Why didn't the USSR apply the Brezhnev Doctrine to China? [Archive]

Psy

24th April 2012, 17:22

Because he was not a complete idiot. China was pretty strong and even if China was not strong enough to protect itself by itself, the Western powers would have gotten involved on the Chinese side in order to prevent the spread of Soviet social-imperialism, which was a direct challenge to Western imperialism.
Imperial Japan was able to fight National China to a stalemate during WWII while also fighting in the Pacific, the USSR during WWII brushed off the Japanese military and steam rolled through Manchuria.

China at the time was still modernizing and no match for the USSR even with NATO help. That said such a war would be pointless for the USSR, as while the USSR could have easily steamrolled through China occupying it would been a nightmare as Japan learned the hardware during WWII.

Grenzer

24th April 2012, 17:31

Well China nor the U.S.S.R. were really internationalist by the end of WW2. Why didn't they merge into one super socialist state?

Neither of them being socialist would probably be a pretty big part of it.

Psy

24th April 2012, 19:08

Neither of them being socialist would probably be a pretty big part of it.
That and a single state probably wouldn't be a good idea, all they needed that was needed to be done is get the two to work together.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

24th April 2012, 19:26

That and a single state probably wouldn't be a good idea, all they needed that was needed to be done is get the two to work together.

Work together for what?

Psy

24th April 2012, 19:33

Work together for what?
Well from a socialist sense work together to build socialism. But with neither of them having such a goal, more realistically working together to form a military and economic pact against US imperialism in East Asia.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

24th April 2012, 20:50

Well from a socialist sense work together to build socialism. But with neither of them having such a goal, more realistically working together to form a military and economic pact against US imperialism in East Asia.

Wasn´t the split about the Chinese not thinking an alliance with the USSR to be beneficial to their interests, considering it "social imperialist" etc?
Of course; the Chinese government infamously went on to form an alliance with US imperialism with the justification that USSR was a more dangerous and and aggressive imperialist power.

Psy

24th April 2012, 21:18

Wasn´t the split about the Chinese not thinking an alliance with the USSR to be beneficial to their interests, considering it "social imperialist" etc?
Of course; the Chinese government infamously went on to form an alliance with US imperialism with the justification that USSR was a more dangerous and and aggressive imperialist power.
Yhea but Mao wasn't really being realistic, the US had dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and was planning on dropping a nuke on Beijing to win the Korean war. While they just had a minor border skirmish the USSR.

Sixiang

25th April 2012, 00:25

Well China nor the U.S.S.R. were really internationalist by the end of WW2. Why didn't they merge into one super socialist state?
It wouldn't have made much sense at the time. Two completely different countries linguistically, culturally, economically, politically, socially. China in 1949 was in a much different place than the USSR at that time.

Wasn´t the split about the Chinese not thinking an alliance with the USSR to be beneficial to their interests, considering it "social imperialist" etc?
Of course; the Chinese government infamously went on to form an alliance with US imperialism with the justification that USSR was a more dangerous and and aggressive imperialist power.
The U.S. and China hardly had any sort of "alliance." So the U.S. president and his top foreign affairs advisor went on a small, brief trip to China. They were shown some Chinese historical landmarks, given Chinese food, and took some pictures shaking hands and sitting together. At the end, they signed a document that didn't do anything except state where the two countries stood. There was no alliance. The U.S. and China didn't agree to any sort of military alliance in case of war with the Soviet Union or anything. China asserted that Taiwan is part of it and that it is a sovereign state. The U.S. agreed to China's demands for agreeing to the "one China policy" and gave the PRC recognition as the rightful Chinese government, while downplaying the ROC's position internationally, yet still supporting it from any PRC take over. Whoopty doo. The U.S. and PRC are not in any sort of alliance. That's bullshit. U.S. capital has been allowed into China so goods can be manufactured at low cost and high profit for U.S. capitalists. Meanwhile China buys U.S. debt, sells commodities to the U.S., and continues to build up its military, declaring that the Taiwan issue is the number one international policy issue for China. There is no alliance. The U.S. government would be ready to go to war with China if it weren't so dependent on it at this point because of the debt thing.

Blanquist

25th April 2012, 05:11

It wouldn't have made much sense at the time. Two completely different countries linguistically, culturally, economically, politically, socially. China in 1949 was in a much different place than the USSR at that time.

The U.S. and China hardly had any sort of "alliance." So the U.S. president and his top foreign affairs advisor went on a small, brief trip to China. They were shown some Chinese historical landmarks, given Chinese food, and took some pictures shaking hands and sitting together. At the end, they signed a document that didn't do anything except state where the two countries stood. There was no alliance. The U.S. and China didn't agree to any sort of military alliance in case of war with the Soviet Union or anything. China asserted that Taiwan is part of it and that it is a sovereign state. The U.S. agreed to China's demands for agreeing to the "one China policy" and gave the PRC recognition as the rightful Chinese government, while downplaying the ROC's position internationally, yet still supporting it from any PRC take over. Whoopty doo. The U.S. and PRC are not in any sort of alliance. That's bullshit. U.S. capital has been allowed into China so goods can be manufactured at low cost and high profit for U.S. capitalists. Meanwhile China buys U.S. debt, sells commodities to the U.S., and continues to build up its military, declaring that the Taiwan issue is the number one international policy issue for China. There is no alliance. The U.S. government would be ready to go to war with China if it weren't so dependent on it at this point because of the debt thing.

