The U.S. empire is headed for a cliff. Maybe it will even collapse within our lifetimes. But that collapse likely won't be the end of capitalism as a system; it has survived the collapse/diminishing of other hegemonic powers before. But what would the next hegemonic power even be? The EU? Russia? Japan?
I want to believe that the U.S. is the last stop on Mr. Capital's Wild Ride, but that seems naive.
China is a socialist country. If they become the leading power, the world will move to socialism.
:inshallah:
China's not really making any effort to push their ideology in other countries. Personally, I think that's best for everyone. The USSR wasted a lot of time and resources trying to impose Socialism in Afghanistan and other places where it was doomed to fail.
More countries will choose socialism, but it will be more from the US collapsing and finally having the option (or need) than from China's actions.
I'm not necessarily saying China will push it's ideology on other countries, but if they get to rewrite the rules of the international economy, they can potentially do so in ways that are more favorable to the socialist- or at least state led, publicly owned- mode of development. This is why you see so much fearmongering about them pushing their "authoritarian" system internationally when they become a peer of the US.
Also, sorry, this is not at all what happened in Afghanistan. There was a socialist revolution that unfortunately fell into infighting, prompting a Soviet intervention that the Soviet leadership didn't want at all.
A "Socialist Revolution" without popular support, which was unable to sustain itself even with the aid of the USSR.
The Soviets realized how absurd and hopeless the situation was, which is why they consistently pushed for more moderate leadership and policies.
It literally was able to sustain itself, and had popular support, at least in the cities. The Afghan socialist government lasted longer than the Soviet Union did, and the only reason they fell in the end was because the US told Yeltsin to cut off their oil and he obliged.
Until it wasn't.
Popular support of a minority of the population.
By 6 months. They literally didn't last a year on their own. For all of that time, they held only small slivers of land.
And that was all years after having renounced socialism.
Ok you're right, cities are dependent on energy so that means they had NO support. Though they did stop being Marxist-Leninists, they never renounced socialism, and the Watan party is still active in Afghan politics to this day. Saying that the PDPA never had a chance or real support is active rewriting of history, and frankly, I think it plays into an imperialist narrative of Afghanistan as some hopelessly backwards primitive hellhole. Afghanistan had a real revolution, and a real chance to be something different than it is now.
They had the support of small social classes, but not the ones needed to control the country. So yes. Nothing.
No. It really isn't.
It's the reality. It's also the Marxist position. Afghanistan was not ready for Revolution, which is why the Soviets were so reluctant to go in and so eager to water down the government's radicalism.
The Imperialist position is "we can save Afghanistan if we just occupy it for one more year," repeated year after year. It's the same one you hold. That enough Soviet aid would have held the country together.
IT. HAD. ONE. Clearly it was ready for Revolution because it fucking happened. Is your Marxist theory from 1855 or something?
The Soviets weren't the imperialists here! America was. They supported reactionary elements, who were themselves deeply fractured, and even still are to this day. The Soviets withdrew their forces years before the PDPA government fell, the only thing they still needed was oil.