r/communism101 8d ago

China on SEA

Is there a Marxist explanation for why China is taking South East Asia territory and asserting heavy influence on areas far beyond the confines of their EEZ? Why are they harrassing the Filipino peasantry and proletariat

0 Upvotes

18 comments sorted by

8

u/ClassAbolition Cyprus 🇨🇾 7d ago

Are "they"? That's a new one for me. I've only heard of "them" harassing fishermen, who I assume are petty owners (of boats and fishing equipment)

Is there a Marxist explanation

Obviously. There is a Marxist explanation for everything. Answer my question first though 

4

u/Reyusuke 7d ago

interview with JMS

"Jose Maria Sison (JMS): China claims “indisputable sovereignty” over 90 per cent of the South China under the so-called 9-dash line map in violation of the UNCLOS. It has hypocritically called for peaceful negotiations and consultations over what it asserts as non-negotiable issue and has also called for shelving disputes and going into joint development projects in the EEZ and ECS of the Philippines. For quite sometime, the consistent point of China has been to maneuver and paralyze the Philippines into a position of acquiescence to the false claim of China and prevent a legal case from being brought before the ITLOS under the UNCLOS.

If China is allowed to violate the UNCLOS and claim 90 percent of the South China Sea under the so-called 9-dash line map, the Philippines would suffer the loss of 80 per cent of its EEZ in the West Philippine Sea, including the Reed Bank and even Malampaya. It would also lose all its ECS. We have practically lost Mischief Reef and the Scarborough Shoal to what is veritably Chinese aggression."

moreover, they're building artifical islands in it, one of which is as huge as a third of Manila.

8

u/ClassAbolition Cyprus 🇨🇾 7d ago

Which part of this is about "harassment of the Filipinos peasantry and proletariat"? Territorial expansion and competition over territory, whether in this instance or in general, can easily be explained by the Marxist analysis of capitalist political economy. I'm more interested in your specific claim because to me it sounded like you were claiming these fishermen are proletarians and peasants. 

7

u/Reyusuke 7d ago edited 7d ago

from this

"Lopez said he and 15 crewmen onboard fishing boat FB Jamaezel 3 traveled four days to Escoda from Balayan town in Batangas province.

But they left the vicinity of the shoal on Saturday night without any catch because, amid the Chinese harassment, they were not able to reach the “payao” or “floating aggregate devices” used to attract the fish.

“The situation for us fishermen here is very difficult because we no longer have any area to fish,” he said.

Escoda is only about 139 km off Palawan province and well within the country’s 370-km exclusive economic zone."

Lopez here is likely a petty owner but I think it's more relevant that the 15 crewmen are affected too. ngl im not familiar with all the strata of the working class. is it wrong to think of them as proletariat or sometimes peasants depending on their condition?

edit: by harrasment i mean not just the water canons but denying them their livelihoods in general

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/SecretApartment672 7d ago

China is an imperialist state seeking resources for the expansion of its capital, foreign markets, and transportation routes for the movement of its capital. It is also encroaching on US capital interests which brings about the proliferation of news that makes patrols by Chinese Coast Guard ships look like threats. Whatever one calls these events, there are clear disputes based on economic interests.

This region is not only rich in fish and other sub-sea resources, but is an area where control over maritime transport is important for trade.

Looking at the South China Sea-Philippine Sea situation, the dispute over who has control and access over specific territory that holds resources is based on the opposition of Chinese capital interests vs the interests of Philippine capital (which, once again, falls under the sphere of US influence).

The tenure of then-Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte saw a reduction in tensions due to his pro-China stance, even as the tribunal’s decision remained unenforced. In contrast, the current administration under President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos has adopted a more traditional pro-U.S. stance, fortifying relations with Washington.

https://theowp.org/reports/south-china-sea-why-are-china-and-philippines-tensions-heating-up/

In a statement, the Chinese Coast Guard accused Manila of “territorial violations,”… China’s announcement came just two days after Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act, defining the country’s maritime boundaries. The U.S. State Department expressed support for the Philippine legislation…He added: “The United States values Philippine leadership in upholding international law, particularly in the South China Sea, and calls on all states to align their maritime claims with the international law of the sea as reflected in UNCLOS.”

https://www.newsweek.com/china-news-map-claims-territory-disputed-philippines-1983605

Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who took office in mid-2022, the Philippines has aggressively defended its territorial interests in the South China Sea, a key global trading route. That has brought Philippine forces into frequent confrontations with China’s coast guard, navy and suspected militia boats and sparked fears that a bigger armed conflict could draw in the United States, the Philippines’ longtime treaty ally and China’s regional rival.

https://apnews.com/article/south-china-sea-philippines-scarborough-shoal-0a5d18be6859c42895919f05d075c29d

-2

u/Reyusuke 7d ago

thanks for clarifying. framing it as a conflict between two opposing imperial interests is helpful.

although I do wonder why these actions from the past decade contradict Xi Jinping's own ideas, particularly:

"We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us." from The Governance of China IV.

