[Marxism] Sino-Soviet Split

Carlos A. Rivera cerejota at optonline.net
Thu May 26 08:18:45 MDT 2005


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pieinsky" <pieinsky at igc.org>


>  (this would be, of course, under Stalin who had apparently told them not 
> to go ahead and seize power but find some modus vivendi with the 
> Kuomintang)

Far from apparently, Chiang Kai Shek was an honorary member of the Presidium 
of the Comintern until its dissolution, and a personal friend of Stalin.

Hence the 70% correct, 30% incorrect formulation by Mao.

Now, I disagree with the dichotomy you make between the 1950s-1960s and 
1970s. I think there is a continous thread in Chinese foreign policy after 
1949, and this is one informed by both ideology and raison d'etat. Also, the 
internal regime was quite different from that of the USSR, who had inherited 
a working imperial bureacracy from the Czars.

This is why I pointed towards the Three Worlds Theory, which I would 
describe, in anti-revisionist (maoist) terms as left-deviationist *and* 
right-opportunist, and which created the ideological basis for the current 
chinese state, and which was a progression from the critique of "modern 
revisionism" as the Chinese state solidified after the GPCR.

To this day, the attitude of the foremost ideological powers in the CPC is 
"one down, one left to go", referencing the fall of the USSR and the decline 
of the USA. These are people who describe the USA as "a young and imprudent 
nation". They see the events as they unfold as validating Three Worlds 
Theory. After all, a wave of populist, left-nationalism has covered latin 
america after Pinochet, they seem to think that saving latin america from 
sovietism, and hence hastening the demise of what they had been describing 
(correctly!!!) as a paper-tiger, seems to vidicate them.

In any case, facile denouciation, and convoluted post-fact justifications, 
in particular trying to purge Mao of any responsibility in these policies, I 
think is incorrect.

It is a nationalist project, yes, but that is why it is a continous one. 
Westerners might have lost this perspective in their attacks or applause for 
the Chinese Revolution, but the Chinese themselves have never wavered from 
their objective of making China a center country of a new type.

Now, we might differe in our opinions as to what this project means to 
socialists, but I wager this view is much more correct than the tired old 
gang-of-four-ism or Hail Deng stuff from my tradition, or the forced 
mediatic Stalinization of China on the part of the trotskyites.

sks 





More information about the Marxism mailing list