Baal-Zephon

They just abolished slavery because they decided to? For what?

Does the motive matter that much? It was the result of US/European abolitionist movements’ success, who ended the practice within their respective empires, and which eventually extended into a global ban. The point is that the practice was banned & ended worldwide.

Reformist movements don’t and can’t exist under CCP rule period. An anti-exploitation movement in China would be crushed immediately, if it were even allowed to develop at all.

China doesn’t have the same geographical advantages. China doesn’t have the opportunity to steal trillions in wealth from native lands and native peoples. China can’t make a new slave trade. China will be forced to compete with other powers, like the declining US and EU as well as regional rivals like India and Russia. China can’t recreate US global hegemony, and neither can any other country because all the low-hanging fruit has already been eaten

These geographical advantages aren’t as important today as they were at the beginning of industrialization. As for the other things: They’re all ethical issues and “international norms” established under US hegemony. The reason the slave trade isn’t a thing anymore is because the US/UK-led global empire decided to collectively abolish it in the first place. The same goes for old-fashioned colonialist conquest & plundering, which the old European powers were forced to abandon under US pressure (among other factors).

All the things you’re describing are features and consequences of the US global order, so why would anyone expect any of them to remain intact if that global order gives way to something else? The reason almost every single state, even totalitarian ones, adhere to “international norms” on slavery, colonialism, or nuclear weapon usage is because the consequences of breaking these norms would be highly disadvantageous, and would result in punitive action in the current global order. The reason why almost every single state - even the most totalitarian - holds elections (even if “fake” ones) and attempts a facsimile of democracy is because the current global order inherently lends democracies more legitimacy than autocracies.

Assuming the current global order disappears, why wouldn’t totalitarianism, slavery, disenfranchisement of women, or even colonialist conquest make a comeback? There would be nothing to enforce the norms against these at that point – and any actor could easily break them with no consequence whatsoever.

Let us not forget that global warming is going to continue to destabilize the entire world with billions forced to migrate. Country after country will collapse into uninhabitable dead zones. China isn’t going to build an empire in the ashes left by this particular epoch, no one will and no one can.

External pressure is just as likely to incentivize empire building. Physical domination and control of habitable land at any cost will likely become very important, if not essential, and everyone will get away with it.

This is a new situation and I obviously could be wrong, but unless China figures out cold fusion or asteroid mining or something I don’t see them becoming the new global empire. We’re at the end of an era and something new is happening.

They don’t need to figure out any of that. They simply need to be able to capture more energy than their adversaries, and that is possible without cold fusion or asteroid mining. The CCP only need maintain its current trajectory of development to be able to overtake the US by the end of the century. Unlike western liberal democracies, a high-tech totalitarian society like CCP-controlled China can expand and maintain stability even in a collapsing environment without being constrained by norms or concepts such as the rule of law.

US hegemony is not a “historical anomaly”. It is the logical consequence of the imperial center i.e. the US/UK/Europe winning the geographical lottery. The triangular slave/goods/textile trading scheme in the Atlantic resulted in rapidly developing markets and massive extraction of wealth, ensuring US dominance. These geographical factors have become less important in the 21st century, however.

Once this empire is dead, there won’t ever be another. The material conditions won’t allow for it.

I don’t believe Chinese hegemony is possible

That is because orthodox Marxist discourse hasn’t evolved in any meaningful way since the cold war. It’s just people repeating the same platitudes with almost-religious fervor, willfully ignoring newer research.

Not only is Chinese hegemony possible, but trends suggest that it is poised to inherit the role of the imperial center possibly by the end of the century. Ian Morris’ “Why the West Rules—For Now” graphs the development of China and the West based on the amount of energy each civilization can capture, and extrapolation suggests that China will overtake the US by no later than 2100, possibly even earlier.

In the very least, that wouldn’t have been a regression if China wasn’t controlled by the CCP. But as things are currently, Chinese hegemony is synonymous with CCP hegemony. Some people attempt to argue otherwise, but that’s just sophistry. The hypercentralized statism of the CCP and its propensity to use all available technological means to coerce will leave little room for reform or discussion.

Your country extracted super profits from the exploitation of the third world

And the CCP wholeheartedly supports that. Companies such as VW even set up a factory in Xinjiang to take advantage of Uyghur slave labour, with full CCP acquiescence. The CCP itself has no issue with exploiting workers, exploiting its own population, or that of the 3rd world either.