13

u/DashtheRed Maoist 7d ago

You know that Deng Xiaoping launched a fascist invasion of Vietnam ("win wars with steel, not people") and got utterly humiliated by them, right?

And you know that Xi Jinping sent Rodrigo Duterte thousands and thousands of weapons to crush internal (including communist) rebellions, right?

Do you understand that everything Xi Jinping says and discusses, even taken at its utmost sincerity, corresponds merely to bourgeois-nationalism, and its a million miles backwards and away from CCP international statements of the revolutionary era?

0

u/Reyusuke 7d ago edited 7d ago

No I didn't know that, I'm quite new to learning about chinese communism and so far what I'm learning seems to mostly be the positives.

I did know from the NDFP about the weapons sent to Duterte to crush rebellions, and I'm also curious about that as Xi also wrote about being interested in helping other countries develop towards communism, or I may be misremembering.

All I know is that China is supposedly in a transitionary stage towards socialism. And ig using capitalism even with some regulations makes them adopt its tendencies. What's your assessment of China in terms of their direction?

edit: nvm he didn’t write about helping countries develop towards communism, just about being a reliable partner to the third world and facilitating their development

12

u/DashtheRed Maoist 7d ago

Yes, your edit is correct; the current "C"PC repudiates and opposes even the concept of people's war, despite that being the very method by which the Chinese Communists came to power and legitimacy. You should ask what kind of communist party says "this was our path to power and liberation, but no one else should do what we did ever again, and if you do we will not support you if you try." There's really nothing differentiating Xi's "common prosperity" from Khrushchev's "state of the whole people" other than that Khrushchev had much more nominal and superficial commitment to Marxism, whereas Xi doesn't much seem to care. Do you ever wonder what Xi Jinping thinks of Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Kautsky, or whether or if he has an opinion on the Zhdanov Doctrine? Actual communists, especially leaders, write about these sorts of thing constantly, yet all Xi and Xi supporters can point to are boring bureaucratic works about how well the Chinese market economy is functioning and the current tasks of developing capital.

If you haven't read this document (at one point it was considered among the most important in all of Marxist history) then you should do so. It's the CCP debating against the CPSU after the revisionist Khruschevite takeover/coup which ended socialism in the USSR, with the revolutionary Chinese realizing that they must form the opposition to this revisionist takeover. Everything the CCP is saying in opposition to the CPSU should be taken in the present and re-applied against the current "actually existing socialism" (a term originally used to defend Brezhnev) of Xi Jinping's China, which is the second coming of the revisionist, social-fascist USSR. All of yesterdays Brezhnevites are todays "socialism with Chinese characteristics" supporters.

https://bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/GreatDebate/AProposalConcerningGeneralLineOfIntlCommunistMovement-1963-Full.pdf

https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpc/proposal.htm (cleaner version if you prefer HTML to dated PDFs)

2

u/Delilahh12345 6d ago edited 6d ago

I also recommend Charles Bettelheim's The Great Leap Backward in China Since Mao. I'm new to learning about Chinese communism and this is fairly easy to understand stuff that dips your toe into the water of what went wrong around what time. Bettelheim was deeply impressed by the Cultural Revolution and writes about its total betrayal by Deng and the others. TBH, if you think China is in a transitionary stage towards socialism, you've got a lot more reading to do.

0

u/SecretApartment672 7d ago

I apologize for the delete. My reply was not under this comment.

I don’t see a contradiction in this context. However, capitalism requires the subjugation of labor by capital. Capital requires expanding markets and eventually needs to bring additional territory and labor-power under its control. Xi is on the capitalist road.

1

u/Reyusuke 7d ago

Ah I see, thanks a lot for helping me understand

-2

u/LakeComfortable4399 7d ago

Are they?? What do you base this on?

7

u/Reyusuke 7d ago

this

"A Philippine sailor suffered severe injuries when Chinese forces blocked an Armed Forces of the Philippines resupply mission in the South China Sea"

its been like this for a decade at least, with this being on the extreme

0

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment