Currently the CPC is anticipating to move into a higher stage of socialism, or becoming a fully socialist country, by 2050. This will obviously change much of China, but how will it effect their foreign policy? China has famously had many bad takes in terms of foreign policy, but their post-Mao non-interventionism is important practically in retaining peaceful and favorable relations with global capital. They know that, even now, funding revolutionaries will only isolate them internationally.

But once China’s productive forces are high enough to allow the socialist transition then they no longer have to remain non-interventionalist for practical reasons. They could still try and justify it, but at that stage it would be hard for China to reject the internationalist principles of Marxism. The USSR could afford, to an extent, to wield hard power in support of revolutions and their governments, and of course without the USSR it could be argued that most socialist states would have collapsed soon after gaining state power. The soviets could do this due to their high level of industrialization, military, and global economic power.

When China is able to realize the same stage of socialism as the USSR they will undoubtedly be the largest and strongest economy in the world. While the west will still have some influence and power with which to threaten and hurt China over supporting international socialism, they ultimately won’t be in the position of power to isolate China then as they did with the USSR. So there could be even less consequences for Chinese interventionism at this stage. Do you believe, then, that China would adopt foreign policy similar to the Soviet Union? And could even create an international version of the Warsaw Pact, that is an economic and military alliance between socialist states?

From my ignorant non-Chinese POV, there appear to be neither a practical or ideological reason for a fully socialist China not to be internationalist.

    • Locuralacura
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So every labour organization is automatically good.

      “Despite the cultural and historical differences across countries, there is a degree of mimetic isomorphism in the methods whereby labor laws are created. Mimetic isomorphism is a theory that predicts that one organization will copy the structures that it sees another organization using when it believes that it has worked well for the other organization ( Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Although this theory has been shown to explain why one company will copy the structures of another company, it may also explain why one country adopts the structural elements of labor laws used in another country.” https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=98174

      A part of the thesis from an interesting academic article comparing the labour rights between Russia, China and the USA.

      Maybe some 10-20 years ago. Nowadays people living there look at their government in a good light.

      I lived in China from 2017 to 2020 I went to Starbucks and burger King and McDonald’s from time to time. I shopped at Walmart. Everyone cool had an Apple phone. Social status and material possessions are feteshized. Are you trying to tell me all those multinational corporations are operating under a labor friendly paradigm because they’re in the middle country?

      You’d love to think the means of production were owned by the people but it’s a bullshit lie.

      I’m saying this as a member of a teachers union, a socialist, and a labor organizer.