cfgaussian

joined 3 years ago
 

China began building the world’s largest hydropower dam in Xizang, a $168 billion project with 70 GW capacity, expected to supply 3% of China’s 2024 electricity.

The dam, comprising five cascading power stations, is expected to generate around 300 bn kWh of electricity annually — equivalent to the United Kingdom’s total power consumption in the past year. The project taps into the steep drop of 2,000 metres across a 50-kilometre section of the Yarlung Zangbo, offering unparalleled hydropower potential.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I believe the same logic which Stalin applies in "Foundations of Leninism" to the national question also applies to your question:

"This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements--if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement.

The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements.

The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism.

For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.

There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale"."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm

You can see here the same dialectical logic which i tried, in my own clumsy way, to explain in my other comment. It is not about what something is but about the role that it plays in the context of the struggle that you align yourself with. In the very first paragraph he makes it clear that function is what matters and not form. Also note the use of the terms "relative and peculiar" (peculiar not in the sense of "strange" but meaning here "unique" or "particular").

A regime with comparatively more reactionary elements can, depending on the circumstances, serve a more progressive global role than one with more seemingly progressive elements ("formal democracy") but which has aligned itself with the biggest force of global reaction: empire.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

You should reframe this question looking at it with a more materialist perspective. You cannot analyze something like this in a vacuum without context. The point at which critical support is or is not justifiable depends on the circumstances.

Critical support is not about some sort of net moral value that you assign to someone, like counting up the good and subtracting the bad from it and seeing if that is above or below some critical threshold for support. That sort of moral arithmetic is un-Marxist and not dialectical.

Critical support is about the function that something serves in the broader context of a given struggle. It is about understanding and identifying primary and secondary contradictions.

But the bigger problem with this question is that it's sort of a moot point, because if a regime is that reactionary and fascistic that it has zero redeemable elements, then, in the post-WW2 world of unipolar imperial hegemony that we live in, it will be aligned with western imperialism and not against it.

Western imperialism has always and continues to deliberately cultivate and seek out the most reactionary elements in any society to prop up. Whether as open allies as they did with the military dictatorships during the cold war, or whether it is with neo-fascist, sectarian and terrorist proxies like they are currently doing in Ukraine, Syria, and so many other places around the world.

Capitalism and imperialism require reactionary regimes in the periphery to divide, oppress and crush colonized populations, even as they pretend and put on the liberal mask (as they have needed to do since the October Revolution) at home in the imperial core. This is not a moral choice, it is an inevitable consequence of the material requirements of global imperialist exploitation and extraction of super-profits.

Even in the case of former imperialist proxies and puppets which have outlived their purpose and which the empire has decided to ditch, such as Saddam Hussein, the question isn't "how intrinsically bad are they?" it's "what is their current function in the global system of imperialism?".

A regime can remain exactly the same but if the circumstances change then so might a materialist assessment of their role in the broader global context. Should communists have supported Saddam's regime when he waged war against Iran on behalf of the US? No. Should communists have opposed the US sanctions and eventual regime change war against Iraq? Yes.

Why? Clearly his regime didn't become any less reactionary from one decade to the next. But its position in the world imperialist system fundamentally changed!

On the flip side you have Al Qaeda, also a creation of the empire, also a proxy which the US eventually turned against...at least formally. Should communists support them? Obviously not.

Not just because of who they are but because even though they claim to oppose the US and the US claims to oppose them, they still fundamentally serve to further the goals of US imperialism and Zionism in West Asia, as we have seen painfully in Syria.

The answer to your question therefore depends on context and there is no blanket answer that can be given since each situation requires its own proper analysis. And not just in relation to US imperialism, which is only one facet, but in relation to the broader goals of the progressive and communist movement.

Does a regime or faction help or hinder those goals? And how do local and global goals align or conflict with each other? What is the biggest obstacle to progress? What is the primary contradiction and what is secondary?

As you can see this gets quite complex and it is best to approach things on a case by case basis. Even then communists will sometimes disagree with each other on the answers to these questions.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I don't think that either the European or the US elites are in any way upset or surprised by this.

Von der Leyen, Rutte, Kallas, they were picked for leadership positions in NATO and the EU precisely because they are the most unhinged warmongering fascists who will push Europe into open war with Russia, and drag us into the coming war on China too. Giving disproportionate power to these chihuahua states is a great way to give the impression that the tail is wagging the dog.

In that sense it's not really a "leopards ate my face" moment, more a "feature not a bug" situation.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago

Called it. Fash on fash violence. You love to see it.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Rats and sinking ships...

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

HTS are Zionist puppets. This is all orchestrated. The goal is to tear what is left of Syria apart.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Afaik this is not yet operational: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3317905/buckle-china-unveils-maglev-marvel-redefining-future-high-speed-rail

"Representatives said the first phase of engineering was completed in July last year. More route and safety tests and engineering viability assessments will be carried out before the train can go into commercial service."

But it does appear that they have successfully finished the proof of concept tests: https://www.newsweek.com/china-maglev-high-speed-rail-2097232

"The most recent test, demonstrated at Donghu Laboratory in Hubei Province, saw a 1.1-ton Maglev train accelerating to 404 mph in just under 7 seconds over 1,968 feet. The test follows a trial of the same technology last year, which achieved speeds of over 620 mph"

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There is no such thing as a utopia. But it is possible to make progress in the right direction. China is heading in the right direction. The West is heading in the opposite direction.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yes, if workers were compensated in full for the value they produce there would be no poverty.

