Should the USSR and PRC have merged?

[getfiscal]

Here is a quote from Alan Woods:

"If Stalin and Mao had stood on the programme of Leninism, they would have immediately proposed the creation of a Socialist Federation of the Soviet Union and China, which would have been of immense benefit to all the peoples."

You can find this article on Marxist dot com and scroll down to the picture of Mao.

Alan Woods is the member of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), which has dozens of members across the world. The IMT typically aims to convert social-democratic parties (Labour UK, NDP Canada) into revolutionary parties and is within the Trotskyist tradition.

What do you think of this quote?

[Veovis]

The thing is, Stalin and Mao weren't Leninist or Marxist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here is a quote from Alan Woods:

"If Stalin and Mao had stood on the programme of Leninism, they would have immediately proposed the creation of a Socialist Federation of the Soviet Union and China, which would have been of immense benefit to all the peoples."

You can find this article on Marxist dot com and scroll down to the picture of Mao.

Alan Woods is the member of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), which has dozens of members across the world. The IMT typically aims to convert social-democratic parties (Labour UK, NDP Canada) into revolutionary parties and is within the Trotskyist tradition.

What do you think of this quote?

Not enough.

Mongolia would have been unified with the rest of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria would have joined, and the rest of the Cominform/Comecon/Warsaw Pact countries would have joined, as well.

[getfiscal]

The thing is, Stalin and Mao weren't Leninist or Marxist.Thank you for answering the question.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

I thought that was why USSR was created, as a precursor to a Socialist World Republic...

[Revolutionair]

Thank you for answering the question.

I'm not sure whether this was sarcastic or not. But to expand on what Veovis said, I believe Mao said that he never read Kapital. If you, like me, consider Kapital to be the central piece of Marx his work, then calling Mao a Marxist is quite problematic.

[Rafiq]

The thing is, Stalin and Mao weren't Leninist or Marxist.

Please stop with the bullshit idealism

[Rafiq]

I'm not sure whether this was sarcastic or not. But to expand on what Veovis said, I believe Mao said that he never read Kapital. If you, like me, consider Kapital to be the central piece of Marx his work, then calling Mao a Marxist is quite problematic.

Because the ability to represent the ruling class of a country, and their ability to merge with larger states is defined by how "Marxist" or "Leninist" you are. :rolleyes:

[DaringMehring]

They should have merged, yes. That was the intention of the USSR. The Republics of the USSR weren't united because they were the former prisoner-nations of the Russian Empire. They were united because it was expected that every successful revolution would join the Federal Soviet Republic of the World.

"And the whole world will be one Soviet Republic of all nations/people (vseh narodah)!"

Look at how it played in history. Socialism In One Country, nationalism, competition, eventually armed skirmishes between these "socialist" countries, competing blocs, and alliances with capitalism/Imperialism against each other.

[Thirsty Crow]

Please stop with the bullshit idealismOh how enlightening. You apparently read people's minds.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a disgusting farce to consider adherents of the theory of socialism in one country and the politics of the four supposedly progressive classes as Marxists. So take a shot against this idealism.

[danyboy27]

All that manpower and ressources centralised around 1 uber state controlled by a semi-democratic structure sound like a fucking bad idea, a recipies for disaster.

[Rafiq]

Oh how enlightening. You apparently read people's minds.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a disgusting farce to consider adherents of the theory of socialism in one country and the politics of the four supposedly progressive classes as Marxists. So take a shot against this idealism.

Last time I checked, it's perfectly possible for a member of the Bourgeoisie to be a Marxist, even if they are assholes. There isn't any qualification in regards to being a follower of Darwin's teachings, why is it not the same in regards to being a Marxist?

Marxism is not a set of ethics one must follow. It's a scientific model used to analyse several things.

I was referring to (him) being an Idealist, because, his post had absolutely nothing to do with the thread, as if it means anything to be a Leninist or a Marxist.

An idealist would say: A major potential geographical and political, historical event rests on whether the representatives of those states are Marxists or Leninists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Last time I checked, it's perfectly possible for a member of the Bourgeoisie to be a Marxist, even if they are assholes. There isn't any qualification in regards to being a follower of Darwin's teachings, why is it not the same in regards to being a Marxist?

Marxism is not a set of ethics one must follow. It's a scientific model used to analyse several things. Man you're a dull one, aren't you?

The ending of the sentence ("as Marxists") referce to te farce that is a recognition of socialism in one country and the bloc of four classes as elements of Marxism. So feel free to include any kind of bourgeois shit in what was once called Marxism.


I was referring to (him) being an Idealist, because, his post had absolutely nothing to do with the thread, as if it means anything to be a Leninist or a Marxist.
That's just precious, real precious.
Political positions, encapsulated in formulae like "Marxism", don't mean anything. Well no shit they don't mean anything since nowadays even a cow mooing on a tree might be considered as Marxist. Though, it might be interesting to see how come we've reached this point.

