I thought we were talking about socialist revolution, these are examples of military aid for independence and liberation of African countries. China is still training African soldiers today, are we seeing socialist revolutions anywhere?

Do you have any sources for this?

Can you explain where and when did China export armed revolution? If you are referring to Vietnam and DPRK, those were military aid to existing socialist states and not exporting armed revolution.

I don’t think China’s involvement in BRICS is a big role currently, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is probably China’s biggest international contribution in terms of common development for proletariats across the world.

Depends on what you mean by exporting revolution. I think the “exporter” should not be hierarchically above the local communist party, something like Comintern’s leadership relation with respect to the CPC in the early years should be avoided as it will lead to many problems, like misunderstanding the local conditions. The CPC maintains relations with various parties (both communist, like Cuba’s PCC and Russia’s CPRF, and non-communist like Russia’s United Russia party) on equal terms, that’s probably good enough until international conditions change.

I occasionally see comrades debate about whether China should support political movements/revolutions in other countries, the answer is an obvious NO when you look at history. The CPC has had its own share of lessons from left-deviationists that follow the Comintern and Stalin. Mao Zedong wasn’t always the revered leader as his emphasis was on peasants in rural areas, unlike the “classical” thought of cities and working class.

Even if you disregard history, foreigners are not as informed about local conditions as locals, so it would be arrogant for China to attempt to guide or lead the political struggles in another country. It’s even more inadvisable when you consider the leftist infighting that exists in various western countries.

I wrote a joke answer because such comparisons are stupid. So what if China’s model is better than USSR’s, can it be copy-pasted onto the currently non-existent USSR? If USSR used China’s current model back then, would the China in that version of history have developed as quickly as it did? How would such a model even look like when used by the USSR, such a question can only be answered by first analyzing the conditions of China and the USSR. Countries have relations with each other and different models will result in different relations.

Of course we can attempt to compare models/policies/theories using certain outcomes like per capita GDP/life expectancy/etc., but that doesn’t automatically turn the winning model into a blueprint that everyone can use. This is why we emphasize that Marxism must be adapted to every nation’s specific conditions, the process that links theory to praxis cannot be copied wholesale.

1. China good, USSR bad.
2. China bad, USSR badder.
3. USSR good, China gooder.

I have covered all possible comparisons from across all ideologies, pick your answer.

The translation is wonky, but basically the five books recommended by Mao Zedong cover Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

• Marx/Engels, Communist Manifesto
• Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
• Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
• Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
• Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course

He mentioned them as part of a speech at the 7th CPC National Congress on May 31, 1945: (I omitted a large section in the middle as translating the colloquial phrases is hard)

(DeepL translate, corrections in brackets) (12) The question of theoretical work

We have to absorb all the experiences of foreign parties and the Comintern, a question that was discussed last time. At least five books should be read in order to strengthen our theoretical studies, and I recommend them to you: The Communist Manifesto, [Socialism: Utopian and Scientific], [Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution], [“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder], and [History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course], where the books of [Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin] [are all included]. If 5,000 to 10,000 people have read them and have a general understanding of them, that would be good and useful. […] We should also pay close attention to the manifestos and programs of foreign parties published in the newspapers and see what they do. In the past the Comintern was of great help to the Chinese proletariat and the Chinese people, helping the Chinese proletariat to create the [Communist Party of China], and it had a great deal of merit, as was stated in our party decision when the Comintern was dissolved.

Where did dogmatism come from? Did it come from [Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin]? No. They often remind us in their writings that their doctrine is a guide to action, a weapon, not a dogma. What they say is not a dogma, but we read it and it becomes a dogma, and this is because we have not read it through and we do not know how to read it, so can we blame them? Many people do not attach importance to theoretical work, as if this work does not matter. It is not right to waver in one’s view of theoretical work. We should look up to those who are engaged in translation work and those who write theoretical articles, and we should talk to them more often. We can’t read foreign- books without those who engage in translation work, and they are very meritorious in translating foreign books, even if they have translated only one book in their whole life. It is not good that others do not attach importance to the idea of this work; it is equally not good that the comrades who do this work have themselves wavered in their understanding of it. Some people have more than once asked for a change of profession, saying that [the work is unpopular] and asked for other work. Don’t belittle the comrades who are engaged in translation. If we don’t engage in a little bit of foreign stuff, how can China know what Marxism-Leninism is? In Chinese history, there was also translation work. The Tang Monk was a great translator, and he set up a translation center to translate Buddhist scriptures when he came back from the scriptures. The first page of the first volume of the Complete Works of Lu Xun, there is a preface written by Cai Yuanpei[37], in which a few sentences are well written. He said that Lu Xun was both an expositor and a very modest man, translating the works of many foreign literary figures; the translations accounted for half of his complete works. Therefore, it is not right to belittle this work or to waver in it.

