Podcast recommendations, episode discussions, and struggle sessions about which shows need to be cancelled.
Rest In Power, Michael Brooks.
The way this division manifested really aligned China with some dark forces, it would seem.
You've nailed it. It's just literally this. Could've been another way, but it wasn't.
Also get ready because season 6 will be about Angola, where China backed UNITA which while fighting the portuguese also collaborated with them against the soviet and cuba backed MPLA.
The soviets were 100% in the right in the sino soviet split. Whatever issues the Chinese govrrnment had with the soviets (The arrogance of the Soviet government in dealing with other communist countries including the refusal to consider others equal partners in building, and disagreement about the implementation of communism) were rendered totally moot by the Chinese government deciding to buddy up to the Americans who were openly anticommunist and in this capacity supporting basically every major anticommunist movement in the second and third world. I simply don't accept that your problem with the soviets is their revisionism hen you're willing to ship guns to Pol Pot and help the Great Satan kill communists in Afghanistan
I agree with you, though I'd say that the chinese were right in their issues for the split, which you outlined, but completely wrong in their conduct after it. Their original points aren't rendered moot because of what happened afterwards but they don't justify what they did either, which I think is what you're saying.
I do actually think that the PRC can't legitimately claim to be opposed to revisionism and support the Khmer Rouge and the United States against other communists. I just don't accept that their opposition to revisionism was legitimate in that context. Whatever issues they had with revisionism were clearly secondary to other concerns and one of those concerns was clearly just spiting the Soviets. I, in a way, am claiming that at least one of the stated motivations given by representatives of the PRC was a lie.
But you're right that I don't think they were lying about their problem with being viewed essentially as secondary to the "Real" soviet revolution, and I do think this was a legitimate complaint to have. But as you say, I find their actions in response to this to be deeply unjustified.
China's foreign policy was completely unhinged during this period.
The transition from leadership by a war hero guiding a fledgling country through difficult circumstances into a more "relaxed" leadership governing over a more stable and peaceful country is a conundrum that AES states struggle with. Mao attempted to prevent that transition by any means necessary, and splitting with the Soviets, training the Khmer Rouge, and normalizing with the US were driven by that fear, fear of a Chinese Khrushchev.
From a big picture, outside view, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's easier to say the Khrushchev and Deng were the result of changing material conditions, and no matter how hard one tries to stop it, changing conditions lead to changing leadership.
However, if you're the wartime leader it's harder to see that, not only for self-interested reasons, but also just in terms of personal experience and personality. The person most capable of leading the revolution to victory is generally not a person who is easy to convince to stop seeing threats everywhere. I agree with what seems to be the prominent strain of thought on Hexbear that people like Stalin and Mao were necessary but also that modern China is socialist. Unfortunately, I don't really know what the solution is to get from point A to point B other than waiting for the leadership to die.
Imo Mao really put the cart before the horse with his concept of "permanent revolution," as if the end goal of leftism is to create ideologically pure revolutionaries. The goal is to create a more peaceful and equitable world where we don't need revolutionaries.
In any case this is a definite black spot on the PRC and it's worth noting that it's history is pretty messy in general. Don't think you can or should defend everything.
and normalizing with the US were driven by that fear, fear of a Chinese Khrushchev
This makes no sense. Siding with the world's genocidal hegemon against the anti-colonial movements is much, much worse than a 'Chinese Khrushchev'.
Yes, but the US didn't represent the ideological strain they were trying to root out. Conciliation with the USSR would make one look like they agreed with the USSR's path and wanted to do the same in China.
I'm not saying it made sense or was in any way excusable, but that paranoia was a factor in it.
but the US didn't represent the ideological strain they were trying to root out
If you aren't trying to root out that ideological strain - of supporting colonial subjugation of the world by the European powers, - you should be the one rooted out.
Conciliation with the USSR would make one look like they agreed with the USSR's path and wanted to do the same in China
By this logic, they found it more acceptable appearing to agree with genocides and colonialism of NATO.
These excuses do not work.
Been saying this for years now, on sino-Soviet split issues always side with the Soviets. (Not an absolute rule but I've yet to stumble on something where the Soviets were on the wrong side and the pre-21st century PRC was on the right side)
It seems to me that China's one and only W from this era was surviving to become the 21st century PRC.
History proves them right then 🤷
I don't think it's that simple. It's impossible to say now how much or if any of their mistakes were actually necessary to that survival.
If losing four decades of progress while waiting for the PRC to reach parity with the US and establish multipolarity when the USSR was already at near parity, then china sacrificed the interests of humanity in service of its own, full stop
We passed 1.5C ffs
fuck off, china did what they thought it was best for them, and now they're positioned as beacon for the global south while the USSR got dismantled by a freaking drunkard, that's a clear sign that they were not even close to near parity with the west.
The ones responsible for the misery in the world are primarily the western working class, the privileged henchmen of the bourgeoisie, not china ffs.
china did what they thought it was best for them
So does NATO with things like colonialism. So did Germany, Britain, France, the US before the formation of NATO.
