Mao and Pinochet

[genstrike]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Chinese government diplomatically supported Pinochet's coup and subsequent government in Chile. Does anyone have any details on this, or links to information about what the deal was?

[blake 3:17]

From what I can gather is that China maintained diplomatic relations with Chile after the fascist coup. The primary symbolic issue seems that Chile recognized the PRC's One China policy (as opposed to Taiwan's).

I would also wonder what role Henry Kissinger played in this...

[Red Commissar]

I've not heard of the PRC supporting the coup but they definitely did not take a stance against the dictatorship. They had formed some questionable stances towards states like Chile, though I'd say the worst one was their relationship with Zaire.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence about the diplomatic support for the coup though.

[Red_Struggle]

China recognized Pinochet's government the same time the US did. They exactly support the coup, per se, but China still supported the Pinochet regime after it had already occured due to their "Three Worlds Theory" ie Soviet social-imperialism was more of a threat than U.S. imperialism.

[caramelpence]

The Chinese government went further than simply giving diplomatic recognition to Pinochet. They gave diplomatic recognition before any other country that identified as Communist, including the whole of the Soviet bloc. They were one of three foreign legations in Santiago, the others being the British and the French legations, who did not give refuge to opponents of the coup who were trying to enter the legations of foreign countries in order to avoid being captured and executed. They extended the economic aid that had been granted to the Allende government to the military government. The Chinese government did not withdraw its ambassador, unlike Cuba and the Soviet Union, and accepted the replacement of the Allende government's ambassador to China with a new Chilean ambassador appointed by the military government. This stance was entirely underpinned by China's strategic interests in the region - Chile was the first Latin American country to give diplomatic recognition to the PRC, back in 1970, and also supported the PRC's One China line, and by the time of the coup the PRC had also become one of the most important purchasers of Chilean copper. All of the above is from Harris, Nigel, The Mandate of Heaven, (1978). The relevant wiki page also includes a link to a pretty comprehensive academic article, here (https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Final_Draft_Formatted-Navia.pdf).

[Savage]

why are no Maoists posting in this thread?

[Ismail]

why are no Maoists posting in this thread?Because it's an unjustifiable policy.

In his diary in 1975 Hoxha noted that, "For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'. This is not a principled stand. The struggle of China against the Soviets is not being waged on the ideological platform to unmask their social-imperialist policy on this basis. No, China is not doing this properly at all. Why is it not doing this? Because its policy is not based on the Marxist-Leninist theory. China has joined in the political dance of the bourgeoisie, adopted a pragmatic policy... China seeks the friendship of ruling cliques in order 'to approach the peoples', instead of winning the hearts of the peoples by convincing them that it fully supports their cause." (Reflections on China Vol. II, pp. 129-130.) He would use much harsher words as the months passed and as Mao's death paved the way for the openly right-wing Hua and Deng.

It was one of the things that led to the Sino-Albanian split in 1977-78.

[tbasherizer]

why are no Maoists posting in this thread?

Embarrassment, perhaps?

I do think the Three Worlds Theory explanation sums up any ideological motivation though.

[Jose Gracchus]

Because youre all ultra left westerners with central air and im too busy building explosives with fermented shit in the forests while cradling an ak and the head of a reactionary baby

[S.Artesian]

I've not heard of the PRC supporting the coup but they definitely did not take a stance against the dictatorship. They had formed some questionable stances towards states like Chile, though I'd say the worst one was their relationship with Zaire.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence about the diplomatic support for the coup though.


I kind of think the alliance with apartheid South African and the US in supporting Savimbi takes the cake for worst performance by a pseudo-communist government since the Stalin-Hitler pact.

[Pretty Flaco]

I kind of think the alliance with apartheid South African and the US in supporting Savimbi takes the cake for worst performance by a pseudo-communist government since the Stalin-Hitler pact.

Actually it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And what role did China play in Angolan Civil War? I never realized they aided the American backed army, but I didn't know much about the conflict to begin with.

[A Marxist Historian]

Actually it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And what role did China play in Angolan Civil War? I never realized they aided the American backed army, but I didn't know much about the conflict to begin with.

Since th Soviets supported he MPLA, the Chinese supported Savimbi and UNITA, who at one point were calling themselves "Marxist-Leninists."

But most of UNITA's guns came from South Africa, not from South Africa's
Chinese ally, Mao Tse-Tung.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

I kind of think the alliance with apartheid South African and the US in supporting Savimbi takes the cake for worst performance by a pseudo-communist government since the Stalin-Hitler pact.Except the Soviets signed that pact to avoid a German invasion and after both Britain and France refused to ally with the USSR against German expansionism. The Chinese had no reason to supply Savimbi except to cozy up with the West and to undermine Soviet social-imperialism in favor of China's own social-imperialism.

[S.Artesian]

Except the Soviets signed that pact to avoid a German invasion and after both Britain and France refused to ally with the USSR against German expansionism. The Chinese had no reason to supply Savimbi except to cozy up with the West and to undermine Soviet social-imperialism in favor of China's own social-imperialism.

...and to agree on dividing the Baltic States, and "spheres of influence" with Germany and other secret territorial agreements..

[A Marxist Historian]

...and to agree on dividing the Baltic States, and "spheres of influence" with Germany and other secret territorial agreements..

On one level Ismail is right. The territorial agreements were intended to strengthen the Soviet Union militarily against what everybody knew was coming sooner or later, namely the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler's lust to wipe out the Jewish Communist menace, "Judeo-Bolschewismus" as he put it, was his dominating urge, more important to him even than conquering the world.

And Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries had been part of the Tsarist Empire, and would have ended up part of the Soviet Union except for German troops subduing the revolution in the Baltic and Pilsudski doing the same in Eastern Poland, which was basically a Polish colony where the vast majority of the population was non-Polish and quite brutally oppressed.

On a higher level, Ismail is wrong, because the Nazi-Soviet pact did not strengthen the Soviet Union, it weakened it. As Napoleon put it, in warfare the moral is to the material as ten is to one. And it enabled Hitler to conquer Poland and start WWII on his own terms, and gave him a border with the Soviet Union.

The Soivet Union should have just sat back and watched, and when the Polish colonels finally desperately turned to the Soviet Union as their only possible saviors, they should have been given support--but only on very tough conditions.

So no, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a bigger crime against the working class than Mao's support of apartheid South Africa in Angola.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

...and to agree on dividing the Baltic States, and "spheres of influence" with Germany and other secret territorial agreements..Eastern portions of Poland which wanted to join with Russia and Byelorussia and three quasi-fascist Baltic states (when the Soviets moved into Lithuania, though, Hitler was alarmed) are not things which constitute a "worst performance." Socialism is not made or broken based on the disappearance of a bourgeois state.


The Soivet Union should have just sat back and watched, and when the Polish colonels finally desperately turned to the Soviet Union as their only possible saviors, they should have been given support--but only on very tough conditions.The Soviets thought that Nazi Germany, feeling secure that now that it no longer had to worry about its eastern flank, would invade France, get stuck, and then the working-classes of Britain, France and Germany itself would rise up in rebellion. Then the Soviets would be able to move in and defeat the Nazis with relatively little struggle. This is described by both Erik Van Ree in his book The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin and Alfred J. Rieber in his article in the book Stalin: A New History.

Stalin, Molotov, and others weren't sitting back and naively thinking that the Nazis wouldn't attack them, or that Hitler wasn't a reactionary, or that they weren't themselves preparing to attack the Nazis at a later date. I don't see how anticipating working-class revolts as the ultimate consequence of the diplomatic masterstroke the Soviets felt they accomplished in the defense of the working-class movement worldwide is comparable to realpolitik in which China arms an avowedly anti-communist Savimbi alongside apartheid South Africa and the USA just to spite the Soviets.

[S.Artesian]

Eastern portions of Poland which wanted to join with Russia and Byelorussia and three quasi-fascist Baltic states (when the Soviets moved into Lithuania, though, Hitler was alarmed) are not things which constitute a "worst performance." Socialism is not made or broken based on the disappearance of a bourgeois state.

No one says it is, but then you're the one here claiming that the fSU was socialist, at least in 1939.

Whether it was with the Nazis, or with the British and the French really doesn't matter. What does make or break socialism is the tactics, strategy, and program expressed during international revolutionary struggles. In this regard, the worst performance by the fSU has its origins in its directives to big C Communists in Germany 1928-1933 [Nach Hitler, Uns-- remember that big of political genius] to be followed up by the popular front in Spain, and the popular front in France, and the actions against the workers struggles in Vietnam lest those struggles upset the French "allies," etc. etc.



The Soviets thought that Nazi Germany, feeling secure that now that it no longer had to worry about its eastern flank, would invade France, get stuck, and then the working-classes of Britain, France and Germany itself would rise up in rebellion. Then the Soviets would be able to move in and defeat the Nazis with relatively little struggle. This is described by both Erik Van Ree in his book The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin and Alfred J. Rieber in his article in the book Stalin: A New History.

Right, sure they believed that, and worked for that, just as they diligently worked in Germany, Spain, France, Vietnam to advance the proletarian revolution in those struggles.

Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to what the inevitable, logical outcome was of the actual programs of the fSU rather than the speculations about the working classes in Germany, Britain, France rebelling after the fSU did everything in its power to cement [as in cement overcoat] the actual struggles to the maintenance of bourgeois rule.


Stalin, Molotov, and others weren't sitting back and naively thinking that the Nazis wouldn't attack them, or that Hitler wasn't a reactionary, or that they weren't themselves preparing to attack the Nazis at a later date. I don't see how anticipating working-class revolts as the ultimate consequence of the diplomatic masterstroke the Soviets felt they accomplished in the defense of the working-class movement worldwide is comparable to realpolitik in which China arms an avowedly anti-communist Savimbi alongside apartheid South Africa and the USA just to spite the Soviets.

Because that's all speculative bullshit. What's real was the decapitation of revolutions. Believing that Stalin et al were anticipating working class revolts after they'd spent a decade leading them into destruction is... well, indicates somebody is having a problem distinguishing fantasy from historical reality.

[Ismail]

Whether it was with the Nazis, or with the British and the French really doesn't matter. What does make or break socialism is the tactics, strategy, and program expressed during international revolutionary struggles. In this regard, the worst performance by the fSU has its origins in its directives to big C Communists in Germany 1928-1933 [Nach Hitler, Uns-- remember that big of political genius] to be followed up by the popular front in Spain, and the popular front in France, and the actions against the workers struggles in Vietnam lest those struggles upset the French "allies," etc. etc.


Right, sure they believed that, and worked for that, just as they diligently worked in Germany, Spain, France, Vietnam to advance the proletarian revolution in those struggles.Well lets see. In Germany the Social-Democrats were seen as those men who condoned the murder of Luxemburg and in any case they showed more hostility to the KPD than the NSDAP. In Spain the Fascists wanted to stamp out (and did a nice job of stamping out) all progressive sentiment. In France many feared a fascist coup or at least the emergence of a fascist movement. Of course in the case of Spain the Communist Party did quite well, which is why the right-wing of the PSOE claimed that the PCE was "controlling" the Republic and proceeded to back the coup of Segismundo Casado, who talked of communist "conspiracies" against the Republic.

Apparently the idea of the PCE and PCOF consolidating power and support amongst the working-class by proving their resistance to fascism as bourgeois forces begin to flag doesn't get through your head.

On Germany see: http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/jan2011/trotsky.html
On France see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/PopularFrontFranceSpain_Final.htm

[S.Artesian]

Well lets see. In Germany the Social-Democrats were seen as those men who condoned the murder of Luxemburg and in any case they showed more hostility to the KPD than the NSDAP. In Spain the Fascists wanted to stamp out (and did a nice job of stamping out) all progressive sentiment. In France many feared a fascist coup or at least the emergence of a fascist movement. Of course in the case of Spain the Communist Party did quite well, which is why the right-wing of the PSOE claimed that the PCE was "controlling" the Republic and proceeded to back the coup of Segismundo Casado, who talked of communist "conspiracies" against the Republic.

Apparently the idea of the PCE and PCOF consolidating power and support amongst the working-class by proving their resistance to fascism doesn't get through your head.

And obviously, subordinating the workers struggle to the preservation of a "liberal," "progressive" bourgeoisie and a "progressive bourgeois order" not only resonates in your head, but is you, heart and soul.

Oh yeah, the PCE did real well in Spain. How well? As well as the CP in Chile did under Allende. The workers, though? Not so good.

[Ismail]

And obviously, subordinating the workers struggle to the preservation of a "liberal," "progressive" bourgeoisie and a "progressive bourgeois order" not only resonates in your head, but is you, heart and soul.Are you saying that the Republic was not progressive when paired up against a opposition entirely composed of fascists, monarchists and military cliques? An opposition that enjoyed moral and financial support from both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy? An opposition that was so afraid of the Popular Front government that it at once ushered in a civil war backed by Nazi German and Fascist Italian troops and tanks while Britain was so fearful of the communists that they looked the other way?

What's with the quotation marks around "liberal"? Are you denying that the Republican parties were, in fact, liberal parties that sought modernized capitalist development against landowners and other reactionary rural forces? These same forces that quickly made up the backbone for the Francoist rebellion?

You don't really seem to have any conception of objectively progressive and objectively reactionary forces.


Oh yeah, the PCE did real well in Spain. How well? As well as the CP in Chile did under Allende. The workers, though? Not so good.The PCE did quite well actually. You could read Helen Graham's book The Spanish Republic at War on the role of the PCE and its popularity. The working-class also did quite well up until the aforementioned Casado coup which promptly capitulated to Franco.

[S.Artesian]

No, I'm saying Spain was in the midst of a revolutionary struggle, and the only way to win that struggle was for the working class to be completely independent and opposed to the bourgeoisie, to the popular front government, to the false distinctions between a "liberal democratic bourgeoisie" and the "reactionary bourgeoisie."

I'm saying that the "liberal" bourgeoisie were no more or less bourgeois, capitalist, than their reactionary brothers, and sisters; that their allegiance was to their property. I'm saying they were just as liberal as Kerensky and those liberal democrats in the PRG were liberal.

You don't see to have any conception of the materialist interpretation of history; of the conflict between means and relations of production that triggers revolution on a class struggle basis.

Absolutely right though, I don't separate the bourgeoisie into progressive and reactionary bourgeoisie just as there is no distinction between progressive and reactionary capitalism.

[Ismail]

No, I'm saying Spain was in the midst of a revolutionary struggle, and the only way to win that struggle was for the working class to be completely independent and opposed to the bourgeoisie, to the popular front government, to the false distinctions between a "liberal democratic bourgeoisie" and the "reactionary bourgeoisie."Then you're ignorant of Marxism-Leninism. The Republican bourgeoisie was quite clearly progressive compared to the reactionaries who wanted to stifle the basic democratic demands of the Spanish masses.

To immediately agitate for a proletarian revolution in Spain would have meant a relatively easy victory for the Francoists.


I'm saying that the "liberal" bourgeoisie were no more or less bourgeois, capitalist, than their reactionary brothers, and sisters; that their allegiance was to their property. I'm saying they were just as liberal as Kerensky and those liberal democrats in the PRG were liberal.Except the Republicans pretty clearly advocated industrial development as opposed to the landowning system promoted by the clergy and backed up by the Francoist rebellion.

Also Kerensky was the logical conclusion of the objective material conditions of Russia at that time. Does that mean that the Bolsheviks shouldn't have advocated a bourgeois-democratic revolution to be turned into a proletarian one?


Absolutely right though, I don't separate the bourgeoisie into progressive and reactionary bourgeoisie just as there is no distinction between progressive and reactionary capitalism.But there is a distinction between progressive and reactionary forces, which is why Lenin tended to side with, say, Atatürk or Amanullah Khan (an Afghan King, no less) as opposed to taking the ultra-left and non-materialist position of saying that everyone is equally bad at all times forever.

Your positions would also be alien to those of Marx and Engels, who did not fail to note, say, the progressive character of Abraham Lincoln and the Union against the Confederacy.

[S.Artesian]

Then you're ignorant of Marxism-Leninism. The Republican bourgeoisie was quite clearly progressive compared to the reactionaries who wanted to stifle the basic democratic demands of the Spanish masses.

And you're ignorant of Marx. And just plain ignorant. The "basic democratic demands" could not be separated from the economic problems; the need to reorganize agriculture; to break the power of the church; to abolish, in fact, the system organized around impoverished rural laborers; church control of education; and industrial capital; all of which were bound to each other in the organization of private property.


To immediately agitate for a proletarian revolution in Spain would have meant a relatively easy victory for the Francoists.

Franco was a latecomer to the struggle in Spain.


Except the Republicans pretty clearly advocated industrial development as opposed to the landowning system promoted by the clergy and backed up by the Francoist rebellion.


Except Marxism is not "developmentalism." Doesn't matter what they advocate, matters what they do, can and can't do, because of their organization of property.


Also Kerensky was the logical conclusion of the objective material conditions of Russia at that time. Does that mean that the Bolsheviks shouldn't have advocated a bourgeois-democratic revolution to be turned into a proletarian one?

Point to the instances, please, of the Bolsheviks supporting the Provisional Revolutionary Government, of entering the PRG, of subordinating workers power to that of a popular front as was done in Spain and in Chile during Allende. I think I remember this guy getting off a train at some station and announcing "All Power to the Soviets."

See previous comment about your ignorance.


