Yes.
not really but maybe it will help to weaken US imperialism which may help the left wing forces around the world.
Absolutely, China has been consistently helping socialist countries around the world, and providing an alternative to the exploitative US based institutions such as the IMF. It’s worth noting that China offers its experience for others to learn from, but doesn’t try to impose it on other countries.
The first step towards advancing socialism globally is to roll back US hegemony over the world to allow countries to develop independently and in the interest of their own people. China is playing a pivotal role in achieving this goal. China is also acting as an example that socialist model is more effective than a capitalist one.
I like to say, if you want a different model of socialism than China’s, then you should still support China because China is necessary for other models to survive Western sanctions/embargos. Without China, every developing country would be forced to implement exploitative neoliberal policies, while China enables them to follow their own path.
complicated question, imma pull a socialist brand of enlightened centrism.
china being number one in economics doesn’t directly mean anything that meaningful to revolutionary movements, other than a morale boost to CPs and some sympathy among some people, since china isn’t yet in the phase of sponsoring revolutionary movements out there like ussr did.
buuuuut, since they are a well develop and industrial powerhouse, they have the material conditions to withstand imperialists assaults and keep the revolution alive, whilst doing fair trade with the global south, weakening a little colonial nations like france and bringing about the multipolar world.
I’d say it’s a good start but it’s not enough for any material change. That can only come from the collapse of the American empire (as we know it). Also, imperialism from the global north is not limited to the US.
In the end, it’s not size, but control. The implication that size = control is only applicable in a globalized economy. If the core countries adopt more isolationist policies then China’s influence on core countries will be reduced.
A larger China would strengthen bipolarity/multipolarity, which is a good thing, and would stabilize the situation we are observing currently, and aid in the development of socialist states. But having a strong China wouldn’t necessarily mean the collapse of the core.
It’s a question of quantitative change vs qualitative change, as described by Mao. Reform vs revolution.