However, exploitation is bigger than just the employer-employee relationship. It also exists on a global level between countries. Entire nations are suffering from poverty because they are being collectively exploited as a country by imperialism and neo-colonialism. It's not just bosses ripping them off, it's the whole Western-led international capitalist system. That is why taking back your sovereignty is key to even being able to start to tackle the economic problems. We can see this happening in real time in Burkina Faso today.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The first step to tackling the issue of poverty is eliminating extreme poverty. This may not sound like much but when you had an overwhelming majority of the population living in extreme poverty just two generations ago, this is already an impressive achievement. I am aware that there is still plenty of room for improvement beyond this, even in China, but there are also plenty of countries that have not overcome this hurdle yet. That should be priority number one for any government.

 

Whatever flaws modern China may have, nothing will ever diminish how historic of an achievement this is. What China managed to do in going from 1949 to what it is today is nothing short of a miracle.

I'm making this post because quite frankly, at this point, i just don't care anymore for the constant nitpicking and purity testing that i have to constantly read and hear from western leftists.

I just want this for the entire global south. If it means that a people who have suffered so much in their history get to finally live like human beings with dignity, happiness and prosperity, i don't give a fuck that they aren't "doing socialism right".

Call them nationalists, call them revisionists, call them liberals, call them whatever names you like, fact is one and a half billion people are now living in a modern, developed, stable, peaceful and increasingly prosperous society.

Long live the Communist Party of China and long live the People's Republic!

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

the anti-China ones always say there can't be socialist advancement while the bourgeoisie exist, or while there are market relations

This is un-dialectical thinking. It is effectively the same as saying that there can't be progress while contradictions still exist. But progress is achieved precisely through the confronting and resolving of contradictions. Marxism-Leninism has always maintained that class struggle does not end overnight when the working class takes power.

Intense class struggle continues all throughout the process of building socialism. For a socialist state to pretend as if class struggle has ended is to fall into the same trap the USSR did, as the vanguard party is lulled into a false sense of security and begins to make existentially dangerous mistakes. For what is the alternative to reform if not stagnation?

 

The New York Crimes panicking over China's EV dominance and calling for a "Manhattan Program" for EVs. Good luck with that. The US's neoliberal brain worms are dug in too deep. They couldn't do it for the MIC and they certainly won't do it for the auto industry.

 

"Persistent projects aiming at delegitimizing revolutions are doomed to be futile, because domination, oppression, inequality, injustice, and human beings’ intrinsic nature of pursuing truth, all of these things will promote people to again reconsider, again respect, and eventually again re-embrace revolutions."

 

"Ok, we've reached peak European vassalism, even medieval serfs had more self-respect.

It's frankly astonishing. Europe's major mistake in Trump 1.0 was not to use that opportunity to gain strategic autonomy from the US, and Rutte's SMS shows that not only Europe are making the exact same mistake in Trump 2.0, but that if anything they've become even more sycophantic and submissive.

And this is despite Trump being even more aggressive towards Europe this time around, literally threatening to annex 98% of an EU state and NATO member (namely Denmark) and 100% of another NATO member (namely Canada). As well as him having launched a trade war, during which he routinely calls Europe "very, very nasty" and designed to "screw" the US (when the very contrary is actually the case).

I mean, read the thing: no European with a modicum of self-respect wouldn't be embarrassed by it.

Rutte:

  1. congratulates Trump on his "decisive" and "truly extraordinary" action in Iran. Despite it being a complete violation of international law and all principles and norms that Europe supposedly cares about. And no, it doesn't "make us all safer" as Rutte embarrassingly writes, quite the contrary (as I argued in my latest article, all Trump did was prove Kim Jong Un was right about everything: https://open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbertrand/p/the-key-lesson-from-iran-kim-jong)

  2. spends the rest of the text telling him how "Europe is going to pay [for NATO] in a BIG way" and how this "big success" will be Trump's "win". Because, essentially, this isn't about Europe replacing America to finally defend itself, but about Europe paying America a bigger tribute for its defense. Which is quite a fundamental difference.

Sure, there could be a scenario where this is in fact Rutte playing Trump, trying to cajole him while Europe in fact builds genuine strategic autonomy behind the scenes - but I'm afraid this would be giving Rutte far too much credit. Real strategic manipulation wouldn't come with actual policy capitulations that serve American interests, yet this is what we keep seeing.

Europe is genuinely committing to transfer massive resources to American defense companies (a reminder that an astonishing 63% of all EU defense orders are placed with U.S. companies: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/09/09/eu-buys-too-much-defense-equipment-abroad-especially-from-us-report/) while framing it as Trump's personal victory, which is absolutely crazy when you think about it.

This also says a lot about "democracy" in Europe. European citizens almost unanimously despise Trump (with only 9% considering him a friend of Europe: https://geopolitique.eu/en/2025/03/20/in-the-face-of-war-and-trump-taking-the-measure-of-european-public-opinion-10-points-on-our-exclusive-eurobazooka-survey/) and they overwhelmingly want independence from the U.S. because they understand this would be in Europe's interests.

Yet when democracy, as far as I understand it, is supposedly leaders representing their people and their interests, we get the exact opposite: leaders who seem more concerned with pleasing a foreign president their own citizens despise than with pursuing the independence those citizens overwhelmingly support.

It's a remarkable inversion of democratic principles, where popular sovereignty has been replaced by elite deference to external power."

 

...but instead, "Israel" is becoming Ukraine 2.0

view more: next ›