I know I’ve read something Carlos Martinez wrote that was pretty good at discussing the material reasons for the split, but for the life of me I can’t find it; maybe someone else knows what I’m talking about.
It didn’t come out of nowhere, but Khrushchev recalling Soviet advisors and tech transfers was a HUGE provocation. China had and still does highly value advancing their technological position. Reform and Opening Up was as much about advancing their tech capabilities as it was developing the productive forces. Also, there really was an ideological difference over the USSR seeking peaceful accommodation with the west (ironic given how China’s position in the 70s overshot the USSR’s stance on this by a good margin). That’s not the whole story, just a couple parts that I can recall.
It’s why Trotskyism lives in my mind like Homer and the clown college ad.
Mao, being a true adherent of Socialism in One Country, knew: there can only be one.
Iirc, China used to support Japan and the JCP until the early 1980’s. Mostly bc of the Soviet-Sino split and bc of Japan’s economy. I guess there was a small period where China, Japan and the Koreas could have created their own economic bloc. But that quickly ended, the USSR ended the split in 1988 with Gorbachev visiting China, and Japan’s economy got fucked.
I still don’t understand how anybody can defend the foreign policy of the PRC at the time.
the PRC is still here, the USSR is not
And if the PRC hadn’t supported its destruction maybe the USSR would still be here
Cool. I guess every socialist project should just ally with the US and fight all of the other socialist projects. Down with international solidarity, up with helping the Imperial Core keep its hegemony! /s
Now the PRC remains with much diminished allies, having assisted in the ruination of Afghanistan, driving Vietnam away, and with NATO still being the dominant force in the world.
And Chinese policy during that time was a major factor in why that happened. Not the only one, but the USSR didn’t fall apart in a vacuum.
The USSR didn’t fall apart, it was dismantled top-down. Important difference IMO
It was definitely initiated from the top down I would say. But at the end of the day, whatever mass strikes, work actions, and army mutinies occured were not enough to stop Yeltsin and the west from dissolving the SU into what it is now.
I don’t want to mean this as blaming the average Soviet citizen but the fact is; whether from apathy with the old system, or naive hope that westernising would bring prosperity, or being outgunned by Yeltsins military, they and their organisations were sadly unable to defend the Soviet republics. All communists need to take sober lessons here. If it is the first task of the workers’ party to instill a revolutionary spirit in the working class, the second and even harder one must be to convert that spirit into a mass commitment to the socialist project.
Biggest L of the USSR in my opinion is its lack of democratization over the years. After WW2, the soviet government and institutions were very much respected by the people, and the country well established in time and stability, and top spheres of institutions being too independent and not committed to a more, well, soviet (as in workers council) form of government, is a huge loss that paved the way for Glasnost, Perestroika and eventually the dissolution. The book “Socialism Betrayed” makes a really good depiction of this in my opinion.
None of this, though, means that the dissolution of the USSR was desired by its peoples for the vast majority of the people, with some possible exceptions in the Baltics and Georgia due to a history of nationalism and Russophobia being exploited during Glasnost. It’s not a color revolution as happened in, say, Poland. It was a centralised, institutional process that didn’t even involve the people of the country. It’s because of this that it’s important to me to make a point not to use the word “fall” or “collapse” of the USSR, and to make very clear that the dissolution didn’t happen because of any economic failure or due to people’s will as so many people believe, but that it was dissolved top down by a minority of individuals in the government against the overwhelming majority in an antidemocratic fashion, with no economic crisis involved other than the small one generated by Perestroika itself.
Generally I feel which the Sino Soviet split, USSR was right for the wrong reason, PRC wrong for the right reasons.
What?
Khrushchev (Cornman) was a cringe revisionist, but he did some good stuff. China was right on being critical of Cornman, but their actions after that were cringe.
Between that and the invasion of Vietnam, China was really brain broken during that time.
It’s just political realignment. When the US is strong, we support the USSR. When the USSR is strong and threaten our interest, we support the US to keep the Soviet ambition in check.
Play both sides and coming out on top have always been China’s strategy to defend its national sovereignty as a weak nation since independence. We only have two allies: the People’s Liberation Army and Navy.
The fact is that we’ve won - you can’t say that about the USSR. To win, you have to get rid of that idealist fantasy and willingto play dirty when it comes down it.