But there is a distinction between progressive and reactionary forces, which is why Lenin tended to side with, say, Atatürk or Amanullah Khan (an Afghan King, no less) as opposed to taking the ultra-left and non-materialist position of saying that everyone is equally bad at all times forever.


Lenin sided with Ataturk, which included abandoning the Turkish left communists to the tender mercies of the nationalists, in order to secure Russia's southern flank. This is not one of the grander moments in the history of the Bolsheviks. Lenin sided with this "so-called" progressive out of national interests, not international revolutionary ones.


Your positions would also be alien to those of Marx and Engels, who did not fail to note, say, the progressive character of Abraham Lincoln and the Union against the Confederacy.

Have you ever read Marx or Engels? You might want to pay attention to this little thing called "historical specificity"-- like yeah, it's OK to send your best wishes to the Northern bourgeoisie who are compelled to overturn a slaveholders' rebellion... in 1861. But like, that's 75 years before the Spanish struggle so you think something might have changed? Especially since, within a decade of defeating those slaveholders that bourgeoisie reinstated them, destroyed the prospects for Reconstruction, and turned its back on the supposedly "historic, progressive responsibility" for "freedom," and even economic development in the South?

What do you think? You think 75 years might indicate that capitalism as a system, and the capitalists as a class, all capitalists, no longer had a "progressive role"? That their mode of accumulation was, as a social organization, obsolete and could only be sustained by disarming, disorganizing the working class, setting it up for a Franco, a Pinochet, a Ku Klux Klan?

What do they teach you at the Enver Hoxha junior high school? Anything that comes close to actual history?

[Homo Songun]

Katz's Law

As any given Revleft discussion grows longer, the probability of a Stalin grudge match approaches 1

[Ismail]

The "basic democratic demands" could not be separated from the economic problems; the need to reorganize agriculture; to break the power of the church; to abolish, in fact, the system organized around impoverished rural laborers; church control of education; and industrial capital; all of which were bound to each other in the organization of private property.And the Republicans adopted an anti-clerical outlook, sought to reorganize agriculture, and sought to bring industrial capitalism to Spain. Have you actually read about the Republican movement and its activities in the 1920's and early 30's?


Point to the instances, please, of the Bolsheviks supporting the Provisional Revolutionary Government, of entering the PRG, of subordinating workers power to that of a popular front as was done in Spain and in Chile during Allende. I think I remember this guy getting off a train at some station and announcing "All Power to the Soviets."Allow me to quote Lenin in his April Theses (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm). "The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants

This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism."

The Provisional Government, of course, was continuing the imperialist war and the objective material conditions existed for the seizure of power by the working class on a lasting basis. The situation, as you can see, was quite different.


Lenin sided with Ataturk, which included abandoning the Turkish left communists to the tender mercies of the nationalists, in order to secure Russia's southern flank. This is not one of the grander moments in the history of the Bolsheviks. Lenin sided with this "so-called" progressive out of national interests, not international revolutionary ones.Yet you don't seem to say that Lenin was "decapitating" revolutions, yet that action was far more dramatic than any "betrayal" Stalin could have done.


Have you ever read Marx or Engels? You might want to pay attention to this little thing called "historical specificity"-- like yeah, it's OK to send your best wishes to the Northern bourgeoisie who are compelled to overturn a slaveholders' rebellion... in 1861. But like, that's 75 years before the Spanish struggle so you think something might have changed?Only if we assume the economies of the USA and Spain in 1936 were identical.


Especially since, within a decade of defeating those slaveholders that bourgeoisie reinstated them, destroyed the prospects for Reconstruction, and turned its back on the supposedly "historic, progressive responsibility" for "freedom," and even economic development in the South?Yet slavery never returned. It was a different situation, but it did show that even then there were progressive capitalists (the Radical Republicans) and those capitalists who tended towards compromise with reaction.


What do you think? You think 75 years might indicate that capitalism as a system, and the capitalists as a class, all capitalists, no longer had a "progressive role"? That their mode of accumulation was, as a social organization, obsolete and could only be sustained by disarming, disorganizing the working class, setting it up for a Franco, a Pinochet, a Ku Klux Klan?Yet the Republicans fought against Franco. As time went on, of course, various Republicans were afraid of the PCE and denounced it, preferring to throw their lot in with the Francoists. The PCE in turn denounced them.


What do they teach you at the Enver Hoxha junior high school? Anything that comes close to actual history?The emancipation of labor as described by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and ol' Hoxha himself.

[S.Artesian]

And the Republicans adopted an anti-clerical outlook, sought to reorganize agriculture, and sought to bring industrial capitalism to Spain. Have you actually read about the Republican movement and its activities in the 1920's and early 30's?

Here we go, stage theory again, as if Spain in all its backwardness, in its uneven development, did not already have industrial capitalism; as if the contradictions driving the Spanish economy were not already the contradictions of capitalism, exacerbated by the uneven and combined development.

Exactly, your Republicans, including your "doing so well" PCE were committed to capitalism. Enough said. Or it should be.


Allow me to quote Lenin in his April Theses (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm). "The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants

This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism."
Meaning you can't respond to the challenge of providing an instance where Lenin argues for supporting the "liberal, democratic" government of Kerensky; where the Bolsheviks join the PRG and act to police the revolution on behalf of the PRG.


The Provisional Government, of course, was continuing the imperialist war and the objective material conditions existed for the seizure of power by the working class on a lasting basis. The situation, as you can see, was quite different.
Really? What was that objective material condition, and how did that differ from the economic conditions of capitalism in Spain? Overwhelming presence of industrial capitalism in Russia? Nope. Specific density of industrial production, concentration of industrial capitalism in the cities? Yes for both Spain and Russia.

Poor agricultural productivity based on the organic connection of large landed property, with labor-intensive production, "complemented" by fragmented, subsistence production? Yep for both Spain and Russia.


Yet you don't seem to say that Lenin was "decapitating" revolutions, yet that action was far more dramatic than any "betrayal" Stalin could have done.
First, I never used the word "betrayal." I think Stalin and the PCE were true, loyal, to their anti-revolutionary, anti-communist roots.

We were discussing the lead up to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, remember. You brought in Lenin's support of the "progressive" Ataturk. But if it makes you feel better, we can say Lenin sacrificed the left communists in Turkey allowing the decapitation of the revolution. I have no problem with that. I'm not a Leninist. Oh...and Afghanistan? That "support" was explicitly organized around preventing revolution which revolution might upset the British. Not exactly a glorious moment for the Bolsheviks either.

Only if we assume the economies of the USA and Spain in 1936 were identical.

What period to time are we referring to: the US in 1936 and Spain in 1936; the US in 1861 and Spain in 1936? Please, pick one or both and explain the class differences; the economic conflicts that make the bourgeoisie a capable, viable "revolutionary" partner in 1936, when the US bourgeoisie in 1872 was incapable of carrying through a revolution.


Yet slavery never returned. It was a different situation, but it did show that even then there were progressive capitalists (the Radical Republicans) and those capitalists who tended towards compromise with reaction.And it showed that, when push came to shove, the bourgeoisie, as a class, don't just compromise with, but actually require, and build upon, reaction.



Yet the Republicans fought against Franco. As time went on, of course, various Republicans were afraid of the PCE and denounced it, preferring to throw their lot in with the Francoists. The PCE in turn denounced them.
Well, that's helpful. That's a true class analysis; a real materialist understanding of Spain. They denounce, we denounce, everybody denounces. That's not Marxism, that's grammar.


The emancipation of labor as described by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and ol' Hoxha himself.That's hilarious-- the emancipation of labor as practiced by Stalin and Hoxha. And exactly how has that worked out for the workers of the world, huh?

[Ismail]

Here we go, stage theory again, as if Spain in all its backwardness, in its uneven development, did not already have industrial capitalism; as if the contradictions driving the Spanish economy were not already the contradictions of capitalism, exacerbated by the uneven and combined development.The contradictions were based in the fact that large landowners and the clergy sought to maintain the monarchy and, when that failed, their political representatives sought to promote a fascist-like state.


Exactly, your Republicans, including your "doing so well" PCE were committed to capitalism. Enough said. Or it should be.The line of the Comintern in relation to what was to be "committed" to in Spain can be seen here: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/spainercoli.htm


Meaning you can't respond to the challenge of providing an instance where Lenin argues for supporting the "liberal, democratic" government of Kerensky; where the Bolsheviks join the PRG and act to police the revolution on behalf of the PRG.Well yeah, but so what? That's like saying "prove to me, evolutionists, that a horse can grow wings." Did I argue that Lenin backed the Kerensky regime?


Really? What was that objective material condition, and how did that differ from the economic conditions of capitalism in Spain? Overwhelming presence of industrial capitalism in Russia? Nope. Specific density of industrial production, concentration of industrial capitalism in the cities? Yes for both Spain and Russia.