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means the contradictions of US hegemony are the highest contradictions and take precedence!

I fail to see the advantage of replacing US hegemony with CCP hegemony. Substituting an empire with another is pointless.

because China is still an ally in the fight against empire.

When the empire is dead we can deal with the lesser contradictions.

For that to be true, one would have to believe in the idea that the CCP is interested in solving the contradictions of capitalism. Is there any evidence that this is the case? At this point, the CCP has abandoned socialism in favour of state capitalism & nationalism. A pivot back to socialism after the end of imperialism is within the realm of historical alt-timeline fiction.

Tankies may think of the CCP as an ally, but that view might not be mutual. Once the empire is dead, their role will end. They are only useful to Stalinist regimes insofar they run interference for them and undermine any democratic opposition. Beyond that, they have no use. Attempting to “deal with lesser contradictions” under these undemocratic revisionist regimes will simply result in purges.

To be clear, nobody will be dealing with any contradiction under the CCP. It’s a totalitarian, statist regime which has squashed, and will squash any glimmer of dissent. Bringing up contradictions at any level is likely to result in a futile re-enactment of the cultural revolution, with predictably similar results. There will be one option: To follow the party line to the letter.

My country managed to legislate better labor rights and worker protections under milquetoast SocDem governments than whatever the CCP managed to implement in China. So the CCP’s brand of “socialism” is not appealing to me.

By refusing to condemn China, I must therefore support it.

This is literally the tankie position, so I’m not sure why modern tankies take offense at being labeled so. Even in 1968, socialists & communists disagreed over the squashing of the Prague Spring, but tankies now still demand unconditional loyalty for their anti-US crusade, with little regard for anything else.

You keep using this word, but do you really think any of the people you call tankies have actually done anything to support these countries? Or, more likely, are you using “support” to mean “refuse to condemn/disavow”?

I couldn’t care less if tankies “only” refused to condemn China/Russia/DPRK or whatever oppressive regime they think is anti-imperialist – indeed, I wouldn’t even describe this group as tankies. The cold-war “tankies” weren’t passive or neutral either.

The tankies you see here, even in this thread, actively dehumanize and gaslight people resisting these regimes, and attempt to delegitimize any act of resistance against them, even if indigenous. These are the kind of people who would smear actual leftist activists in Russia, China or Iran as “CIA Agents” in the hope that said regimes continue existing, to take revenge against the US. This worldview espouses that nobody has any agency except the US (and its authoritarian adversaries), because every opponent of these regimes has to be agent of the US.

If you want to call that support, then I have to ask why supposed “socialists” are joining America in attacking China!

Refusing to condemn something isn’t the same as lending support. Gaslighting people about the Tianamen Massacre, about the treatment of Uighurs, or about creeping authoritarianism in HK is, however, definitely a form of support.

Socialists who oppose the CCP tend to do that for entirely different reasons than the US. Not that there is much socialism to support there. Labour rights and protections under the CCP are inferior to the average European country, with the rampant 996 culture and very few instances of collective labor action, which is seen as undesirable and suppressed by the party.

doesn’t mean it can’t get twisted in bourgeois society. It’s mostly just used as a smear to mean “communist I don’t like”

No, not at all. It simply means “Communist who supports oppression & authoritarianism”. European socialists, especially eastern Europeans, still use it in this exact same meaning to this day. The non-bourgeois workers & trade unionists who were subjected to decades of oppression under various Stalinist regimes also use it.

The entire argument is pointless and trite anyway. Most of the people in this thread taking offence at the term “tankie” do in fact support authoritarianism and are attempting to gaslight readers about it.

So the word ‘tankie’ is what capitalists or liberals use to shut down Marxist dialogue over these countries

Tankie is a term coined by dissident socialists and communists to refer to authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist leftists who are hostile to libertarian or democratic leftist movements, or any other kind of democratic movement. Comparing it with “woke” (which has no well-defined meaning) is ridiculous.

The people who are labeled tankies are very much anti-democratic. Them being leftist or communist is actually not an issue at all. The problem is they either 1) Attempt to gaslight about authoritarian regimes (for example by claiming said regimes are not authoritarian, that their “elections” are real, or that everything is western propaganda), or 2) Unabashedly support these regimes, sometimes claiming that their victims “deserved” it.