Questions about the Sino-Soviet split
Isn’t the worst socialism still better than the best capitalism? Why try to destroy “revisionist” socialism when you have capitalism to destroy? Wouldn’t it be easier to fix a revisionist socialist country than trying to convince a capitalist one to be socialist?
You're viewing a single thread.
the way many western communists think of the split is deeply inaccurate and damaging. cpc propagandists and their (former) allies in western intelligence services have pretty much succeeded in creating a ridiculously negative image of the ussrs role in that development. they accuse the soviet union of ridiculous bullshit like "social imperialism" while managing to completely ignore that it was the chinese side who were the ones to betray proletarian internationalism, anti-imperialism and possibly even socialism as a whole.
the continued propagation of these narratives in an era where the ussr sadly no longer exists to defend itself against them (in no small part due to the collaboration of the cpc-traitors with western imperialism) is a historic injustice and truly shows the levels of immorality those interests have sunk to.
the communist party of china (cpc), under the leadership of mao zedong and his successors, accused the soviet union of "social imperialism" and deviation from the principles of marxism. however, the beijing seemed to have forgotten how back during the war of resistance against japanese aggression the chinese were only surviving thanks to food aid from the soviet people, as well as the fact that it was the heroic red army that liberated manchuria for them. instead, in an unparalleled act of ingratitude, both to the ussr and to the domestic victims of japanese imperialist criminals, they decided to support the japanese, who by then were already loyal dogs of the americans, in the kuril Islands dispute and other international issues.
this, combined with their actions after the visit of notorious war criminal richard nixon to the chinese capital proves that their rhetoric in this regard was merely a smokescreen to cover up the chinese governments own betrayal of proletarian unity and its support for imperialist forces around the world.
generally speaking, the term "social imperialism" ironically fits much better to describe the policy of beijing, since for a good chunk of the xxth century they never failed to side with western imperialism while moralizing and pointing fingers at soviet bases in mongolia.
for example, after the chilean coup of 1973, the cpc provided diplomatic support to the fascist dictator augusto pinochet. this was in stark contrast to the soviet union, which had provided aid to allende's government and condemned the putsch. similarly, the cpc provided support to the murderous apartheid regime in south africa, as well as their unita puppets in angola and the mujahedeen in afghanistan. these groups were all fighting against socialist or anti-imperialist forces, and the chinese supporting for them was a clear betrayal of socialist principles.
generally speaking, the soviet union always provided crucial support to anti-colonial movements around the world and was committed to helping aspiring socialist revolutions everywhere, oftentimes leading to pro-soviet states (in western and chinese propaganda erroneously referred as "soviet satellites") having much higher living standards than the ussr itself. meanwhile, the only people willing to fight for the prc were reactionary clanists like siyaad barre, compradores like jonas savimbi, misogynist drug barons like gulbeddin hekmatyar and utter monsters like pol pot.
the other major line of chinese criticism towards the soviet union, the one regarding revisionism, sadly has quite a lot of truth to it. khrushchev and his collaborators had been incredibly damaging to world socialism and should obviously be denounced. nevertheless, beijings own record on revisionism was equally as bad, if not worse, than that of the ussr. after maos death in 1976, the cpc, under the leadership of deng xiaoping, implemented a series of neoliberal economic reforms that completely superseded even the worst excesses of khrushchevs liberalizations. these reforms, which included the privatization of state-owned enterprises and the opening up of china to foreign investment, led to the creation of a new capitalist class in china and dramatic widening of economic inequality. even today, the wages of the chinese proletariat are purposefully depressed for the benefit of western imperialist exploiters and many workers, especially those toiling abroad, have to live in conditions not even fit for animals. the county has an unemployment rate of 6% (youth unemployment rate at 20%), an issue literally unheard of in soviet society, and the right to strike has been removed from the constitution in the mid 1980s.
and as the cherry on top, beijing has established diplomatic relations with the illegal settler-colonial state of israel and has continued being the occupations biggest trading partner despite the current genocide. even in its darkest moments the ussr wouldnt have stopped so low.
currently, communists should still critically support the prc and its allies in any efforts against american hegemony, but for any historically literate person it should be clear that the soviet union was the correct side during the split. if the ussr hadnt been strangled to death by the west and their collaborators in china, the world would be a much better place.
the occupations biggest trading partner despite the current genocide.
This just seems blatantly untrue, do you have a source for this claim?
(sorry in advance of the wikispooks screen grab, its just a short summary of counter examples)
Yes they are asias largest trading partner (of non-military economic goods) but they are also leveraging them economically with sanctions and diplomatically support Palestine.
Its similar to how they export the most to America, they use their economic hard power in order to beat countries over the head with if they dont align with them in foreign policy goals, which in this instance is pro-palestine.
after maos death in 1976, the cpc, under the leadership of deng xiaoping, implemented a series of neoliberal economic reforms that completely superseded even the worst excesses of khrushchevs liberalizations. these reforms, which included the privatization of state-owned enterprises and the opening up of china to foreign investment, led to the creation of a new capitalist class in china and dramatic widening of economic inequality. even today, the wages of the chinese proletariat are purposefully depressed for the benefit of western imperialist exploiters and many workers, especially those toiling abroad, have to live in conditions not even fit for animals. the county has an unemployment rate of 6% (youth unemployment rate at 20%), an issue literally unheard of in soviet society, and the right to strike has been removed from the constitution in the mid 1980s.
I think the significance of these reforms is over-stated given that the modern CPC is flourishing because of these reforms. It fits neatly into my understanding of 'progression thru capitalism to achieve socialism' model that Deng put China on, rather than what I have come to understand as idealist 'press the socialist button to become socialist' (skipping capitalisms stages idealism)
I dont know how you can suggest China is capitulated when they routinely execute billionares, retain ideological control of capital for workers (90% house ownership rate, no significant landlord class, the best public infrastructure in the world ect)
The biggest criticism I do agree with you on is their foreign policy between 1950-1990, it kinda sucked, not gonna lie; I do believe Deng was the person who course corrected them though and I disagree with your wider assessment they betrayed socialism.
Edit:
dramatic widening of economic inequality. even today, the wages of the chinese proletariat are purposefully depressed for the benefit of western imperialist exploiters and many workers, especially those toiling abroad, have to live in conditions not even fit for animals. the county has an unemployment rate of 6% (youth unemployment rate at 20%)
The lack of high wages really doesnt mean much at face value without considering wages>quality of life ratio, Chinese employers can pay less money to workers because rent isnt a consideration for most workers; if you imagine you just removed the need to rent a home to live in from most workers lives, in turn your employer no longer needs to consider the fact you need to pay rent into wage calculations, cheap housing is what is allowing china to outcompete the entire world for its labour as no other country has managed to implement such wide ranging worker control of housing to the scale China has accomplished.
here is the world bank saying that china is "israels" main import partner, which means that they are one of the main suppliers of the occupations wealth and thus complicit in the economic aspects of apartheid. if the prc were to hypothetically withdraw from trade with them, the entity would experience a dramatic reduction in living standards and a lot of the settlers would probably leave.
and this isnt even a radical thing to demand! towards the end of the apartheid regime in south africa, even western capitalist governments began boycotting and sanctioning pretoria. isnt it understandable then, that i kinda expect a ostensibly socialist government that is literally in control of the worlds largest economy to give up on some profits in order to not support a genocide? bds should go both ways.
and the stern words that are shown in the screenshot are just that: stern words. they will mean literally nothing until the day some material action is actually going to be implemented. its not like i expect them to grow soviet-sized balls and give the pflp guns.
regarding the recent successes in the economic sphere, those are undeniable. but these could have also been achieved by "normal" socialist development. while such a path would have probably been slower, it wouldnt have brought with itself the all the baggage of problems, injustices and hardships that the dengist path did. instead of "one step back and two forward" it would just have been one forward.
