The Soviets did have a lot of cause and fault in the origin of the split, but saying China didn’t do some dirty dealing later on is crazy.
They cut deals with the Americans to ally against the Soviets, gaining recognition for themselves, while burning the other socialist superpower. I don’t know how you can view positively stuff like China’s long term support of Pol Pot, their funding and arming of Afghan guerrilla groups, and invading Vietnam.
The Soviets did have a lot of cause and fault in the origin of the split, but saying China didn’t do some dirty dealing later on is crazy.
Yeah, The USSR can be revisionist, and China’s response to that (re: relations with Vietnam and Cambodia, siding with the US in Afghanistan etc.) Can also be stupid as shit
I can understand why someone would think Vietnam invading Cambodia was a good action. Although I strongly disagree that training counter-revolutionary Afghan guerillas was a strategic mistake by China. I think the context is important. Consider Vogel:
When Deng returned to work in 1977, the Soviet Union and Vietnam appeared increasingly menacing to him as they cooperated to extend their power in Southeast Asia. Vietnam had allowed the Soviet Union to use the ports that the United States had modernized and left behind at Danang and Cam Ranh Bay. This cooperation would give the Soviet Union the freedom to move its ships into the entire area, from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. Missile bases in Vietnam were also constructed and held Soviet missiles aimed at China, with Soviet personnel and electronic equipment on the bases to provide technical assistance. And the Soviet Union kept massive numbers of troops along China’s northern border, a situation that seemed more threatening because, to the west, India was cooperating with the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was poised to invade Afghanistan. Meanwhile Vietnam had already taken over Laos and was preparing to invade China’s ally, Cambodia. […] To Deng, China was in danger of being encircled.
Sure, I would say that in hindsight the invasion of Vietnam and the support of Pol Pot didn’t help much since the USSR dissolved a decade later. Call it “objectively horrid” or “dirty dealing” as a moral argument, but I don’t consider the decisions illogical given the information available at the time. I think it’s unrealistic to say that China shouldn’t have done anything against the USSR as every single bordering country (except Nepal and Bhutan if I’m not forgetting any?), Mongolia, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan, were friendly with the Soviets. I think most would say that China saw cooperating with the US as optimal since they were subjectively not as much as an immediate threat as the USSR, nothing more than that.
Deng then spelled out the experience of Chamberlain and Daladier trying to appease Hitler on the eve of World War II. The lesson: because Britain and France gave a weak response to Hitler’s initial forays, Hitler attacked to the West. To stop a threat, one needs to make a firm response, he advised, and the United States is now giving a weak response. The Soviet Union, he said, is now stronger than the United States and Western Europe combined. The Soviet Union has two weaknesses: it needs grain and technology, and the United States is helping with both, helping resolve its weaknesses and thus increasing the risk of a Soviet attack.
I think its important to emphasis that Deng said “The Soviet Union […] is now stronger than the United States and Western Europe combined”, as in China really saw the USSR as a greater threat than the US. Outside of moral arguments, I still believe the decisions taken given incomplete information were the logically correct actions in China’s interests.
I think its important to emphasis that Deng said “The Soviet Union […] is now stronger than the United States and Western Europe combined”, as in China really saw the USSR as a greater threat than the US. Outside of moral arguments, I still believe the decisions taken given incomplete information were the logically correct actions in China’s interests.
Bolded emphasis mine
Yeah, so that’s how the cookie crumbles, huh? Proletarian internationalism sacrificed on the altar of national “self-interest”. No wonder they continue to do business with the genocidal Zionist Entity today. It echoes this support of genociders in the past in service of “China’s interests”.
Stalin, despite at times having also done things that arguably made him one that was throwing stones in a glass house, really seems to have hit the nail on the head when in 1949 he said:
As far as I know in the CPC there is a thin layer of the proletariat and the nationalist sentiments are very strong and if you will not conduct genuinely Marxist-Leninist class policies and not conduct struggle against bourgeois nationalism, the nationalists will strangle you. Then not only will socialist construction be terminated, China may become a dangerous toy in the hands of American imperialists.
[…] allegations of the leadership of the CPC widely circulated after 1956 to the effect that the leadership of the CPSU and Stalin had an overbearing attitude to the Chinese communists […]
As far as I know China mainly cited Soviet hegemony after Stalin died. I would argue it would be more accurate to change “CPSU and Stalin” to just “CPSU”.
You speak of Sinified socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist socialism. It is another thing, that in the building of socialism it is necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a particular country.
Take how Deng defined MZD thought in the Fallaci interview:
Deng: We also shouldn’t forget that it was Chairman Mao who combined the teachings of Marx and Lenin with the realities of Chinese history — that it was he who applied those principles, creatively, not only to politics but to philosophy, art, literature, and military strategy. Yes, before the 1960s — or, better, up until the late 1950s — some of Chairman Mao’s ideas were, for the most part, correct. Furthermore, many of his principles brought us victory and allowed us to gain power. Then, unfortunately, in the last few years of his life, he committed many grave errors — the Cultural Revolution, above all. And much disgrace was brought upon the party, the country, the people.