Poor agricultural productivity based on the organic connection of large landed property, with labor-intensive production, "complemented" by fragmented, subsistence production? Yep for both Spain and Russia.Except in the case of Russia the provisional government was not popular and vowed to continue the imperialist war. In Spain the Republic was besieged by fascist forces and the PCE was a numerically small party that would not have been able to hold onto state power.



What period to time are we referring to: the US in 1936 and Spain in 1936; the US in 1861 and Spain in 1936? Please, pick one or both and explain the class differences; the economic conflicts that make the bourgeoisie a capable, viable "revolutionary" partner in 1936, when the US bourgeoisie in 1872 was incapable of carrying through a revolution.The Republicans in the case of the Republic often had to give way to the demands of the masses. From the masses demanding arms to fight the rebels to repeated calls to reject defeatist and collaborationist sentiment.


That's hilarious-- the emancipation of labor as practiced by Stalin and Hoxha. And exactly how has that worked out for the workers of the world, huh?Quite well.

[S.Artesian]

The contradictions were based in the fact that large landowners and the clergy sought to maintain the monarchy and, when that failed, their political representatives sought to promote a fascist-like state.

Uh...no. The contradictions were the contradictions of Spanish capitalism engaged in the contradictions of the world market. There was a bit of a problem, internationally, with capitalist accumulation. I don't expect you to recall that as it takes a certain comprehension of history, but it's true nonetheless.



The line of the Comintern in relation to what was to be "committed" to in Spain can be seen here: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/spainercoli.htm


We know the "line." The line was supporting popular fronts; subordinating the workers movement to the preservation of "industrial capitalism."


Well yeah, but so what? That's like saying "prove to me, evolutionists, that a horse can grow wings." Did I argue that Lenin backed the Kerensky regime?


You claimed that the policy of the PCE was the continuation of the policy of Lenin. So where does Lenin, in a revolutionary struggle, ever advocate anything like a popular front? Where did he advocate in the struggle in Russia?



Except in the case of Russia the provisional government was not popular and vowed to continue the imperialist war. In Spain the Republic was besieged by fascist forces and the PCE was a numerically small party that would not have been able to hold onto state power.


No doubt the PCE could not hold power. The workers however were building their own organizations of their own power.


The Republicans in the case of the Republic often had to give way to the demands of the masses. From the masses demanding arms to fight the rebels to repeated calls to reject defeatist and collaborationist sentiment.


Collaborationist sentiment? That's truly touching. What is a popular front if not collaborationist in act and deed?


Quite well.

Right. Which is why socialism has conquered the bourgeoisie. If you worked in a safety sensitive position, we'd be obligated to send you for a drug test.

[A Marxist Historian]

Katz's Law

As any given Revleft discussion grows longer, the probability of a Stalin grudge match approaches 1

The theoretical foundation of Katz's law is simply this.

The purpose of Revleft is to talk about revolution and leftism. For most (not all) Revleft participants this means revolution by the workers to replace capitalism with socialism or something.

There has been in human history only one successful workers' revolution that lasted more than a few months, namely the Russian Revolution.

It went Stalinist.

Therefore any Revleft discussion that does not sooner or later lead to a "Stalin grudge match" is ultimately missing the point.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Uh...no. The contradictions were the contradictions of Spanish capitalism engaged in the contradictions of the world market. There was a bit of a problem, internationally, with capitalist accumulation. I don't expect you to recall that as it takes a certain comprehension of history, but it's true nonetheless.So the fate of the working-class would have been exactly the same had either the Republic or Franco succeeded? Again these contradictions were so huge as to prompt a brutal civil war once leftist forces became involved.


You claimed that the policy of the PCE was the continuation of the policy of Lenin. So where does Lenin, in a revolutionary struggle, ever advocate anything like a popular front? Where did he advocate in the struggle in Russia?I did not claim that. The PCE was, however, a Marxist-Leninist party. The rise of the Republic was a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The goal was to make sure its gains would last and would lay the basis for movement into the proletarian revolution.


Collaborationist sentiment? That's truly touching. What is a popular front if not collaborationist in act and deed?What were Prieto, Martínez Barrio, Casado, Besteiro and others if not those who promoted defeatism once they realized that the PCE was to be the main victor of a successful civil war against the Francoists?


Right. Which is why socialism has conquered the bourgeoisie.It did a fine job for a while in the USSR and Albania.

[S.Artesian]

I did not claim that. The PCE was, however, a Marxist-Leninist party. The rise of the Republic was a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The goal was to make sure its gains would last and would lay the basis for movement into the proletarian revolution.Here's what you claimed, likening the support for the popular front to Lenin's positions:


But there is a distinction between progressive and reactionary forces, which is why Lenin tended to side with, say, Atatürk or Amanullah Khan (an Afghan King, no less) as opposed to taking the ultra-left and non-materialist position of saying that everyone is equally bad at all times forever.
Lenin's maneuvers had nothing to do with the progressiveness of Ataturk or Khan, or the attempt to introduce "industrial capitalism." It was pure opportunism, the opportunity to secure the flanks of Russia. When the issue was proletarian revolution in Russia 1917, Lenin advocated no support to the "progressive bourgeoisie," no fantasy of the liberal bourgeoisie introducing "industrial capitalism" as opposed to the "reactionary" landowners.


It did a fine job for a while in the USSR and Albania.Put that on your tombstone.

[RED DAVE]

Then you're ignorant of Marxism-Leninism. The Republican bourgeoisie was quite clearly progressive compared to the reactionaries who wanted to stifle the basic democratic demands of the Spanish masses.Oh, nonsense. Here comes that Stalinist bullshit again, which leads, again and again, into alliances with capitalism. This is the justification for the CPUSA allying itself with the Roosevelt liberals and the Nepalese Maoists allying themselves with any capitalist party that will have them. With results you can see on the Internet now.


To immediately agitate for a proletarian revolution in Spain would have meant a relatively easy victory for the Francoists.(A) You don't know that. (B) What you are doing is basically taking the line that Stalin supported after the February Revolution and Lenin opposed in the April Theses. Jeez, this is kindergarten Marxism.


Except the Republicans pretty clearly advocated industrial development as opposed to the landowning system promoted by the clergy and backed up by the Francoist rebellion.Liberalism! Same shit as the Nepalese Maoists are running now, with the same result: capitalism.

Industrial development has no necessary connection to socialism, especially in a capitalist country. By that token, socialists in the USA should have supported Morgan, Rockefeller, etc., against those pesky workers and petit-bourgeois progressives who were fighting against them.


Also Kerensky was the logical conclusion of the objective material conditions of Russia at that time.Turn in your red card.

Kerensky was the antithesis of the objective material conditions. The objective material conditions dictated that bourgeois democratic development was impossible! This is the heart of Leninism.


Does that mean that the Bolsheviks shouldn't have advocated a bourgeois-democratic revolution to be turned into a proletarian one?The reason why the Bolsheviks did this was precisely because a bourgeois-democratic revolution was impossible. Had the Bolsheviks supported Kerensky, as Stalin advocated, Tsarism would have returned to Russia.


But there is a distinction between progressive and reactionary forcesYes there is, but in the 20th and 21st centuries, the only truly progressive force is the working class.


which is why Lenin tended to side with, say, Atatürk or Amanullah Khan (an Afghan King, no less) as opposed to taking the ultra-left and non-materialist position of saying that everyone is equally bad at all times forever.This was a fucking mistake on Lenin's part, which led to the destruction of the Left in Turkey when Ataturk turned against it. This is the policy that led the Chinese CP into an alliance with the Kuomintung, with the results we know. Why, 90 years later, are you still repeating a mistake that Lenin made, which was demonstrably a mistake almost immediately?


Your positions would also be alien to those of Marx and Engels, who did not fail to note, say, the progressive character of Abraham Lincoln and the Union against the Confederacy.The American Civil War was the last episode in the progressive history of the bourgeoisie. But I guess types like yourself are still stuck politically back in 1865.

And, to bring it back to the OP, this is exactly the kind of bullshit that Maoists used/still use to support their betrayal of the Chilean working class.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

The theoretical foundation of Katz's law is simply this.

The purpose of Revleft is to talk about revolution and leftism. For most (not all) Revleft participants this means revolution by the workers to replace capitalism with socialism or something.

There has been in human history only one successful workers' revolution that lasted more than a few months, namely the Russian Revolution.

It went Stalinist.

Therefore any Revleft discussion that does not sooner or later lead to a "Stalin grudge match" is ultimately missing the point.

-M.H.-

Nah. Katz's Law is descriptive, not normative, so it makes no claim on a real workers revolution. But even so, your formulation makes no sense. A cookbook can't be said to be missing the point if it doesn't have a comprehensive history of Mahón included in it's recipe for Mayonnaise.