the economic policies of the cpc after mao led to the re-emergence of capitalist relations in china. by allowing private ownership of enterprises and encouraging market competition, dengs reforms created a class of capitalists who were able to accumulate significant wealth and power. this is why i see them as a betrayal of socialist ideals and a step backwards towards the kind of economic exploitation that marx and lenin had fought against. while nowadays all the western stories about "chinese sweatshops" are usually complete bullshit, they were indeed accurate descriptions of labor conditions in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
allowing market forces to dictate economic outcomes was ultimately a step towards chaos and instability. while a certain subsection of the people were able to benefit handsomely from the new market-oriented economy, many others have been left behind. rural areas in particular suffered, as the government's focus on urban development led to a widening gap between urban and rural incomes. this, in turn, led to social unrest and protests, which the government historically often dealt with unnecessarily harshly.
even today, after the xi jinping administration has thankfully alleviated some of the problems that i just described, the chinese economy still hasnt returned to a socialist framework.
your last point is something i honestly cant understand in any way possible. how the fuck do you think that deng "course corrected" chinese foreign policy?? should i describe to you the kinds of crimes that the mujahedeen or the khmer rouge were committing? deng easily had the worst foreign policy of any chinese leader and the damages are still noticable to this day. ffs he even let the cia build spy networks within china for use against the soviet union.
your last point is something i honestly cant understand in any way possible. how the fuck do you think that deng “course corrected” chinese foreign policy?? should i describe to you the kinds of crimes that the mujahedeen or the khmer rouge were committing? deng easily had the worst foreign policy of any chinese leader and the damages are still noticable to this day. ffs he even let the cia build spy networks within china for use against the soviet union.
Yeah I mean more towards the late 80s/90's, China stopped becoming as blatant at this stuff; the support of khmer rogue remains a massive stain on China's legacy though I agree, but I also think in reaction to it is why they are less keen to start sending guns to Palestine as they are aware of the lasting damage intervening in conflicts/acting like a hard power that had on themselves.
even today, after the xi jinping administration has thankfully alleviated some of the problems that i just described, the chinese economy still hasnt returned to a socialist framework.
It seems more or less where the USSR was in the late 70s, just with a more robust eco and less blood libel that the US is able to levy against it + more labor power.
while nowadays all the western stories about “chinese sweatshops” are usually complete bullshit, they were indeed accurate descriptions of labor conditions in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
Id argue this is more because of the economics levied onto them that they where a victim of really through stuff like the WEF leveraging their stagnating eco with population control measures and forcing them into that spot after the sino-soviet split due to otherwise being completely isolated on the world stage.
the economic policies of the cpc after mao led to the re-emergence of capitalist relations in china. by allowing private ownership of enterprises and encouraging market competition, dengs reforms created a class of capitalists who were able to accumulate significant wealth and power.
Which ones? I feel like you say this but without much to back it up, if there are capitalist classes above the CPC's reach im not seeing it, at least in Xi's current conception the highest class in China remains the worker elected party member due to the relations of violence and superstructre they have with it vs the lack of that inside China's bougie class.
All things said I do agree with you in broad strokes, we shouldn't with blind eyes support China, but I find it hard to levvy too much blame towards them for Isreal given the history and lessons they will have internalized with the failures of the Vietnam and Afghanistan interventions respectively, I think the upper cadre is doing a 'China first, war through economics not physical force' type of vibe. I dont know if we should want or expect China to act in similar ways to the USA where they do diplomacy through the bomb first.
While they could be doing more with Isreal and we should expect more they do still act as the bank for the axis of resistance id say, they just need to remain semi-neutral in order to not widen the alienation and narratives put forward by the west which would make their continued economic success harder, it is ultimately not much to do with them; they didnt start the war, and they have always diplomatically supported palestine and argued for the return of the golan heights to palestine.