And did you bother to, you know, read the quoted bit by Alan Woods? The part where he says "If Stalin and Mao had stood on the programme of Leninism..."? Nope? Yeah, it seems that you didn't, cause then you wouldn't be spouting unadulterated shit like this, as if adherence to Leninism wasn't brought up by OP, or Alan Woods. So you can actually send an inflammatory email to Mr. Woods, accusing him of idealism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps because Stalin and Mao preferred to retain control of their respective military and security forces? Although I am a Gramscian, I also adhere to many of the basic doctrines set forth by Lenin in The State and Revolution. A perusal of that work by Lenin might lead one to the conclusion that the state's monopoly of armed power is a precious thing to one that controls it, and a thing that no ruling class or party is likely to give away.

[Tim Cornelis]

The whole existence of the USSR should be an impossibility if historical materialism is defined as the idea that only materialist changes can bring about social change.

[Rafiq]

Man you're a dull one, aren't you?

The ending of the sentence ("as Marxists") referce to te farce that is a recognition of socialism in one country and the bloc of four classes as elements of Marxism. So feel free to include any kind of bourgeois shit in what was once called Marxism.

Although I completely oppose the notion of socialism in one country, and class collaboration, that still isn't grounds for accusing someone for "Not being a marxist" based on actions that are external to their theoretical and abstract work. For example, it's perfectly acceptable to label the likes of Mao and Stalin as anti-Marxist, bourgeois and Idealist, based on their writings in regards to Marxism.

But you have to remember things like, you know, Engels being a capitalist and all. He's still a Marxist.

And the point was, was that criticizing and blaming the failures of those individuals cannot be done in a matter of saying "They were not REAL marxists or leninists". In the end, that makes you no better than the anti revisionists. Just as Idealist, just as wrong.



That's just precious, real precious.
Political positions, encapsulated in formulae like "Marxism", don't mean anything. Well no shit they don't mean anything since nowadays even a cow mooing on a tree might be considered as Marxist. Though, it might be interesting to see how come we've reached this point.


You're misinterperating me, Marxism and Leninism have little to do with causing changes in the material world. They are, of course, reflections, but blaming a state's inability to make a large, geographical move on the basis that they are not "Marxist or leninist enough" puts you on the same level as the anti revisionists.


And did you bother to, you know, read the quoted bit by Alan Woods? The part where he says "If Stalin and Mao had stood on the programme of Leninism..."? Nope? Yeah, it seems that you didn't, cause then you wouldn't be spouting unadulterated shit like this, as if adherence to Leninism wasn't brought up by OP, or Alan Woods. So you can actually send an inflammatory email to Mr. Woods, accusing him of idealism.


I did read it, however, I didn't take it seriously, considering the OP is a Hoxhaist, and they are not particularly known for their understanding of materialism.

[artanis17]

It is sad that 2/3 of USSR's army was stationed against PRC and only 1/3 against NATO

[GoddessCleoLover]

If the USSR and the PRC had merged into one polity, what would that have looked like in practical terms? Presumably the Parties would have merged, but how precisely would a merger between the CPSU and the Chinese Communist party been effectuated? How would mergers of fundamentally vertical organizations such as the Soviet Army and the PLA have been achieved?

It seems dubious at best to suggest that the USSR would have likely to assist the PRC in its basic economic reconstruction given the massive destruction suffered by the USSR as a result of the German invasion. It also seems unlikely that Soviet officials would have provided better leadership to the new PRC than the PRC was able to provide itself in light of the catastrophic errors committed by the Soviet leadership with respect to agricultural policies undertaken in the early 1930s. The paranoid nature of the Soviet leadership of the late 1940s epitomized by the denunciation of Tito and the Yugoslav Communist leadership generally and the blood purging of capable Soviet Marxists such as Voznesenskii leads me to the sad conclusion that the PRC was better off going its own way.

[Renegade Saint]

The notion that the USSR and PRC could have successfully become one political entity seems extremely idealistic. What makes people think that would have been successful? Because they were both "marxist" (even if their ideas of Marxism were wildly different)?

The other members of the USSR were able to be incorporated into it at least partly because they had a long history of being a united political entity (ie, the Russian Empire). Taking two very different countries with very different histories at very different stages of economic and political development-not to mention religious and cultural differences- and thinking you can smash them into one unified entity on the basis of a claimed shared ideology seems hopelessly naive. We've seen the problems of the member states of the EU 'merging', and those countries are much more similar than the USSR and PRC were.

[Zulu]

They should have, but they couldn't.

It's amazing how the Trotskyists permanently disregard any real world economical, political, cultural, etc. constraints that prevent their cry-baby demand of full global Communism "here and now, tomorrow by noon at the latest" from coming true every time they care to voice it.

Stalin and Mao worked on it, they had just than three years before Stalin died (and that's even less than it had taken the USSR itself to be formed after the October 1917). And then Krushev's chauvinist clique took over in the Soviet Union and did absolutely everything to bring about the Split.

[getfiscal]

Stalin and Mao worked on it
Wait, what? Stalin and Mao tried to unite the two countries?

[Igor]

The notion that the USSR and PRC could have successfully become one political entity seems extremely idealistic. What makes people think that would have been successful? Because they were both "marxist" (even if their ideas of Marxism were wildly different)?


itt attempts at international socialism are 'idealistic'

[Zulu]

Wait, what? Stalin and Mao tried to unite the two countries?

There definitely was a trend for economic integration, in addition to the joint war effort in Korea.

But have you read the rest of my post? The Bolsheviks were able to make the USSR happen due to more or less unified economic and political space of then recently collapsed Russian Empire. Even so, formally it was constituted as a confederacy which later became the reason it fell apart so quickly once the communist ideology was abandoned during the Perestroika.

Certainly, the New China along with the rest of the socialist countries would eventually become united in one global political entity, which the USSR was originally planned to become on its creation (and which is referred to as "the programme of Leninism" in the OP's quote). But that couldn't happen so easily after the WW2. And even without the imperialists' intrigues, it would have taken years to simply teach enough people in all countries to speak the international language (be it Russian, Chinese, English, Spanish or Swahili) which seems an obvious requirement for a meaningful political merger.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

They should have, but they couldn't.

It's amazing how the Trotskyists permanently disregard any real world economical, political, cultural, etc. constraints that prevent their cry-baby demand of full global Communism "here and now, tomorrow by noon at the latest" from coming true every time they care to voice it.

Stalin and Mao worked on it, they had just than three years before Stalin died (and that's even less than it had taken the USSR itself to be formed after the October 1917). And then Krushev's chauvinist clique took over in the Soviet Union and did absolutely everything to bring about the Split.

Yes, completely different social, cultural and material conditions, uufff. Completely agree about Kruschev, i don't know if this article is complete bullshit, but here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-union-planned-t169360/index.html?t=169360&highlight=soviet+union+nuclear+china

[Zulu]

Yes, completely different social, cultural and material conditions, uufff. Completely agree about Kruschev, i don't know if this article is complete bullshit, but here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-union-planned-t169360/index.html?t=169360&highlight=soviet+union+nuclear+china

Well, the military has to plan for all eventualities. So it's definitely true in the same sense that the USSR planned on nuking the USA and vice versa. It's definitely untrue that the political decision to indeed use nukes was already in the making during the 1969 border conflict. However, the conflict between the two supposedly communist powers was quite awful as it was. It is more likely that the nuclear option was more real in 1979, when the PRC launched a full-scale invasion of Vietnam (maybe the Soviets threatened the Chinese into withdrawing).

I think Khrushchev was personally an "honest fool". Which is more dangerous than your average enemy agent. Because the enemy agent tries to play smart and don't do too much damage at a time in order to remain unidentified. The honest fool, however, doesn't realize that he is doing damage, so he does it wholesale. However, his cronies who ousted him in the end were even worse, since they had almost no principles at all and Marxism-Leninism was just a sound in the air for them. So Mao's characteristic of them as "social imperialists" was quite accurate.

[Rafiq]

The whole existence of the USSR should be an impossibility if historical materialism is defined as the idea that only materialist changes can bring about social change.

Yes, you're right, Lenin's policies had nothing to do with material conditions and him uniting all of the Soviet Republics was not done in response to Imperialism. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

USSR and PRC merging no, yet the PRC should have became part of the Comecon since even Vietnam joined the Comecon. Also the Comecon should have been more centrality planned, creating unified Comecon economic plans for all of the Comecon.

[levigu]

If memory serves me right, Hungary* was in such a dire economic state immediately following WW2 that the Hungarian communists applied to accede to the USSR, but were rejected because Stalin preferred to have a ring of buffer states around the USSR rather than bringing all of the allies of the USSR into the union.

Yes, in ideal conditions, the USSR would have united with China. And with communist Germany after the successful Spartacist uprisings, and with communist America, etc, etc. We can talk about ideal conditions from the past all we want, but the fact is that historically speaking, union between the USSR and the PRC was always completely unfeasible.

*It might have been Bulgaria, don't quote me on this, but it was definitely one of the two.

[Psy]

If memory serves me right, Hungary* was in such a dire economic state immediately following WW2 that the Hungarian communists applied to accede to the USSR, but were rejected because Stalin preferred to have a ring of buffer states around the USSR rather than bringing all of the allies of the USSR into the union.

Yes, in ideal conditions, the USSR would have united with China. And with communist Germany after the successful Spartacist uprisings, and with communist America, etc, etc. We can talk about ideal conditions from the past all we want, but the fact is that historically speaking, union between the USSR and the PRC was always completely unfeasible.

*It might have been Bulgaria, don't quote me on this, but it was definitely one of the two.

From a logical standpoint a union between the USSR and PRC was logical, the USSR after WWII were masters of industrialization while the PRC wanted to industrialize. For example merging China Railways with Soviet Railways would have allowed the PRC to more rapidly build a modern railway.