[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1663743940374.png (57.32 KB, 150x282, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1182193

Justify the Sino-Soviet split.

Even without historical hindsight, it was absolutely obvious that the US was the biggest threat to not only the PRC and the USSR, but to any socialist country in the world. They were the undisputed superpower of the 20th century.
What could possibly make either country decide to fight other socialist powers, which they both did, instead of collaborating to neuter the USA before resolving their differences once the global stronghold of capitalism was defeated? I refuse to believe they would just do something that stupid when together they had porkies worldwide in terror. Two huge communist-controlled superpowers. And they fucking blew it.

 No.1182202

File: 1663744240696.png (1002.8 KB, 660x980, ClipboardImage.png)

/thread

 No.1182214

>>1182193
Well they were both just state-capitalist so there's your answer. They both cared more about territory and doctrinal bullshit than communism.

 No.1182242

>Justify the Sino-Soviet split.
One survived and still exists

 No.1182257

>>1182202
You CAN NOT "thread' your own post

 No.1182258

>>1182242
It could have been two surviving and thriving. That's not a justification, that's a rationalization.

 No.1182281

the split was a clear example of both parties not applying democratic centralism to the whole. this kind of shit will continue to be an issue until all communist parties merge into just the one Party, starting with CPV and KWP merging with the CPC. that or we should just admit that democratic centralism is impossible and work from there

 No.1182286

>>1182242
As a capitalist state.

 No.1182296

>>1182193
>Justify the Sino-Soviet split.

Khruschev saw China that didn't abandon Stalin as a threat to his revisionism. USSR put up millions of troops to Sino-Soviet border - after Stalin had almost not troops there at all. China was defending itself from both superpowers.

 No.1182302

>>1182286
Bird in cage

 No.1182321

Chinas collaboration with the US is the greatest embarrassment in the entire history of Marxism. I can't imagine how you could possibly defend such a fuck up.

 No.1182438

>>1182296
The fact that /leftypol/ will whinge constantly about Khruschev and revisionism, then flip out about China rejecting Khruschev and revisionism, is pretty amazing.

 No.1182441

>>1182438
>the fact that /leftypol/ will [have people holding an opinion], then [have people holding a contrary position], is pretty amazing.
Seek medical help.

 No.1182449

>>1182202
The problem was maotists and their cult of personalities.

 No.1182539

>>1182242
I wonder if one of them collapsing has anything to do with their strongest ally joining the US.

 No.1182639

Communists are incapable of working together. They split at every level, the history of communism is just the history of splits at every level of organization big and small.
>inb4 seething leftoid janny bans me for being right

 No.1182706

There's no justification. Both sides were being retarded, but Mao was slightly more retarded for splitting and siding with the west.

 No.1182719

>>1182639

Not just communism, the labor movement itself. The history of the labor movement is one of "splits and fusions"

 No.1182733

>>1182438
>the proper response to seeing revisionism is to ally with the USA and prioritize aggressing against socialism than capitalism
GENIUS

 No.1182755

When Khrushchev fell, and Mao lost his Soviet-revisionist collaborator, he went towards the United States. Mao backed Nixon and Kissinger, why? Because he was a firm rightist, and he promoted the war against Indochina. Again, Mao was a CIA plot written all over it.

 No.1182819

File: 1663780002518.png (324.56 KB, 859x960, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1182257
i disagree

 No.1182821

File: 1663780081256.png (94.34 KB, 787x494, China Bruh Moments.png)

china had so many bruh moments leading up to the sino soviet split

 No.1182827

>>1182821
<none of these are revisionist but Khrushchev saying that Stalin had excesses to a group of party members LITERALLY KILLED SOCIALISM

 No.1182829

The Soviets were annoying China before the split (like with the railway and dalian military base deals favoring them too much) which China got pissed off about over time, can't forget the kuomintang support thing either. The whole thing was a fucking mess I tell ya

 No.1182857

>>1182281
>that or we should just admit that democratic centralism is impossible and work from there
That seems a lot more likely.
Maybe we should shoot for "seriously, the number one priority is workers of the world UNITE. figure out how to make peace as long as there are capitalists to fight."

 No.1182911

File: 1663783320555.jpg (37.01 KB, 474x358, th-199881894.jpg)

<ummm no sweetie, in reality it was a KGB false flag to conquer America

 No.1182919

>>1182857
I'm more getting at people like stafford beer having the right idea. there's a limit to how much can be regulated from the upper echelons of the party. it's very fucking weird that you have say the CPC, the CPV and the KWP that are very loosely coupled but internally they are quite tightly coupled. I'm exaggerating a bit for effect when saying the parties should merge. or maybe I'm not. either way the present situation indicates a theoretical failure

 No.1183092

>>1182755
>Mao was a CIA plot written all over it.

this is a new one. meds

 No.1183114

>>1182281
Things should be more decentralized, as evidenced by how it was governments like the DPRK that survived while all of eastern europe fell like nothing.