Fallaci: Would you permit me to tweak your answer a bit, Mr. Deng? When you say “Chairman Mao’s ideas,” are you referring to what is often defined as “Mao Zedong Thought”?
Deng: Yes. During the Revolutionary War, when the party was still in Yan’an, we gathered together all the ideas and principles advanced by Mao Zedong; we defined them as “Mao Zedong Thought”; and we decided that this thought would guide the party from that point forward. And that is precisely what happened. But, naturally, Mao Zedong Thought was not created only by Mao Zedong. What I mean is: even though most of the ideas are his, other old revolutionaries also contributed to the formation and the development of those concepts — Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Zhu De, to name the most important among them.
If you’re to believe Deng’s definitions, I think it defines MZD thought to be completely compliant with with taking “consideration the specific features of a particular country”.
Stalin continues:
Socialism is a science, necessarily having, like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and the building of socialism is destined to failure.
What are these general laws of building of socialism.
Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.
Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.
Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.
The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.
Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.
Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.
I can see arguments that China accomplished all 7 points. (Although 2 and 4 are arguably partially rolled back for reform and opening up)
Bourgeois nationalism
Haven’t read Lenin’s works on this yet so could be somewhat ignorant. “Bourgeois”, which I understand to mean that it’s used to promote national unity instead of class struggle. After 1981, sure one could say that class struggle was deprioritized and any nationalism used could be considered Bourgeois (although I personally see no evidence), but I believe at the time in 1979, just 3 years after the GPCR it would be hard to argue China didn’t focus on class struggle. If anything, I think most would believe the GPCR went too far with class struggle. I don’t think nationalism itself is bad if it’s used in the interests of communism. For example Lenin supported anti-colonial nationalism, and during the Great Patriotic War I’m sure that nationalist propaganda was used, and I assume the same was done in China as there few resources and literacy rates were low.
China may become a dangerous toy in the hands of American imperialists
I can understand one believing this up till ~2010 but China now seems to be the main opponent of America which I think refutes America ever having controlled China. The governments just happened to ally because of common interests.
Proletarian internationalism
China arguably proportional to it’s economy helped Vietnam during the war more than the Warsaw Pact did, ~$20 billion in aid. By 1979 many didn’t consider the USSR to be lead by a communist party at that point. Deng’s views in the Fallaci interview again:
Deng: You know, it’s a good thing that no Communist party feels itself to be patriarchally at the center of the movement - that there’s no center, no boss. At the outset, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union filled that role, but it is no longer the party led by Lenin. It is no accident that we regard the Soviet Union as an imperialist country and… yes, imperialist - socialist-imperialist. And since the country led by that party has become an imperialist country, it’s questionable if that party can still be considered a Communist party.
From their point of view, China was a communist country fighting against an imperialist country. I think it would be hard to argue from their perspective it’s harming proletarian internationalism even if many disagree. It was 600 million proletariat in China against ~350 million in the Warsaw pact? plus ~50 mil in Vietnam. If you count total number of proletariat (which yeah I think is pretty flawed) I could see an argument that it was the Warsaw Pact against internationalism by stationing ships and missiles in Vietnam targeting China, and Vietnam for allowing the Warsaw Pact to do so.
continue to do business with the genocidal Zionist Entity today
I get where you’re coming from, but in my opinion by showing that China is willing to trade with anyone, even if they commit genocide, it gives Russia and Iran confidence that they can have a reliable trading partner when NATO countries sanction them. I would argue that Russia and Iran’s economy would be much worse off if they didn’t think China was reliable. I disagree with China on complying with the UN sanctions on Korea because of this. I don’t know much about supply chains but imo sanctioning the Zionists probably wouldn’t have that big of a practical effect as seen that Russia is mostly doing fine despite being targeted by the NATO economies. Imo NATO countries would likely supply the Zionists anything they need, both civilian and military (and arguably already do). Imo the increased confidence of Iran having arguably the most reliable trading partner to back up their economy, and the confidence to give supplies to (nationalist?) liberation movements in like Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, and Iraq, is more important than “moral superiority” China would gain over sanctioning Israel. I’m sure the many appreciate Iranian ballistic missile production and the Hezbollah artillery duals. I could even see an argument that those actions hurt the Zionist economy more than Chinese sanctions would (although they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive).
The Soviets did have a lot of cause and fault in the origin of the split, but saying China didn’t do some dirty dealing later on is crazy.
They cut deals with the Americans to ally against the Soviets, gaining recognition for themselves, while burning the other socialist superpower. I don’t know how you can view positively stuff like China’s long term support of Pol Pot, their funding and arming of Afghan guerrilla groups, and invading Vietnam.