[A Marxist Historian]

Nah. Katz's Law is descriptive, not normative, so it makes no claim on a real workers revolution. But even so, your formulation makes no sense. A cookbook can't be said to be missing the point if it doesn't have a comprehensive history of Mahón included in it's recipe for Mayonnaise.

In my interpretation of your law, it is normative I suppose.

The cookbook analogy misses the point, as this is not a bulletin board for recipes. Or rather, some of Revleft is, but that's not the part I'm talking about. I'm talking about the part where people discuss and analyze revolution and leftism and try to figure out what is really what, not post recipes or slogans for passive consumers.

A serious book on mayonnaise, not a recipe book, which didn't talk about Mahon at some point would be lacking.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Industrial development has no necessary connection to socialism, especially in a capitalist country. By that token, socialists in the USA should have supported Morgan, Rockefeller, etc., against those pesky workers and petit-bourgeois progressives who were fighting against them.Again, the objective material conditions are much different. There could only be the road of proletarian revolution in the USA.


Kerensky was the antithesis of the objective material conditions. The objective material conditions dictated that bourgeois democratic development was impossible! This is the heart of Leninism.This is correct, but Kerensky was the logical result of the bourgeois-democratic road. Hence why the clear necessity of moving over to the proletarian revolution was taken.

[RED DAVE]

=RED DAVE]Industrial development has no necessary connection to socialism, especially in a capitalist country. By that token, socialists in the USA should have supported Morgan, Rockefeller, etc., against those pesky workers and petit-bourgeois progressives who were fighting against them.
Again, the objective material conditions are much different. There could only be the road of proletarian revolution in the USA.And, as Lenin pointed out, there could only be "the road of proletarian revolution" in Russia. This is the heart, the essence, of modern Marxism.


Kerensky was the antithesis of the objective material conditions. The objective material conditions dictated that bourgeois democratic development was impossible! This is the heart of Leninism.
This is correct, but Kerensky was the logical result of the bourgeois-democratic road. Hence why the clear necessity of moving over to the proletarian revolution was taken.I think you are still missing the point, but I'm going to let it go. Be aware that, above, you basically apologized for Kerensky and Stalin by calling Kerensky a response to "objective material conditions."

Make up your mind: Stalin or Lenin.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

Again, the objective material conditions are much different.

You know what's amazing? That the objective material conditions are always so "different" but no matter how different they are, we get the same political prescription: the popular front, allying with a "liberal bourgeoisie" to ensure "industrial capitalism."

So objective conditions in Chile in 1973 are so much different than Spain in 1936 but... popular fronts for both. Or the conditions in France 1936 are so different from the conditions in Spain 1936... but popular fronts for both.

Or Vietnam in 1937, material conditions are so different in Vietnam than in France, but.... nope here's a popular front with the colonizing power that takes actions to suppress strikes, arrest and execute militants.

And conditions in the USA 1937-45 -- oh so much different than all of the above-- and what was advocated there? Alliance with the bourgeoisie.

Amazing how material conditions are always different, but the tailing after the bourgeoisie is always the same.

[Ismail]

And conditions in the USA 1937-45 -- oh so much different than all of the above-- and what was advocated there? Alliance with the bourgeoisie.The right-wing tendencies of the CPUSA under Browder were criticized by the Soviets.

"To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)


Amazing how material conditions are always different, but the tailing after the bourgeoisie is always the same.Aside from your "tailing" comment, I suppose the communists should align themselves with feudalism? Or with the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie? Of course you're a left-communist, so you don't recognize that fissures can appear amongst the bourgeoisie. In current conditions in most countries in the world, of course, this does not concern the working class which should be fighting for socialism, but at the same time there are situations in which a front is necessary to struggle against the obliteration not merely of the liberal bourgeoisie, but also the leftist forces in general.

The fact is that in Spain the PCE was able to grow from a numerically small party to a very large one commanding respect amongst much of the Spanish population and feared by the bourgeoisie both in Spain and abroad. The PCE consistently opposed any efforts at capitulation, and was even ready to denounce Negrín and remove him in the last months of the war, since the PCE feared that Negrín harbored secret capitulationist sentiment.

As Hoxha said (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albpedro.htm) in 1967, "A new Marxist-Leninist party... must not efface its individuality, enter every sort of front and destroy itself. On the contrary it should always preserve its independence, principles and norms. It must, without fail, ensure its hegemonic role in the revolution through struggle and its correct policy. For the revolution to be crowned with success it must be led by its Marxist-Leninist party, but no one will give you hegemony: it must be won." This is what is important. Of course both Ibárruri and Carrillo showed themselves to have been revisionists who denounced Stalin in 1956 and who backed "Eurocommunism" in the 70's, and Ibárruri in her memoirs notes that there were forces within the PCE who wanted to directly take power (which she did not agree with.)

[S.Artesian]

The right-wing tendencies of the CPUSA under Browder were criticized by the Soviets.

"To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)

Well that clear it all up then, doesn't it? Dimitrov is "concerned," wonders if things haven't gone "too far." Please report your thoughts? Do us a favor please........... you may think that amounts to criticism, to revolutionary criticism of an international policy, but all it is bullshit posing.

And the differences between France and Spain in 1936, or Vietnam in 1937 where the popular front was the prescription? Or the differences between Spain and Chile?


Aside from your "tailing" comment, I suppose the communists should align themselves with feudalism? Or with the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie?

See, this is where we differ. Of course, since I'm a left communist, I don't think communists should ally with any element of the ruling class in capitalist society; nor with any sector of the ruling class in "feudal" or "semi-feudal" societies. You, being a big C Communist have nothing to offer other than "socialism in one country" and "popular front in all others."



Of course you're a left-communist, so you don't recognize that fissures can appear amongst the bourgeoisie.

I certainly do recognize such fissures, I just don't think we should fall into them.


In current conditions in most countries in the world, of course, this does not concern the working class which should be fighting for socialism, but at the same time there are situations in which a front is necessary to struggle against the obliteration not merely of the liberal bourgeoisie, but also the leftist forces in general.

Right... and "those situations in which a front is necessary"? That's easy, every time the prospects for an actual social revolution begin to increase, then you think it's time to ally with your imaginary liberal bourgeoisie.

[RED DAVE]

The right-wing tendencies of the CPUSA under Browder were criticized by the Soviets.

"To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)Plz note that this is in 1944! The CPUSA started sucking up to Roosevelt in 1936. The CPUSA was, essentially, the left-wing of the New Deal. This constitutes an active alliance between the CP and the leading capitalist ruling class in the world. And they did this under the wisdom and guidance of the Comintern.

The French CP did the same after the war.


Aside from your "tailing" comment, I suppose the communists should align themselves with feudalism? Or with the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie? Of course you're a left-communist, so you don't recognize that fissures can appear amongst the bourgeoisie. In current conditions in most countries in the world, of course, this does not concern the working class which should be fighting for socialism, but at the same time there are situations in which a front is necessary to struggle against the obliteration not merely of the liberal bourgeoisie, but also the leftist forces in general.(emph added)

This is the heart of Stalinism and Maoism. In the modern world it's okay to ally with liberal sections of the bourgeoisie. If you want to see how well this is going these days, take a look at Nepal. As we speak, factions of the Maoist party there are falling over themselves to make alliances with the bourgeoisie. Only a year ago, this party was the poster child for Maoism in the world.


The fact is that in Spain the PCE was able to grow from a numerically small party to a very large one commanding respect amongst much of the Spanish population and feared by the bourgeoisie both in Spain and abroad. The PCE consistently opposed any efforts at capitulation, and was even ready to denounce Negrín and remove him in the last months of the war, since the PCE feared that Negrín harbored secret capitulationist sentiment.The CP sold out the revolution in Spain. Get over it. No matter how fucking large it was, it was a sell-out. Start a thread on Spain and get your ass whipped on more time.


As Hoxha said (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albpedro.htm) in 1967, "A new Marxist-Leninist party... must not efface its individuality, enter every sort of front and destroy itself. On the contrary it should always preserve its independence, principles and norms. It must, without fail, ensure its hegemonic role in the revolution through struggle and its correct policy. For the revolution to be crowned with success it must be led by its Marxist-Leninist party, but no one will give you hegemony: it must be won."Yeah. And the miraculous success of Stalinism in the USSR and Eastern Europe shows what kind of bullshit this was: state capitalism leading, without any counter-revolution anywhere, right into private capitalism.


This is what is important. Of course both Ibárruri and Carrillo showed themselves to have been revisionists who denounced Stalin in 1956 and who backed "Eurocommunism" in the 70's, and Ibárruri in her memoirs notes that there were forces within the PCE who wanted to directly take power (which she did not agree with.)The Stalinists and Maoists have sold out again and again, all over the world. And, to bring it back to the OP, Mao made kissy-nice with Nixon while the Vietnam War was still going on and sold out the Chilean working class.

RED DAVE

[A Marxist Historian]

Here's what you claimed, likening the support for the popular front to Lenin's positions:
Lenin's maneuvers had nothing to do with the progressiveness of Ataturk or Khan, or the attempt to introduce "industrial capitalism." It was pure opportunism, the opportunity to secure the flanks of Russia. When the issue was proletarian revolution in Russia 1917, Lenin advocated no support to the "progressive bourgeoisie," no fantasy of the liberal bourgeoisie introducing "industrial capitalism" as opposed to the "reactionary" landowners.

Put that on your tombstone.

If Ataturk or Amanullah Khan were resisting British imperialism, or Haile Selassie was resisting Mussolini, or even the ultra-reactionary Taliban, compared to whom Amanullah really was a "progressive," are resisting US imperialism right now, then the workers have to side with them defending their countries vs. imperialism.

This was not opportunism, it was the reverse, it was basic principle, to be applied now matter how reactionary, vicious, murderous, disgusting and unpleasant these rulers happened to be.

Just as it was equally principled and necessary to support the Spanish Republic vs. Franco on the battlefront, despite the counterrevolutionary ravages of the NKVD behind the front.

But that is not the issue here. Rather the issue is Ismail advocating supporting the Spanish Republic *vs. the workers and the Spanish Revolution.*

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Well that clear it all up then, doesn't it? Dimitrov is "concerned," wonders if things haven't gone "too far." Please report your thoughts? Do us a favor please........... you may think that amounts to criticism, to revolutionary criticism of an international policy, but all it is bullshit posing."Bullshit posing"? I guess except for the part where Browder was denounced as a right-wing revisionist and expelled from the CPUSA.


And the differences between France and Spain in 1936, or Vietnam in 1937 where the popular front was the prescription? Or the differences between Spain and Chile?Was Chile in a civil war in which fascist powers were backing an incredibly reactionary and viciously anti-communist rebellion? There were fears of the rise of fascism in France.

As a note this was Hoxha on Chile in 1973: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm

On another note I was reading bits from Hoxha's diaries (in Albanian), and he notes that a day after he gave his two-hour, November 16, 1960 speech in which he denounced Khrushchev at the international meeting of communist parties, Ibárruri was there denouncing Hoxha in very strong terms. In his memoirs Khrushchev defends Ibárruri in this instance, who said that Hoxha was like a dog who "bites the hand that feeds it."

So yeah, not a great communist.

[Commissar Rykov]

If Ataturk or Amanullah Khan were resisting British imperialism, or Haile Selassie was resisting Mussolini, or even the ultra-reactionary Taliban, compared to whom Amanullah really was a "progressive," are resisting US imperialism right now, then the workers have to side with them defending their countries vs. imperialism.

This was not opportunism, it was the reverse, it was basic principle, to be applied now matter how reactionary, vicious, murderous, disgusting and unpleasant these rulers happened to be.

Just as it was equally principled and necessary to support the Spanish Republic vs. Franco on the battlefront, despite the counterrevolutionary ravages of the NKVD behind the front.

But that is not the issue here. Rather the issue is Ismail advocating supporting the Spanish Republic *vs. the workers and the Spanish Revolution.*

-M.H.-
So then you have to decide between two reactionary forces? Why do you have to choose? Both are horrible there is no reason to support either. It does not make sense to me just to support a reactionary movement just because they are on the defensive. The people deserve our support not zealots, nationalists, reactionaries, racists, etc.

[A Marxist Historian]

So then you have to decide between two reactionary forces? Why do you have to choose? Both are horrible there is no reason to support either. It does not make sense to me just to support a reactionary movement just because they are on the defensive. The people deserve our support not zealots, nationalists, reactionaries, racists, etc.

So then since the Spanish Republic was rotten, we should have let Franco win?

Since Stalin was rotten, we should have let Hitler win?

That isn't just ultra leftism, tha is treachery.

It has nothing to do with "supporting" the Taliban or Haile Selassie or whatever bunch of reactionaries and dictators happen to be in charge in a country oppressed by imperialism.

It's about opposing imperialism and supporting Third World countries vs. the imperialists that oppress them.

Just about all Third World countries have reactionary governments. If you don't defend Third World countries vs. imperialism, then you are an imperialist yourself. A "social imperialist" as Lenin put it.

-M.H.-

[Commissar Rykov]

So then since the Spanish Republic was rotten, we should have let Franco win?

Since Stalin was rotten, we should have let Hitler win?

That isn't just ultra leftism, tha is treachery.

It has nothing to do with "supporting" the Taliban or Haile Selassie or whatever bunch of reactionaries and dictators happen to be in charge in a country oppressed by imperialism.

It's about opposing imperialism and supporting Third World countries vs. the imperialists that oppress them.

Just about all Third World countries have reactionary governments. If you don't defend Third World countries vs. imperialism, then you are an imperialist yourself. A "social imperialist" as Lenin put it.

-M.H.-
Ah Ad Hominems. You are missing the point there is a difference from supporting a certain progressive trend against Imperialist aggression and it is something else entirely to support one reactionary over another. If you have two different shit choices the better position is not to support either. Encourage the people to rise up and shatter their shackles but don't acting like you are doing anyone any good by supporting some tinpot dictator over another.

[Ismail]

Ah Ad Hominems. You are missing the point there is a difference from supporting a certain progressive trend against Imperialist aggression and it is something else entirely to support one reactionary over another. If you have two different shit choices the better position is not to support either. Encourage the people to rise up and shatter their shackles but don't acting like you are doing anyone any good by supporting some tinpot dictator over another.There's a difference between supporting "some tinpot dictator over another" and defending a nation and its people as a whole against a world superpower with its inevitable imperialist ambitions. Even Trotsky got it right, saying (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm) in 1938 that, "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy."

Hoxha, for instance, gave his support to the Argentine people in the war over Malvinas/the Falklands. It doesn't mean that Hoxha thought the military regime was awesome or progressive, just that in a war between Argentina and Britain, Britain obviously had much more to lose.

[Commissar Rykov]

There's a difference between supporting "some tinpot dictator over another" and defending a nation and its people as a whole against a world superpower with its inevitable imperialist ambitions. Even Trotsky got it right, saying (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm) in 1938 that, "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy."

Hoxha, for instance, gave his support to the Argentine people in the war over Malvinas/the Falklands. It doesn't mean that Hoxha thought the military regime was awesome or progressive, just that in a war between Argentina and Britain, Britain obviously had much more to lose.
I get what you are saying and about the political reality. As I said though things should be viewed for what is best for the people as a whole. I do get what you are saying though about stopping Imperialism in its tracks and I believe the reasoning is sound.

[S.Artesian]

There's a difference between supporting "some tinpot dictator over another" and defending a nation and its people as a whole against a world superpower with its inevitable imperialist ambitions. Even Trotsky got it right, saying (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm) in 1938 that, "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy."

Hoxha, for instance, gave his support to the Argentine people in the war over Malvinas/the Falklands. It doesn't mean that Hoxha thought the military regime was awesome or progressive, just that in a war between Argentina and Britain, Britain obviously had much more to lose.

Turned out of course, that it was the defeat of junta in that conflict that was the critical event in destroying the junta's authority in Argentina... so maybe we ought to drop the genuflecting to old formulas-- particularly when you have spent most of your posts actually obscuring class antagonisms and conflicts by reducing those struggles to a "struggle between fascism and democracy."

Regarding Turkey and Afghanistan, Lenin and Trotsky's support was in no way a "defense of an oppressed people battling British imperialism"-- their support was in fact, in part, an attempt to placate British imperialism, to not antagonize British imperialism by having a revolution erupt in Afghanistan that the Bolsheviks might feel obligated to support.

In Turkey it was a sellout deal, no other way to say it. Turkey secures Russia's flank and does not allow foreign troops passage and the Bolsheviks give Ataturk arms and turn their heads when the left communists are gunned down.

The questions are not quite as simple minded as the non-Marxist non-Historian wishes they were.

It's not about defending 3rd world countries from imperialism in abstracto. There is no such defense that does not advance a program of class struggle. You don't defend the Iraqi people, the Iraqi workers, by arguing that workers in Iraq had to subordinate themselves to a program of "national defense" and drop their class opposition to Hussein.

It's about class struggle. You don't defend anyone from imperialism by subordinating the workers to the bourgeoisie, the "local" "domestic" "national" "patriotic" whatever bourgeoisie. Didn't work in China in 1927; didn't work in Argentina under Peron; didn't work in Bolivia under the MNR; didn't work in Chile under Allende; won't work in South Africa with the ANC; won't work in Iran; won't work in Bolivia with Morales.

You can only oppose imperialism by opposing capitalism, by opposing any and all class collaboration with the "local" bourgeoisie.