 No.1183381

>>1182857
Sure, but there has to be some lines drawn eventually, e.g. how much can a red brown be tolerated

 No.1183392

>>1183114
>DPRK
>decentralized
I am intrigued

 No.1183412

>>1182827
and keep in mind, that passage was from Vijay Prashad who absolutely defends the PRC from western lies despite its flaws. If he's willing to admit these things and criticize them for it , then so should everyone.

 No.1183453

>>1183392
As in, it was a country not subservient to whatever the USSR did that survived while others who were more stuck to the USSR's line died. Decentralization here saved the DPRK because although many others fell to revisionism they survived.

 No.1184006

>>1183453
true. but it's still subject to the whims of the leadership. to me the leninist approach seems like addressing the issue at the superstructure rather than the base

 No.1184503

>>1182755
>Mao backed Nixon and Kissinger, why?
Because they preferred economic normalization with China instead of pursuing a war with China.

>Because he was a firm rightist, and he promoted the war against Indochina.


The PRC government's actions were cringe on that particular issue but the Chinese had their own reasons for doing this independent of wanting to suck off the US.

>Again, Mao was a CIA plot written all over it.


Mao sent troops to fight Americans in DPRK. Why would a CIA asset do this?

 No.1185665

>>1182193
The Soviets rightfully didn't want to have anything to do with the retarded maoists

that seems pretty fair to me ngl

 No.1185741

>>1185665
you say this yet the CPC exists and the CPSU does not
curious

 No.1185932

(Great Man Theory voice) Otto Braun failed to reign in Mao,

 No.1185938

>>1185741
At least the CPSU exists in memory as having been socialist.

 No.1186005

>>1185938
>We do a little, trolling.
<t. biggest leftypol larper

 No.1186346

>>1185938
>socialism is when you have money and commodity production

 No.1186791

they were both right
about everything
no i will not elaborate

 No.1186821

>>1185741
The CPC allied with America and threw the soviets under the bus. They only survived because USSR was enemy number 1.

 No.1186824

>>1186346
Yes. Socialism isn't an on/off switch.

 No.1186838

>>1186824
changing the definition of the word "socialism" is papa joe's biggest sin

 No.1186946

>>1186838
There's literally never been an agreed upon definition of socialism

 No.1187003

Personally, I blame it on Khruschev being a country bumpkin who didn't understand what was at stake.

Or maybe he got spooked at how eager was Mao about nukes.

 No.1187663

Reasons for Sino-Soviet split.

1. Mao had distrusted the USSR's "older brother" relationship with China, which included refusing to help the Chinese acquire nuclear weapons, Mao's fear that a US-USSR accord would involve "selling out" China, and also nationalist disputes over borders and over Mongolia (which Mao claimed the Soviets snatched away from China).

2. Mao thought Stalin had a mechanical understanding of Marxism, but that Khrushchev and his successors were revisionists who restored capitalism in the USSR.

3. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were denounced by the USSR as anti-Marxist, whereas Mao saw opposition to them within China as the work of "capitalist roaders" seeking to overthrow him and restore capitalism. It's why Liu Shaoqi was attacked as "China's Khrushchev."

So yeah part of it was nationalism, part of it was ideological differences, part of it was Mao's own personal standing within the international communist movement and at home.

Sources giving the Soviet side: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/192636-1960s-80s-Soviet-works-on-Mao-Maoism-and-China-(PDFs)

Sources giving the Chinese side: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/GreatDebate/index.htm#GreatDebate

The USSR and China did eventually start patching up relations from about 1982 onward, as Deng no longer claimed the CPSU had "restored capitalism" (but still criticized its foreign policy) and as the Soviets saw that Deng clearly wasn't pursuing anything that could be considered remotely ultra-left inside China.

 No.1187821

>>1182202
>Khrushchev
<Funds communism worldwide
<Memed on JFK
<We will bury you
>Mao
<Funded UNITA, Marcos Sr, Thai monarchy
<Attacked Nehru for irredentism
<Dared to have the gall and called Khrushchev revisionist
Hoxha was right. Mao was a bastard.

 No.1187877

>>1187821
Based vietanon. You shall become my new sabocat.

 No.1187882

>>1187663
>
1. Mao had distrusted the USSR's "older brother" relationship with China, which included refusing to help the Chinese acquire nuclear weapons, Mao's fear that a US-USSR accord would involve "selling out" China, and also nationalist disputes over borders and over Mongolia (which Mao claimed the Soviets snatched away from China).
Understandable, as post ww2 reparation the soviets demanded china hand over its railways and factories over to them in the same way they did with eastern germany.

 No.1189948

>>1187882
>Mao's fear that a US-USSR accord would involve "selling out" China
<In order to stop this I’ll sell out the Soviet Union first! Genius!
>as post ww2 reparation the soviets demanded china hand over its railways and factories over to them in the same way they did with eastern germany.
[Citations needed]

 No.1189964

A right-wing deviant and left-wing one could have never worked out their differences i'm afraid.

 No.1189968

>>1187821
wtf vietfag is a nehru lover?

 No.1190009

>>1189968
Nehru got tons of shit to criticize like all socdem fence shitters. But “Muh rightfully Chinese clay” isn’t one of them. Zhou can go fuck himself.


Unique IPs: 38

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]