All of those actions were objectively horrid.
Yeah, The USSR can be revisionist, and China’s response to that (re: relations with Vietnam and Cambodia, siding with the US in Afghanistan etc.) Can also be stupid as shit
I can understand why someone would think Vietnam invading Cambodia was a good action. Although I strongly disagree that training counter-revolutionary Afghan guerillas was a strategic mistake by China. I think the context is important. Consider Vogel:
Sure, I would say that in hindsight the invasion of Vietnam and the support of Pol Pot didn’t help much since the USSR dissolved a decade later. Call it “objectively horrid” or “dirty dealing” as a moral argument, but I don’t consider the decisions illogical given the information available at the time. I think it’s unrealistic to say that China shouldn’t have done anything against the USSR as every single bordering country (except Nepal and Bhutan if I’m not forgetting any?), Mongolia, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan, were friendly with the Soviets. I think most would say that China saw cooperating with the US as optimal since they were subjectively not as much as an immediate threat as the USSR, nothing more than that.
I think its important to emphasis that Deng said “The Soviet Union […] is now stronger than the United States and Western Europe combined”, as in China really saw the USSR as a greater threat than the US. Outside of moral arguments, I still believe the decisions taken given incomplete information were the logically correct actions in China’s interests.
Bolded emphasis mine
Yeah, so that’s how the cookie crumbles, huh? Proletarian internationalism sacrificed on the altar of national “self-interest”. No wonder they continue to do business with the genocidal Zionist Entity today. It echoes this support of genociders in the past in service of “China’s interests”.
Stalin, despite at times having also done things that arguably made him one that was throwing stones in a glass house, really seems to have hit the nail on the head when in 1949 he said:
Source: https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv16n1/china.htm
As far as I know China mainly cited Soviet hegemony after Stalin died. I would argue it would be more accurate to change “CPSU and Stalin” to just “CPSU”.
Take how Deng defined MZD thought in the Fallaci interview:
If you’re to believe Deng’s definitions, I think it defines MZD thought to be completely compliant with with taking “consideration the specific features of a particular country”.
Stalin continues:
I can see arguments that China accomplished all 7 points. (Although 2 and 4 are arguably partially rolled back for reform and opening up)
Haven’t read Lenin’s works on this yet so could be somewhat ignorant. “Bourgeois”, which I understand to mean that it’s used to promote national unity instead of class struggle. After 1981, sure one could say that class struggle was deprioritized and any nationalism used could be considered Bourgeois (although I personally see no evidence), but I believe at the time in 1979, just 3 years after the GPCR it would be hard to argue China didn’t focus on class struggle. If anything, I think most would believe the GPCR went too far with class struggle. I don’t think nationalism itself is bad if it’s used in the interests of communism. For example Lenin supported anti-colonial nationalism, and during the Great Patriotic War I’m sure that nationalist propaganda was used, and I assume the same was done in China as there few resources and literacy rates were low.
I can understand one believing this up till ~2010 but China now seems to be the main opponent of America which I think refutes America ever having controlled China. The governments just happened to ally because of common interests.
China arguably proportional to it’s economy helped Vietnam during the war more than the Warsaw Pact did, ~$20 billion in aid. By 1979 many didn’t consider the USSR to be lead by a communist party at that point. Deng’s views in the Fallaci interview again:
From their point of view, China was a communist country fighting against an imperialist country. I think it would be hard to argue from their perspective it’s harming proletarian internationalism even if many disagree. It was 600 million proletariat in China against ~350 million in the Warsaw pact? plus ~50 mil in Vietnam. If you count total number of proletariat (which yeah I think is pretty flawed) I could see an argument that it was the Warsaw Pact against internationalism by stationing ships and missiles in Vietnam targeting China, and Vietnam for allowing the Warsaw Pact to do so.
I get where you’re coming from, but in my opinion by showing that China is willing to trade with anyone, even if they commit genocide, it gives Russia and Iran confidence that they can have a reliable trading partner when NATO countries sanction them. I would argue that Russia and Iran’s economy would be much worse off if they didn’t think China was reliable. I disagree with China on complying with the UN sanctions on Korea because of this. I don’t know much about supply chains but imo sanctioning the Zionists probably wouldn’t have that big of a practical effect as seen that Russia is mostly doing fine despite being targeted by the NATO economies. Imo NATO countries would likely supply the Zionists anything they need, both civilian and military (and arguably already do). Imo the increased confidence of Iran having arguably the most reliable trading partner to back up their economy, and the confidence to give supplies to (nationalist?) liberation movements in like Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, and Iraq, is more important than “moral superiority” China would gain over sanctioning Israel. I’m sure the many appreciate Iranian ballistic missile production and the Hezbollah artillery duals. I could even see an argument that those actions hurt the Zionist economy more than Chinese sanctions would (although they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive).