Furthermore to be Socialist would be to aid comrades internationally, yet China not only has not promised to ever do this (nor is this something Communist would ever dare hide from the Global masses), but they've actually done the opposite on multiple occasions."
But China does aid "comrades" by working with any country, regardless of the complaints of the imperial core, and promoting mutually beneficial, win-win cooperation and pro-Global South industrialization and modernization. Just recently, China pledged to help defend Venezuela's national sovereignty and economic transition into an industrial economy rather than simply existing as a raw material exporter. China's foreign policy in the past has not always been great, but that does not mean that we should let the mistakes overshadow the accomplishments. That would just be historical nihilism. The commenter's idea of internationalism seems to be incessantly lending arms and money into so-called Maoist armies, but this is not China's approach to diplomacy—China is not the USSR and shouldn't strive to be!
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this childish take—nothing but rhetoric and overzealous dogmatism over material reality.
I mean, I think there are valid criticisms about the Deng reforms that can be compared Khrushchev. Tons of communist within and without china had similar apprehensions about allowing capitalism to become entangled with communism. A good perspective from a party member at the time can be found in From Victory to Defeat.
But China does aid "comrades" by working with any country, regardless of the complaints of the imperial core, and promoting mutually beneficial, win-win cooperation and pro-Global South industrialization and modernization.
The problem is that we don't actually really know how these loans are structured, nor what their eventual outcomes may be. China is intensely secretive about their financial dealings with their partners. What we do know is that since 2020 countries like Kenya, Sri Lanka, Zambia, and Mongolia have been being economically hamstrung from loan repayments, with as much of 1/3 of their gdp going towards interest payments. I believe both Zambia and Sri Lanka have both defaulted on their loans, how china deals with these defaults will say a lot about the nature of their economic outreach programs.
I remember reading about Sri Lanka, how it's a prime example of the lie about Chinese debt diplomacy. To quote the article: "Research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota"
Western Maoists have never earned the hearts of the people and supplanted their dictatorship of capital and oppression, yet they claim to be the true heirs of "pure socialism".
This is very condensed ultra. Weird that they don't reject the USSR though. Normally that's kind of the default for Ultras. "Khrushchev was a revisionist" is pretty basic, and not even a hot take amongst most MLs.
Though this person seems to do the other bog standard ultra thing of insisting that trading with a capitalist nation is literally exactly as bad as being a capitalist themselves. And we've got the classic "Just Asking Questions" that I used to think was unique to right wing CHUDs, but ultras are just as adept at. It doesn't matter what "Socialism by 2050" or "Chinese characteristics" are to me, I'm not in charge of China. My opinion is irrelevant, But this white guy from Wisconsin(?) is clearly the Most Important Person and their Opinion is the Only One That Matters, material conditions be damned.
I love how ultras always try to frame things in terms of people "not being left enough" for them. It's great. Really shows their liberal brainworms when they still act like it is sports team politics and their team has to adhere to their own unique specific idea of what socialism is or else it isn't True Socialism.
I look forward to this authentic Marxist's revolution, I'm sure it'll happen any day now, they've clearly got everything figured out perfectly and certainly won't have to make any unfortunate compromises, I'm sure their ideal revolution will happen exactly as they envision, with no problems whatsoever.
As comrade transcendentalempire said, a big part of the argument put forward makes sense, quite a few of the premises hold up, Deng fucked shit up quite a bit, but the recent direction that xi is setting are much more hopeful and where I think it gets dishonest is the implications that current day China is equivalent to Deng's China, which I don't believe it to be, recently China gave a lot of support to the DRPK, and its striving(with the help of the BRICS) to lift the commercial blockades against Cuba and Venezuela. So yeah China did some backtracking on the long struggle towards the ultimate goals but to think that everything China does is capitalism in disguise is absolutely untrue. The part that makes me so sad is how close we are with people who think things like this, like I know the points we disagree makes our lines incompatible, but a lot of what we think to he and good thing and a bad thing is similar, and it breaks my heart to see such a rift (at times quite hostile one) between us, it is a sad issue that needs tending to, although the solution seems quite elusive
In what reasonable way could China have amassed any sort of capital and standing without the actions that deng took? If deng didn’t play ball with western capital, China would have been treated the way North Korea or the Soviet Union were/are treated and they would have been starved until submission and destroyed.
Dengs concessions built the entire bridge that Xi can now cross and push towards socialism.
Pfft, get outta here with that "history is a complex multi-layered tapestry" bullshit. History is like a Paradox strategy game, if your country gets a bad leader, with bad stats, things will be bad until they are replaced. China should've save scummed until they got a replacement for Mao with high stats across the board smh.