Doing what's best for you, or what you think is best for you does not, in fact, make those actions good.
and now they're positioned as beacon for the global south
What does being a 'beacon' entail here?
Other countries are not in a position to do what the PRC did (make itself the most attractive option for foreign investments at the exclusion of other countries (including the imperial core)), and the PRC does not seem to be supplying arms or anything like that to them to fight off NATO, nor is the PRC taking military action to help anti-colonial and socialist movements around the world.
The successes of the PRC, while very significant, do not seem to play much of a role outside of the PRC.
The ones responsible for the misery in the world are primarily the western working class, the privileged henchmen of the bourgeoisie, not china ffs.
It's primarily the western bourgeoisie, and the western treatlerite aristocracy comes after, but sure.
Not exactly an excuse to do stuff like literally supporting NATO (and, by extension, the western bourgeoisie), including by doing stuff like helping the Mujahideen against socialists in Afghanistan and fighting against Vietnam.
The world being resubjugated by the imperial core, millions dead, anti-colonial movements largely stopped in their tracks is not something that I would call 'history proving them right'. That also ignores the fact that having a privatised economy does have significant negative consequences for working-class people, including the lack of guaranteed housing - something that disturbingly many people like to ignore.
The CPSU is the one that built a world where all socialism revolved around and depended on their support and then just sort of gave up. It was a catastrophic error on the part of the Soviets to place themselves incontestably at the helm, and the fruit of that error is the near-instant collapse of the entire second world. If China had remained aligned with the USSR, it wouldn't have stopped the party's internal issues. China would most likely end up just like Vietnam, forced to implement market reforms.
The CPSU is the one that built a world where all socialism revolved around and depended on their support and then just sort of gave up. It was a catastrophic error on the part of the Soviets to place themselves incontestably at the helm
Okay, so, the PRC is not doing that. Now, the presence of socialist and anti-colonial movements in the world is much weaker (which the PRC did contribute to directly). You do understand how this is worse, right?
The Soviet Union's colossal fuckup created the world we're in now. China's efforts one way or the other have been tiny, and while I'm largely not a fan it is absolutely nothing compared to the way the Soviet Union squandered the strongest position socialism has ever been in globally, and ushered in a period of utterly unchallengeable American dominance.
I can only pray that we get another revolutionary moment as big as postwar decolonization and that whatever exists at that time doesn't waste it again.
The Soviet Union's colossal fuckup created the world we're in now
The USSR helping socialist and anti-colonial movements of the world doesn't seem to have been a contributing factor in either its fall or NATO becoming stronger.
The PRC is yet to contribute to international socialist and anti-colonial struggle to the extent the USSR did.
Helping socialist and anti-colonial movements largely benefitted the Soviet Union and it was in a perfect place to do so. The problem is that, especially post-Stalin, it did not treat them as equal partners or set them up for independent success. It created dependants, and this was great for its own position in the cold war game, but left the whole socialist world in shambles without it. This was an issue with most of their allies, and caused a number of major geopolitical rifts.
Internationalism doesn't mean shit if you build it in a manner where it all falls apart almost instantaneously, and in fact I think the way the USSR lost pretty much all the ground gained in the biggest decolonial moment in modern history is an unforgivable sin.
I do wish the PRC would do more, and I think that most of its post-split policy can be summed up as stupid anti-soviet realpolitik, but I also don't think there's really been many viable moments (outside of Palestine) where the PRC's support would leave a lasting impact since before the fall of the USSR. I want more, but resources shouldn't be wasted on hopeless projects that turn China into a pariah in the meantime.
The USSR itself was also extremely sparing and strategic with its international efforts prior to the second world war, because it was in a vulnerable position. This was the basis for the concept of socialism in one country. Time will tell if the opportunity arises again.
The problem is that, especially post-Stalin, it did not treat them as equal partners or set them up for independent success. It created dependants, and this was great for its own position in the cold war game, but left the whole socialist world in shambles without it
Notably, the PRC is not taking any better action in this regard, and no alternatives from the 'the USSR helping anti-colonial liberation movements of the world was somehow bad' camp seem to be produced.
Also, what would be your solution when it comes to those movements not becoming dependent on the USSR in a world where NATO exists? Do you think that the USSR had the power to instantaneously make those countries as powerful as itself?
Internationalism doesn't mean shit if you build it in a manner where it all falls apart almost instantaneously, and in fact I think the way the USSR lost pretty much all the ground gained in the biggest decolonial moment in modern history is an unforgivable sin
It did not 'fall apart almost instantaneously', and it did not 'lose pretty much all the ground gained'. They are still better off than before their liberation.
It's also silly how you pretend as if the USSR helping those movements is an 'unforgivable sin', while the PRC helping NATO, such as by aiding the Mujahideen and fighting Vietnam, is somehow not.
but I also don't think there's really been many viable moments (outside of Palestine) where the PRC's support would leave a lasting impact
Okay, so, you expect the USSR to make other countries as capable in terms of economics and military as itself in the blink of an eye, but you also want to make excuses for the PRC being either unable or unwilling to do much more realistic things?
Apply the same standard to both, and either admit that the PRC has not only not produced independent/equal anti-colonial powers and should be criticised for that, or admit that the USSR having the liberated countries depend on it was better than what the PRC has been doing.
Perhaps the Biafra conflict?
This is a completely uneducated guess based off of the vibes in the chart below. I have literally zero knowledge on the topic and this spitball assertion should not be taken remotely serious.
Things had to be so fucked up there to say that Colonialist France, fascist Portugal, post-6-day-war Israel, Apartheid South Africa, and the fascist settler statelet Rhodesia were on the right side of history with the PRC.
The sino soviet split is one of the elephants in the room of modern leftist discourse. But hey, if China manages to become the world’s leader and spreads world wide communism, that era will be forgiven I imagine
Socialist states absolutely can and have done cringe. Western socialists ("socialists") need to understand that even when they fuck up that's still "our guy" in charge [the party]. Unfortunately, the power received in victory includes the power to fuck things up. Look it in the eye, understand it, don't repeat the same mistakes. Any westerner who starts using the word "socialist" to describe themselves must be held to this.
With people on the more liberal end, be more smug than mean:
"Oh you're 'socialist'/'anti-capitalist' too? Yeah of course the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and Vietnamese (etc) revolutions are fascinating cause they went out and actually defeated capitalism. You don't like that some of them were revisionist? I don't agree with every decision that was made after the revolution either, that would be ridiculous with hindsight and all that. It's definitely worth discussing what went on and understanding what the decision making process was in the circumstances of those countries.If we are successful at overthrowing capitalism like you just said, we are probably going to be faced with some similar decisions. It's also important that we contrast with the more palatable movements like in Chile, Burkina Faso, and Central America that ended in failure."
Some resentment should be reserved for sabotaging the Soviet Union.
I’ll defend them against the US and the West, but I find it hard to be a die hard supporter of China the way some people are, considering its history in the sino-soviet split and, well, their lack of vocal ideological support for communism on the world stage
their lack of vocal ideological support for communism on the world stage
This is the biggest caveat to China support for me, too. Like I've read and understand the arguments that if China were to support global socialist movements the way the USSR did, they would lose a lot of the leverage and power that they've accrued for themselves in the past couple of decades - but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow them supporting right wing governments against socialist guerillas. If they're not going to send PLA volunteers to aid the rebels then at the very least they should use their neutrality to play some wishy washy word games about how they can't get involved!
Plus, I think there needs to be a reckoning with the fact that in every way that matters China is the largest power in the world right now. America's hegemonic status has been broken for a long time and the rest of the world is just figuring it out, China might see it in its interest to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency or whatever but they absolutely have room to be making moves that advance the socialist cause.
Why should China be advancing the socialist cause directly in whatever nation? This is precisely the biggest blunder the USSR did and a historical lesson we should have learned already, why keep insisting on this. China already does their part by leading with example and proving that socialism is a superior system, the responsibility for liberating one own nation falls in the shoulders of the respective nation citizens. If a country wants a revolution they can have it, if not they won't, the Chinese wanted a revolution and they had it, Russians wanted a revolution and they had it, etc...
Why should China be advancing the socialist cause directly in whatever nation?
Then why should any socialist support China?
Because the vast majority of socialists who can read this reside in imperial entities who wish to see China crushed. Part of the socialist struggle for internationalism is also defending anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles abroad, even if they're not perfect, the net effect of opposing our current system in a real way is more important.
The vast majority of us reading are fucking peasants who need China to be the ray of light.
I think the lack of vocal calls for communism is more a strategic necessity than anything else. The US and Europe love idly speculating about regime change in China. Any active support on China's part will get spun as imperialism, and used to justify realizing those dreams of regime change. Do business with whatever institution is recognized as legitimate, keep the communism within your own boarders, and you can more safely entrench yourself within world systems.
I don’t think China not going publicly mask off about its gommunism, allowing it to escape western imperialism, is a convincing argument.
Keeping to yourself has more benefits than that. Active support always comes with the risk. A far off power throwing its weight into a set of conditions it doesn't have an on-the-ground, real time understanding off. There's always unintended consequences. The US has spent the last half-century demonstrating how that sours your global perception. China keeps to itself. China doesn't presume to know local conditions better than locals do. And hey, if local communists do manage to take power, China is there, ready and willing to do business with them.
This is the correct take.
The PRC was the 2nd successful anti-colonial revolution. They went through decades of struggle to free themselves, and think that every country can't skip this step, or rely on others to do it for them. Non-interventionism and maintaining trade relations with any and every country has served them well since their founding and it continues to do so.
Yeah, well communism with Chinese characteristics is just, like, do some capitalist bullshit with your communism. Shockingly this leads to crimes against humanity.
Ehh, whether one believes that Reform and Opening Up lead to capitalist restoration in China, or not, is kind of immaterial here.
The Sino-Soviet Split, which is what Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam was an expression of, is far more pertinent, and predates the Reform period by a couple of decades.