It’s just political realignment. When the US is strong, we support the USSR. When the USSR is strong and threaten our interest, we support the US to keep the Soviet ambition in check.
The US was strong, and yet, the PRC sided with the US. Also, I’m not really sure how siding with the US in Afghanistan and attacking Vietnam helped the PRC or socialists in the world.
Also, I am going to note that it’s not just the USSR whom the PRC aligned against, but national liberation movements of other countries that fought against colonialism.
The fact is that we’ve won
Has the PRC won, though? NATO is still up, in a dominant position, carrying out genocides. The allows of the USSR suffered massively from the loss, with many now being loyal vassals of the worst genocidal empire in the world.
I am also going to note that the USSR DID try to ally with the US. That led to a destruction of its industries, death of millions, and many more plights.
I’m not really sure how siding with the US in Afghanistan and attacking Vietnam helped the PRC or socialists in the world.
Those were part of the broader proxy wars to crush the USSR.
A lot of this really just comes down to how politics work in the real world. None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
The photo that OP posted happened just a year after the Prague Spring when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, and months after the USSR and China clashed in a border skirmish in 1969. From China’s perspective, the Soviets are showing their imperialist ambitions and they have to be stopped at all cost.
This is not a communist perspective.
This is just a national chauvinist perspective.
You’re arguing that the actions of the PRC state made the PRC state safer and more powerful.
Others are arguing that this was done at the expense of the power, well-being and lives of dozens of other communist parties and hundreds of millions of working people they represented. That the PRC may have gained power but Communists as a whole lost it and millions of workers were betrayed into abject poverty and left at the mercy of rapacious capitalist imperialists in the process.
Simply saying “but it worked the PRC state did get safer and more powerful by betraying hundreds of millions of workers to the depredations of capital” isn’t something any communist should be happy with.
Those were part of the broader proxy wars to crush the USSR
Cool. I guess destroying your allies on behalf of the worst empire of the world is a great strategy. I suppose, you would support another socialist project nuking the PRC to ‘play both sides’.
A lot of this really just comes down to how politics work in the real world. None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
Okay, so, do you suggest that the USSR should have abandoned helping anti-colonial liberation movements around the world and put effort into just allying with the US, liberalising its economy, and destroying the PRC, preferably before it even formed?
You are yet to actually explain how destroying your allies is helpful.
It is also rather clear that you aren’t exactly interested in international solidarity or in socialism prevailing in the world in general.The photo that OP posted happened just a year after the Prague Spring when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, and months after the USSR and China clashed in a border skirmish in 1969. From China’s perspective, the Soviets are showing their imperialist ambitions and they have to be stopped at all cost.
So, the PRC helping the most prolific imperialist force in the world that is carrying out genocides even today, and which has been engaging in colonialism in general by destroying its own allies is completely fine realpolitik that everybody should engage in, but the USSR attempting to prevent liberalisation and potential alignment of a state with NATO is bad? I guess the USSR should have instead armed a pro-NATO militant org there instead.
Apparently, the imperialism of NATO shouldn’t have been stopped at all costs, if you are to be believed.
EDIT: It honestly feels like you are trying to just invent a way to present the PRC’s foreign policy at that time as some sort of masterful 10D chess strategy, when it was clearly a major misplay, whether you consider realpolitik or not.
The best way to oppose social imperialism is to enthusiastically support regular imperialism
This is especially silly if you consider that the USSR was helping other countries fight against colonialism, while the PRC both helped the premier imperialist force in the world to win in Afghanistan, and engaged in what could be argued to be imperialism against Vietnam.
By that logic, the USSR should have nuked the PRC the moment it took action against Vietnam to ‘play both sides’ and to fight against PRC’s imperialism/‘imperialism’.
That was sarcasm, I think
There’s an element of realpolitik that states have to conduct, and the path China took certainly managed to preserve the state in the midst of a hostile world, which can’t be discounted. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only path that could have worked, potentially.
The realignment towards the US had massive negative consequences for socialist movements around the world. If, in a better timeline, the Split hadn’t happened, or if it had been healed, so many better things could have potentially happened.
Probably a lot of complicated geopolitical shit, but Khruschev is right there so why not just blame him?
Corn is a tool of ultimate power, uncaring for what ends its used. It built Khrushchev but also Xi. We need to deeply consider these lessons.
Good point, I think I will!