What does it mean to be a Marxist-Leninist? Answer this question first.

The population of China in 1949 was around 542 million, there were about 4.5 million CPC members at the time, around 0.83% of the population. Is every CPC member a Marxist-Leninist? How many people were MLs but not CPC members? Are you automatically ML if you support the CPC’s policies? Are there MLs who aren’t CPC members and don’t believe in Marxism?

The population of China as of 2023 is about 1.41 billion, there are 99.185 million CPC members, around 7% of the population. The same questions asked above can be asked here. How many MLs are there in China?

Here’s a long Chinese article about what it means to be a Marxist according to Mao Zedong: http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2013/1225/c85037-23943401.html

The revolution does not occur in a vacuum. How will you acquire weapons, how will you occupy an area, how will you feed yourself, where will you live, how will you communicate with others, what happens if core members get caught, how will you sniff out reactionaries, how will you explain your goals to the people, the list of questions to answer goes on.

What it means for Marxists to organize is to create a group of revolutionaries that can answer these questions. Strikes are just one way to make your voice heard, nothing is guaranteed.

The issue here is not that of a single communist being a landlord, but that of the people not all becoming landlords. At the socialist stage, all land belongs to the state and hence the people, thus everyone is a “landlord”.

Now back to the pre-revolution capitalist society, it is vital that communists control more land and resources, control more means of production, control more media outlets. If something doesn’t belong to a communist, it’s safe to say that it isn’t in the hands of the proletariat either.

Communists are not capitalist philanthropists, and should not be broke volunteers either. There exists a twisted mindset among some communists that they should be poor or own very little private property while helping the proletariat. Indeed, most of the land and means of production would be seized after the revolution, and many communists would gladly give up their private property at that point, but that doesn’t mean that you should have none before. Communists should control as much as they can before the revolution.

If you own more than one house, the extra house can be used for the socialist cause, that includes using it as a base of operations, as a home for people in need, or renting it out as a source of income. The question of being a communist landlord arises if you choose to rent your extra houses. (Selling the house is an option if the funds are then used to empower communists like developing the means of production, or if there is an urgent situation that calls for it.)

There are many scenarios to consider in the case of a communist landlord:

1. Cheap rent to those that “deserve” it.
2. Normal rent to anyone.
3. Expensive rent specifically for high-earning proletariat/petite-bourgeoisie/capitalist.

(I didn’t include free rent as that does not involve a source of income.)

In all three scenarios, a communist may indeed feel guilty of robbing or exploiting others, but be aware that we are considering the pre-revolution capitalist society. If you’re just going to pocket the money for yourself, then you wouldn’t be considered a communist in the first place. Organizing requires time and money/capital. Without Engel’s financial aid, Marx wouldn’t be able to continue his research. Without revolutionary base areas and the aid of peasants in the rural areas, and without the spirit of self-reliance, the Chinese Communists lead by Mao Zedong would not have succeeded in their revolution.

In conclusion, there’s only a problem with being a communist and a landlord if you’re living in a capitalist society and not going to use the rent money for the socialist cause.

Laogai (劳改、劳动改造) is reform through labor for criminals. Laojiao (劳教、劳动教养) is reeducation through labor and is an administrative punishment separate from the judicial system, this was abolished in 2013.

China published a white paper titled “Criminal Reform in China” in 1992 that mentions reform-through-labour: http://lt.china-office.gov.cn/eng/zt/zfbps/200405/t20040530_2910767.htm

I think the specific term laogai isn’t used officially nowadays, but criminals are still expected to work. From the Criminal Law:

Article 46 An offender sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or life imprisonment shall serve his sentence in prison or another execution premise; anyone who is able to work shall engage in work for the purpose of education and rehabilitation.

I’m not sure if you’re serious about the internet dying, it is basic infrastructure that improves efficiency for everyone from governments and corporations to individuals, it is not limited to being a source of information and entertainment, or a platform to express your opinion.

Calling it an infrastructure might not be accurate, the internet at its core is a global network of interconnected machines, the widespread connectivity is what makes it the internet, such a concept will still exist even if hardware advances.

Regarding purging online stuff, some people might find sentimental value in reviewing what they used to watch/listen to many years later. If you have issues with storage space, just store a text list of music you’ve heard, links to videos/articles you’ve watched/read, names of movies/shows/books/games you’ve watched/read/played, and add a date for additional context for future you. As for images, do not delete any of your personal photos but also keep them safe, memes can be deleted because popular ones are readily available and the rest don’t matter. Non-personal photos mostly don’t matter unless you have some use for them.

