but only because them “doing something about it” would also mean that they have the material conditions to do so, which is the only reason they would make that decision.
This sounds like handwaving away criticism to me. They don’t do it? Well they would if they could! But people smarter than me decided they can’t! Tough luck!
I reject that as defeatism.
when they say that they can’t do much more than they already are
Did they say that? I’ve not seen so much as a statement to that effect. Are you sure you’re not wishcasting?
That would mean that everything we support, we support critically, which then removes the meaning of critical support imo.
How? I don’t follow. Yes, only give support critically. Never give uncritical support. Nobody is above reproach and everyone should be criticized as long as that criticism is principled and strategic.
Ok, then you’re saying China doesn’t care about and isn’t bound by international law because the bad guys aren’t doing it. Hardly a robust position, comrade. Look at Yemen. They’re upholding international law. One of the only ones to do anything about it. Is little Yemen more powerful than China, or are they just more bullish on humanity? “Critical support” means support with criticism. This thread lacks that criticism, imo.
What Yemen has contributed is commendable, especially for their size, there’s no doubt about it. However, in the broader scope of your point about international law, that’s not really what they’re doing. What they’re doing is what they’re able to do in defense of their own regional interests and their allies in the region, which is the same kind of thing China did with Korea in the past. What recognition there is of the attacks against Palestine being a genocide helps legitimize the position Yemen takes, but they would still have reason to take it, even if what was happening to Palestine was not considered a genocide in its damage and scope.
Is Yemen over in the Congo? Are they out in the seas right now attacking US war ships to prevent oil from being stolen from Venezuela? Maybe if they had the capability to do so, they would be, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t. And it would be strange to expect them to be off in an area they don’t have strategic control over trying to fight a war of attrition.
What I’m trying to get at here is, there just isn’t any such thing as international law being consistently enforced by an anti-imperialist coalition. If such existed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because such a coalition would have intervened in Palestine long ago and in numerous other parts of the world. “International law” is idea more than it is actual practice because it exists under the model of western imperial hegemony, which has terrorized the world for decades in post-WWII. To expect China to suddenly be enforcing international law when there is no precedent of it being consistently enforced in the first place, is a confusing and unfair standard to hold it to.
I’m trying to pull back the liberal decorum layer that says how nations are supposed to act and point at the mechanics of what some might call “realpolitik”, where nations and peoples are acting more out of raw pragmatism than out of strict moral code.
Prove me wrong if you have the evidence. Show me how international law has been consistently enforced in an anti-imperialist, ethical manner and show me how China in particular excuses itself from participating in that. I don’t think you can find any such evidence, but it seems pretty necessary for the legitimacy of the stance you are taking.
💯 nicely put
“International Law” is about as real as Scotland’s national animal.
IL is an excuse for Western empires to topple any regime they want. Pretending it’s anything more than that is as delusional as believing we can beat fascism by voting.
That would be a fine argument if you also conceded that China doesn’t agree, at least publicly.
What exactly are they supposed to say?
“International law is fake - we do what we want.”
Yeah, that looks like good PR for sure. 🙄
Do the good thing. North Korea can do it. Yemen can do it. Cuba can do it. China doesn’t get a pass from me just because you think it would hurt their PR (to do something that would make them heroes on the global stage! You think sanctioning Israel would hurt their PR? Or did you forget the topic of itnernational law that I’m talking about? Reminder: It’s the fucking genocide convention that you’re saying they aren’t obligated to enact.).
Yemen being weaker/irrelevant is likely exactly why the US is not afraid of their actions. China being stronger, but not overwhelmingly so, and more connected to the west might just be the reason why the US is more afraid of what China is doing and will react more harshly because of it.
Who said that we are only offering critical support to China? Also, critical support is more so used for the likes of Russia which are acting anti-imperialist, but still built on capitalist exploitation and generally not having an ML philosophy attached to their politics. At least that’s how I understood it.
I’m not saying China needs to go in guns blazing like Yemen, but they could unquestionably move the needle. If they did, you’d support it, right? If so, how could you defend them doing basically NOTHING about it? NOTHING about Gaza. NOTHING about Cuba. Propose something at the UN and say they support international law while not even asking for the GA to act outside the UNSC.
The alternative to critical support is uncritical support, and I’d hope no Marxist gives uncritical support to literally anything.
If you’d bothered to read the rest of the thread you would understand thats just your liberal bias coming out and that a proper investigation reveals that China is in fact, not doing nothing for any of those you just listed.
I don’t see what in the thread you’re referring to that establishes that, comrade. Can you please point me there?
The comments within this thread I mean
Here is a list of stuff China has done to help other countries, even if not in the sense of “exporting revolution” or “military intervention”. It was posted in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10742177/7766919
I am copy/pasting the parts that relate to Cuba and Palestine for emphasis.
Keep in mind this is one person’s list too. There is probably more in the details with the right research.
You really should fact check your comments before you start talking arrogantly to avoid humiliation.
Please tell me if China has done anything other than restrict new investments in Israel.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10742177/7766919
“China does nothing” you are an uneducated arrogant fool.
Source? Jk, but you can’t just make that assumption. What does “move the needle” even mean? And what is the cost of moving it?
I assure you that our comrades over there have already thought about those things.
Sure, but only because them “doing something about it” would also mean that they have the material conditions to do so, which is the only reason they would make that decision.
That also means that them not doing something about it is based on their material analysis and I trust them when they say that they can’t do much more than they already are. Who am I to disagree? I simply don’t have the hubris to assume that I know better than the most successful socialist experiment of humanity.
They know more about their geopolitical standing than I do. I am just gonna refer to the experts and the experts in this case is the CPC
That would mean that everything we support, we support critically, which then removes the meaning of critical support imo.
I believe it is more so that it is critical for us to support something even if it hurts us. At least, again, that’s how I understood it.
I am also sure our comrades there have thought of these things. I am sure their calculus is different than ours. They are trying to build socialism in China. They have a long-standing policy of non-involvement. I support it until it comes to genocide.
This sounds like handwaving away criticism to me. They don’t do it? Well they would if they could! But people smarter than me decided they can’t! Tough luck!
I reject that as defeatism.
Did they say that? I’ve not seen so much as a statement to that effect. Are you sure you’re not wishcasting?
How? I don’t follow. Yes, only give support critically. Never give uncritical support. Nobody is above reproach and everyone should be criticized as long as that criticism is principled and strategic.