Oh yeah, and for our non-Marxist pseudo-Historian. please point out where Trotsky ever advocated defending the Spanish popular front. Trotsky advocated defending the workers revolution; of a united class opposition against Franco, as well as against the popular front. Trotsky called for the establishment of a workers' republic. He never called for a defense of the popular front in Spain just as when Kornilov, especially when Kornilov was threatening Petrograd, he did not call for the defense of the PRG. In fact the Bolsheviks utilized that opportunity to undermine the authority of the PRG, organizing the resistance to reject any instructions from the PRG that were not approved by the soviet, etc etc. Even Trotsky got that part right.

[Ismail]

Turned out of course, that it was the defeat of junta in that conflict that was the critical event in destroying the junta's authority in Argentina... so maybe we ought to drop the genuflecting to old formulasIt still does not change the fact that the USA and the Soviet revisionists voted to conduct an economic blockade of Argentina and to support the British intervention. It was still a case of Britain fighting for Queen and Country to regain a colonial possession.

Ever thought that imperialism and colonialism were the reason why the Argentine junta was able to play off the whole thing as a "patriotic" move in the first place? That if Britain did not have the Malvinas as a colony that the junta could not resort to such "patriotic" activities to prolong its existence to begin with?

[A Marxist Historian]

Ah Ad Hominems. You are missing the point there is a difference from supporting a certain progressive trend against Imperialist aggression and it is something else entirely to support one reactionary over another. If you have two different shit choices the better position is not to support either. Encourage the people to rise up and shatter their shackles but don't acting like you are doing anyone any good by supporting some tinpot dictator over another.

Not an ad hominem, as it is possible, and even still is possible, that you just expressed yourself badly, and don't really want to scab on the struggle vs. US imperialism. So my criticism isn't against you, but against what your posting sounded like, which I'm now giving you the opportunity to fix.

It's not about supporting a progressive trend vs. imperialism, but neither is it about supporting one reactionary over another. I mean, who said anything about *supporting* the Taliban? I for once wish the Soviets had crushed them in the egg, and and the CIA's Tora Bora construction contractor Bin Laden too. But that was then and this is now.

The issue is whether you oppose imperialism, even if the forces resisting imperialism are pretty rotten too. There's a war going on in Afghanistan, between the people of Afghanistan and the puppets of U.S. imperialism. Being neutral in that war is no different than being neutral between Franco and the Spanish Republic, or being neutral between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in WWII.

After the US is driven out, then it will be time to do something about the Taliban. And at the rate things are going, that time may be soon. The US simply can't afford the war anymore, and Obama is trying to negotiate a deal with them. After all, the US supported the pre-Taliban vs. the Soviets, so why not, especially now that Bin Laden is dead?

-M.H.-

[Commissar Rykov]

Not an ad hominem, as it is possible, and even still is possible, that you just expressed yourself badly, and don't really want to scab on the struggle vs. US imperialism. So my criticism isn't against you, but against what your posting sounded like, which I'm now giving you the opportunity to fix.

It's not about supporting a progressive trend vs. imperialism, but neither is it about supporting one reactionary over another. I mean, who said anything about *supporting* the Taliban? I for once wish the Soviets had crushed them in the egg, and and the CIA's Tora Bora construction contractor Bin Laden too. But that was then and this is now.

The issue is whether you oppose imperialism, even if the forces resisting imperialism are pretty rotten too. There's a war going on in Afghanistan, between the people of Afghanistan and the puppets of U.S. imperialism. Being neutral in that war is no different than being neutral between Franco and the Spanish Republic, or being neutral between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in WWII.

After the US is driven out, then it will be time to do something about the Taliban. And at the rate things are going, that time may be soon. The US simply can't afford the war anymore, and Obama is trying to negotiate a deal with them. After all, the US supported the pre-Taliban vs. the Soviets, so why not, especially now that Bin Laden is dead?

-M.H.-
Where did you even draw any of that from what I posted? I made no mention of the struggle against American Imperialism. I was merely making the comment that we should be supporting the Proletariat and doing what is best for them and sometimes that doesn't involve supporting either side of a conflict as both sides could be just as bad. My whole point is to be dogmatic about abstract situations means one will be inflexible when Political Realities raise their heads. Sure most of the time there is an obvious side but situations can arise that are far too cloudy to make an obvious or even a well informed decision.

[A Marxist Historian]

Turned out of course, that it was the defeat of junta in that conflict that was the critical event in destroying the junta's authority in Argentina... so maybe we ought to drop the genuflecting to old formulas-- particularly when you have spent most of your posts actually obscuring class antagonisms and conflicts by reducing those struggles to a "struggle between fascism and democracy."

Regarding Turkey and Afghanistan, Lenin and Trotsky's support was in no way a "defense of an oppressed people battling British imperialism"-- their support was in fact, in part, an attempt to placate British imperialism, to not antagonize British imperialism by having a revolution erupt in Afghanistan that the Bolsheviks might feel obligated to support.

A workers revolution erupting in Afghanistan in the year 1920? Now that's a total fantasy. No such animal was a possibility, being as there was no industry and there were no workers. For that matter I don't think there weren't too many peasants either, the population was mostly nomadic is my impression. And, being that Afghanistan was after all an independent state, an anti-colonial revolution wasn't on the cards there either.

Now, the Red Army marching into Afghanistan from Turkestan and overthrowing Amanullah, creating another Outer Mongolia, that was perfectly possible. That's what Trotsky was arguing against.

On Argentina OTOH I think you are sort of correct. That wasn't some kind of anti-colonial conflict to free all the oppressed sheep on the Malvinas Islands, but a squabble between two different lackeys of US Imperialism, Thatcher and the Argentine Junta, over some mostly worthless rocks.

In the 1930s English imperialism was a real issue in Latin America, with Britannia still ruling the waves and probably more British investment in Brazil than American. After WWII, Latin America became just about entirely American turf.

Be it noted that the US didn't automatically decide to back the Brits. Some of Reagan's cabinet, notably Alexander Hague, wanted to back the Argentines instead.


In Turkey it was a sellout deal, no other way to say it. Turkey secures Russia's flank and does not allow foreign troops passage and the Bolsheviks give Ataturk arms and turn their heads when the left communists are gunned down.

Ataturk didn't need any Russian arms to quash the local communists, who were pretty weak. The arms were to help protect Turkey vs. British imperialism, which at the time was planning to seize Istanbul and the whole western coast of Turkey and turn it over to Greece, with the Brits of course getting all those Turkish naval bases on the Dardanelles so that the Briish fleet could go into the Black Sea at will and the Brits and the French could intervene far more effectively into Ukraine, save the Whites's bacon, and crush revolution there. The Bolsheviks, and I suppose Makhno too for that matter.

And of course turning Turkey into a Greek-British colony, and conducting ethnic massacres of Turks in Anatolia itself as well as in Greece and other Balkan countries. Not that the Turks were any better of course, indeed they were worse. But the Bolsheviks did put Armenia under their protection, thereby saving the lives of probably millions of Armenians from Turkish genocide.

As for turning their heads when the Turkish communists were suppressed, I have no doubt that there were diplomatic representations made to Ataturk that he shouldn't do that, and equally no doubt they were ignored. There really wasn't much else they could have done in the situation. Hopefully you had some experienced revolutionaries sent in to help them with going underground and escaping to the Soviet Union and so forth. Which it would have been very necessary to keep *strictly separated* from Soviet diplomatic representatives.


The questions are not quite as simple minded as the non-Marxist non-Historian wishes they were.

It's not about defending 3rd world countries from imperialism in abstracto. There is no such defense that does not advance a program of class struggle. You don't defend the Iraqi people, the Iraqi workers, by arguing that workers in Iraq had to subordinate themselves to a program of "national defense" and drop their class opposition to Hussein.

It's about class struggle. You don't defend anyone from imperialism by subordinating the workers to the bourgeoisie, the "local" "domestic" "national" "patriotic" whatever bourgeoisie. Didn't work in China in 1927; didn't work in Argentina under Peron; didn't work in Bolivia under the MNR; didn't work in Chile under Allende; won't work in South Africa with the ANC; won't work in Iran; won't work in Bolivia with Morales.

You can only oppose imperialism by opposing capitalism, by opposing any and all class collaboration with the "local" bourgeoisie.

So then, when Pinochet overthrew Allende, workers should just have sat back and not resisted, since Allende's regime was a Popular Front?

Of course you should oppose class collaboration, and supporting Allende *politically* was a disaster. After all, it was Allende who appointed Pinochet as commander of the Chilean army in the first place.

But when the guns start firing, the question is always that old coal miner question.

"Which side are you on?"


