Beijing argued that the existing global system does not need to be replaced or rebuilt.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
16 points (100.0% liked)
Sino
8442 readers
85 users here now
This is a comm for news, information, and discussion on anything China and Chinese related.
Rules:
-
Imperialism will result in a ban.
-
Sinophobic content will be removed.
Newcomer Welcome Wiki
FAQ:
China Guides:
Multimedia:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Why would I laugh? My impression is that that the UN has remained a terrain of struggle, even as that struggle was marginalized under US hegemony.
The PRC has consistently outlined what kind of international order they are trying to build to replace the imperialist world order, and how they intend to build it: namely, an international order based on mutual sovereignty rather than hegemony, with a materialist framework for human rights rather than a culturalist one. As US hegemony crumbles, I can't think of any good reason to abandon the ground that it's ceding in the UN.
Parliament is also a terrain of struggle. A bourgeois suprastate apparatus being a terrain of struggle doesnt it can be reformed instead of smashed and replaced with proletarian suprastate apparatus. An international order built on mutual sovereignty is a step up from the western empire based on gluttonous plunder, but also still a step below a foreign policy based on revolutionary solidarity.
But the UN exists in a very different context than parliament, and China denouncing the UN would neither smash nor replace it.
The UN has contained proletarian states since its founding, in which the USSR played a major role. What has given the UN its bourgeois character has not been its form as a suprastate apparatus, but its content of bourgeois states. As the content and character of not just the UN but of the world have been determined by hegemonic imperialism, it is this hegemony that must be dismantled in order to make conditions capable of sustaining international revolutionary solidarity instead of crushing and subverting it.
I never said that China merely denouncing the UN would smash or replace it
I just think China saying "the existing global system does not need to be replaced or rebuilt" is not a good sign and shows a lack of will on their part to dismantle the organs of imperialist rule theyve been moving towards the centre of (e.g. the UN security council, the IMF, the WTO, etc).
And if the bourgeois content of the UN is determined by the bourgeois states which are members (which I disagree with, imo thats like saying parliaments bourgeois content comes merely from the bourgeois MPs) china's statement here doesnt make me think they will take aim at this problem, at best they seem to think the problem will go away if they wait, at worst they dont seem to consider it a problem at all