Digital “hoarding”, for lack of a better term, is not a new problem, but is much easier to achieve than physical hoarding due to cheaper storage in terms of physical space. People used to and still do collect physical tapes/disks/newspapers/posters/books.

Like I said, if you don’t want to have kids, that’s fine, some great communists like Zhou Enlai and his wife Deng Yingchao don’t have kids either. You can use any reason to justify it, no one is forcing you to have kids. However, the consequence of not having kids is very clear, there will be less potential comrades on your side.

Also, if you cannot bring up your own kids to be socialists, how confident are you in radicalizing strangers?

Raising a kid is an “18 year commitment” only if you view children as a product in a capitalist society that takes 18 years to produce. Children are a lifetime commitment, as is any serious relationship whether bonded by blood or not.

So what happens if your kid turns 18 and becomes reactionary one way or another, is this person then different from the strangers who you want to radicalize? Where do these strangers who you want to radicalize come from in the first place, were they not children once? Do you then prioritize radicalizing strangers who do not have kids over those who do?

Even if the traditional (bourgeois) family relation were to be abolished (as touched upon in the Communist Manifesto), the relationship between people will still be there just by their existence in society. As Marx also mentioned in “Theses On Feuerbach” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/): “But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.”

I also want to mention that other than the traditional idea of reproduction, there may be more options in future that have ethical issues like surrogacy and artificial wombs. These potential options do not change the physical blood relations between mother and child, but if they were to become mainstream along with accompanying societal measures for childcare, they would fundamentally dismantle the traditional family unit too.

All this is a long-winded way of saying, how children will be raised in future might be different from today, but it doesn’t change the fact that you need children for society to continue functioning. Children are the future, not just philosophically but also materially because the old will pass and the young will carry on the flame.

Throughout my comments I have not mentioned the emotional value of having children, because I think it’s easier to explain the practical value of children to society to someone who doesn’t understand the basic idea of why reproduction is necessary to humanity.

Final point that I haven’t mention, is that revolution involves bloodshed, and fighting counterrevolutions too.

Raising children is certainly not easy and comes with its own set of issues, but hopefully most would agree that education is very important to the socialist cause. Children are at the age where they have time to learn, because humanity has decided that child labour is not acceptable, and they are more receptive to all sorts of information whether progressive or reactionary.

Educating children and radicalizing strangers are not mutually exclusive activities because of the division of labour. Some comrades will be teachers, some will be communicators (propagandists), others might be workers, farmers, soldiers, students, scientists, leaders, or even capitalists (yes!), and certainly all of them can have children while taking on those roles. Maybe this is a foreign concept to some, but children don’t have to be raised solely by their own parents, because grandparents, comrades, friends, or relatives can all help out.

Without “new humans”, who will continue the socialist cause? If you’re not having kids and raising them as socialists, capitalists will still be raising generations of future capitalists, and indoctrinating proletarian kids to service capitalism.

As an individual you are free to make your own choices, but for socialism to succeed, socialists have to survive in the first place.

The original poster asked a question in good faith and I responded with a sourced claim

Where was this “sourced claim” before I jumped in and asked?

Do you think China is some utopian paradise with absolutely no problems whatsoever where they are still striving for improvement?

From my comment in another post (https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/3895578):

China is not a utopia, I’m glad that comrades here are defensive of China, but I suggest that we should avoid falling into the ideological warfare trap when it comes to discussing bad news in China. There’s no shame in admitting deficiencies where they are warranted, and of course feel free to refute baseless claims and misinformation.

As for your Tsinghua University link (https://www.tsjc.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/info/1148/1139.htm), the articles linked are all from 2013, I suppose the situation from 11 years ago is still valid today. But this isn’t a problem because I’m sure you can find more recent sources for the poor situation regarding neurodivergent people in China. Also not to discriminate the author’s background but:

Nicholas Compton, second year student of Global Business Journalism Program at our school. Before coming to Tsinghua University, he was a special education teacher in the U.S., specializing in autism education

No where did I say that China was a cutthroat capitalist society where neurodivergent people were losers.

No, I was mentioning what I thought after reading your two comments:

Socially and culturally, children and by extension adults with any form of special needs are seen as broken, weak, or sick. Job discrimination is rife, schools and colleges will discriminate heavily, and there are essentially no social services. Legal protections are nonexistent, or paltry at best, and rarely enforced.

and from the same cutthroat individualistic societal mindset that has allowed China to propel itself to absurd heights in such a short timeframe.

Sorry sire, I’m not an expert on every topic and in this instance I’ve decided not to spend time researching this topic when you have not even responded to my last Fact Check inquiry (https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3076871).

I’ve arbitrarily decided that you are a bad faith actor on China-related issues and will not engage with you further.

I linked all the comments you made at the time I commented.