Oh yeah, and for our non-Marxist pseudo-Historian. please point out where Trotsky ever advocated defending the Spanish popular front. Trotsky advocated defending the workers revolution; of a united class opposition against Franco, as well as against the popular front. Trotsky called for the establishment of a workers' republic. He never called for a defense of the popular front in Spain just as when Kornilov, especially when Kornilov was threatening Petrograd, he did not call for the defense of the PRG. In fact the Bolsheviks utilized that opportunity to undermine the authority of the PRG, organizing the resistance to reject any instructions from the PRG that were not approved by the soviet, etc etc. Even Trotsky got that part right.

Sure he did. That's what revolutionaries always try to do in united fronts to the reformists or Third World bourgeois nationalists or what have you they are compelled to bloc with. As Lenin put it, Communists should support Social Democrats when in united fronts with them "in the same fashion a rope supports a hanged man."

But the first task is to beat the common enemy, whether it be Kornilov or Franco or, nowadays, US imperialism. Any actions that undermine *that* are counterrevolutionary treachery, indeed acting as a "Fifth Column" for the enemy, as the Stalinists lyingly claimed Trotskyists and anarchists did in Spain.

Did Trotsky call for *political* support to the Spanish Republic? Of course not.

But there was a war on, and yes, Spanish Trotskyists went to the front and fought in that war. Just as now there are wars in Libya and Afghanistan.

The neutralist position you are arguing is *absolutely* no different from saying, as some American ultralefts indeed said with respect to Spain (the Oehlerites I think, and some smaller fragments), that since both sides are capitalist the workers have no sides in the Spanish Civil War.

To the best of my knowledge, *no* Spanish leftists took that kind of position, as that would have been obviously counterrevolutionary to *everybody.*

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Where did you even draw any of that from what I posted? I made no mention of the struggle against American Imperialism. I was merely making the comment that we should be supporting the Proletariat and doing what is best for them and sometimes that doesn't involve supporting either side of a conflict as both sides could be just as bad. My whole point is to be dogmatic about abstract situations means one will be inflexible when Political Realities raise their heads. Sure most of the time there is an obvious side but situations can arise that are far too cloudy to make an obvious or even a well informed decision.

Oh. You were just making an abstract point then, not responding to the particular concrete situations I was talking about?

OK fine then, we've cleared that up. I regret getting hot under the collar about it.

Certainly when you really do have two equally reactionary sides the workers should not get involved on one side or the other. Libya for example, until the NATO bombs started dropping and the US drone missiles started flying there was no reason to support either Qaddafi or the reactionaries in Benghazi in their war with each other.

But in the context of this thread, it certainly *sounded like* you were agreeing with those posters here who seem to want to be neutral in wars between imperialists and Third World countries, if they are led by reactionaries, as just about all of them are.

That's the trouble with Internet political arguments, it is always easy to be misunderstood.

-M.H.-

[Commissar Rykov]

Oh. You were just making an abstract point then, not responding to the particular concrete situations I was talking about?

OK fine then, we've cleared that up. I regret getting hot under the collar about it.

Certainly when you really do have two equally reactionary sides the workers should not get involved on one side or the other. Libya for example, until the NATO bombs started dropping and the US drone missiles started flying there was no reason to support either Qaddafi or the reactionaries in Benghazi in their war with each other.

But in the context of this thread, it certainly *sounded like* you were agreeing with those posters here who seem to want to be neutral in wars between imperialists and Third World countries, if they are led by reactionaries, as just about all of them are.

That's the trouble with Internet political arguments, it is always easy to be misunderstood.

-M.H.-
Sorry I should have made it clear I was talking in the abstract. In fact originally I was going to say I agreed with the examples you gave but for some reason I got stuck in my abstract notions and forgot to include it. Don't worry Comrade I was more confused then anything.:D

[Rodrigo]

Because it's an unjustifiable policy.

In his diary in 1975 Hoxha noted that, "For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'. This is not a principled stand. The struggle of China against the Soviets is not being waged on the ideological platform to unmask their social-imperialist policy on this basis. No, China is not doing this properly at all. Why is it not doing this? Because its policy is not based on the Marxist-Leninist theory. China has joined in the political dance of the bourgeoisie, adopted a pragmatic policy... China seeks the friendship of ruling cliques in order 'to approach the peoples', instead of winning the hearts of the peoples by convincing them that it fully supports their cause." (Reflections on China Vol. II, pp. 129-130.) He would use much harsher words as the months passed and as Mao's death paved the way for the openly right-wing Hua and Deng.

It was one of the things that led to the Sino-Albanian split in 1977-78.

There I am, the first Maoist of the topic. Just because someone is a Leninist or a Maoist doesn't mean we should not criticize mistakes from e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, etc. :) I agree with Ismail, it is unjustifiable.

Now, being apart from Hoxha's destructive criticism: that occurred because People's Republic of China was first recognized by Chile on Latin America; maybe the Chinese thought they were on the side of communists, but they should have studied the situation of Chile first. It was a very wrong attitude.

[ColonelCossack]

Wasn't pinochet friends with maggie thatcher?

And didn't maggie thatcher have a high opinion of deng xiaoping?

[Rodrigo]

There I am, the first Maoist of the topic. Just because someone is a Leninist or a Maoist doesn't mean we should not criticize mistakes from e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, etc. :) I agree with Ismail, it is unjustifiable.

Now, being apart from Hoxha's destructive criticism: that occurred because People's Republic of China was first recognized by Chile on Latin America; maybe the Chinese thought they were on the side of communists, but they should have studied the situation of Chile first. It was a very wrong attitude.

I was wrong. The first Latin American government to have diplomatic relations with China was Peru; then Chile in 1971; but the Chinese government recognized the coup of 1973. I heard Mao used to praise Chile's military dictatorship on Peking Radio, but his health began to decline in 1971 and 1972 and was also politically weakening. So, to make this assert we need a good source about it and the audio samples.

[Psy]

I was wrong. The first Latin American government to have diplomatic relations with China was Peru; then Chile in 1971; but the Chinese government recognized the coup of 1973. I heard Mao used to praise Chile's military dictatorship on Peking Radio, but his health began to decline in 1971 and 1972 and was also politically weakening. So, to make this assert we need a good source about it and the audio samples.

In 1973 the workers still had a chance at overthrowing the coup it would have been a cake walk if the USSR sent forces into Chile, the USSR sent 3,000 troops into the Vietnam war as "advisors" so the USSR could have done the same to defend Allende.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

China recognized Pinochet's government the same time the US did. They exactly support the coup, per se, but China still supported the Pinochet regime after it had already occured due to their "Three Worlds Theory" ie Soviet social-imperialism was more of a threat than U.S. imperialism.

This, it's my understanding that due to the TWT Chile was seen as an ally or atleast a diplomatic ally considering it was a 'third-world' nation which could potentially rise up with other 'third-world' nations against the 'first-world' nations or some such bollox. The PRC's diplomatic relations with Chile, America and others have always seemed at best questionable and at worst traitorous. Really, even despite the revisionism and 'social-imperialism' of the USSR, the PRC should have held to the same ideaological line as Albania and unite in solidarity against both the USSR and world capital. Why this didn't happen and the Sino-Albanian split occured I logically don't know or understand.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Soivet Union should have just sat back and watched, and when the Polish colonels finally desperately turned to the Soviet Union as their only possible saviors, they should have been given support--but only on very tough conditions.

I never thought of that scenario before, but there's one wrinkle: What if the Polish military leaders were so anti-Soviet that they'd rather surrender to the Nazis than accept Soviet help, knowing that "very tough conditions" would be attached?

[PhoenixAsh]

Just noticed this thread.

China's political foreign policy was based on Mao's three worlds theory in which the world is devided in three worlds...

The first world: USA and USSR (imperialist nations)
The second world: Europe, Canada and Japan (imperialist allies)
The third world: the rest (semi-colonies, former colonies, poor countries)

The theory makes everything subservient to the struggle of the third world against the oppression and exploitation of the first and second world. That, and not class struggle, is the only relevant priority struggle today.

China considered itself to be a non-imperialist, socialist third world nation and on that basis allied itself with third world nations on the mere basis that they were third world nations and the common struggle against the first two worlds. It was irrelevant what kind of government these nations had or wether or not these nations were socialist of (crypto) fascist dictatorships.

The aim of this police was...as Deng Xiaoping put it in 1974:

Since numerous Third World countries and people were able to achieve political independence through protracted struggle, certainly they will also be able, on this basis, to bring about through sustained struggle a thorough change in the international economic relations which are based on inequality, control and exploitation and thus create essential conditions for the independent development of their national economy by strengthening their unity and allying themselves with other countries subjected to superpower bullying.

This whole concept ignores the fact, as did China in its external policy, that some governments in the third world were heavilly reliant on and in fact beholden puppet regimes of the first and second world. Which is beautifully illustrated by such nice alliances as with Pinochet.