You're right, the US decided unilaterally that it would back China in the event of a Sino-SU war.

commieathighnoon

25th April 2012, 22:43

Maoists are very eager to wash Mao of the right-wing turn that preceded Deng's rehabilitation, and eventual assumption of power. They very much want to preserve their Great Man while off-loading all responsibility for the post-GPCR right turn on Deng and the "capitalist roaders."

JAM

26th April 2012, 02:28

As far as I can remember China was not part of the Warsaw Pact or was part of USSR sphere of influence. The Brezhnev Doctrine was meant to be applied only in the members of the Warsaw Pact or any other country inside the USSR sphere of influence. At the time when the doctrine was conceived China was completely out of any influence or domain by Moscow.

Geiseric

26th April 2012, 05:30

Wait a sec what the hell, two "socialist," states are worried about either of them invading eachother now?

"They were different," isn't a valid answer to my question either, you can merge into a single state, like the U.S.S.R. was out of many different nationalities...

The point is, they weren't internationalist marxists. They were trying to develop their own territories with the help of foreign super powers to consolidate the rule of the upper stratum of the fSU and of the CPC, respectively. They were both "very different," obviously, but where's the spirit of "Hey we're both marxists! Let's work togather! Kinda like what Lenin and the Bolsheviks founded Comintern for!"?

By the way i'm not sure if you guys have noticed but instead of allying with the also supposedly "Communist," fSU, the Chinese Leadership leaned much further to the Imperialists, and by the time Nixon went to China the conditions for the export of American capital to China were already created by the Great Leap Forward.

The difference between Mao and Deng is very similar to the difference between Stalin and Khrushchev in my opinion, they both simply followed up on whatever motion their past predecessors started doing... One man, i.e. Deng can't possibly ruin Mao's supposedly glorious view of a class collaborationist china, in the same way that Khrushchev couldn't ruin Stalin's view of SoiC.

Rusty Shackleford

26th April 2012, 05:59

today the chinese state has a bit more of a bonapartist character but its relationship to international capital is still in favor of china. that being said, capital is a force in(and not just 'on' or agaisnt) china today.

also if they merged, im sure the new line would be that the soviet union was consolidating even more power for itself. speaking of which, when they liberated eastern europe, the soviet union didnt annex romania and so on. the socialist governments varied in character as well.

also, im sure the soviet union as a federation only occured because it took place in the former territory of the russian empire and various nations were also made independent within the federation.

i mean, im rambling a bit but internationalism doesnt mean putting all territories under one state, what would the capitol have been?

regardless, the sino-soviet split was the second greatest disaster of the last century, the first being the disollution of the ussr. sure as shit didnt enhance proletarian struggle elsewhere :lol:

Small Geezer

27th April 2012, 00:30

The US backed China because it was nothing like the SU, the SU was a workers state. China was always capitalist.

This is bullshit. There is no way you can describe China as 'less socialist' than the USSR.

The USSR had legalised private enterprise under Brezhnev.

China by 1956 had completed the nationalisation of industry and the collectivisation of agriculture. They only started reversing that in 1978.

I don't believe that either of these countries were workers' states at any time, but the idea that the Chinese system was more capitalistic than the USSR's is not correct.

The suggestion that the USSR should have invaded or intervened in China is not only stupid and clumsy but an expression of fawning Sovietophile chauvinism.

gorillafuck

27th April 2012, 01:02

The US backed China because it was nothing like the SU, the SU was a workers state. China was always capitalist.statements like this show a real misunderstanding of how American (and all capitalist) foreign relations actually work. the US does not care if its enemies are capitalists or communists, it cares that they are enemies. US foreign policy is for American interests, not a conspiracy against true socialism. this can be demonstrated by the US siding with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany when Germany was a greater threat.

Blanquist

27th April 2012, 01:07

gorillafuck

27th April 2012, 01:10

I've studied this extensively. Have you read Kissinger's memoirs?you studying it extensively, and what Kissinger wrote, doesn't change the basic reality that American foreign policy is based off of American interests, not a conspiracy against socialist and in favor of all capitalist governments regardless of context. once again, if US policy will always side with capitalists against communists, then why did the US support the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany?

Blanquist

27th April 2012, 01:16

you studying it extensively, and what Kissinger wrote, doesn't change the basic reality that American foreign policy is based off of American interests, not a conspiracy against socialist and in favor of all capitalist governments regardless of context. once again, if US policy will always side with capitalists against communists, then why did the US support the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany?

You're putting words in my mouth and attributing ideas that I never stated.

Where did I say that US policy will always side with capitalists against communists? Where did I say US policy isn't based off American interests?

The basic reality of this concrete situation is that the US recognized China as a useful tool to be used against the USSR. It recognized as such because China's anti-imperialism was a fraud.

Psy

27th April 2012, 01:26

statements like this show a real misunderstanding of how American (and all capitalist) foreign relations actually work. the US does not care if its enemies are capitalists or communists, it cares that they are enemies. US foreign policy is for American interests, not a conspiracy against true socialism. this can be demonstrated by the US siding with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany when Germany was a greater threat.
Nazi Germany was never a threat to the USA, Imperial Japan yes but not Nazi Germany. The US joined in the war against Nazi Germany because the British made it worth their while as before WWII the USA had war plans in the pipe to go to war against Britain and France over their Pacific holdings yet WWII allowed the USA to grab Europe too.

gorillafuck

27th April 2012, 01:46

Nazi Germany was never a threat to the USA, Imperial Japan yes but not Nazi Germany. The US joined in the war against Nazi Germany because the British made it worth their while as before WWII the USA had war plans in the pipe to go to war against Britain and France over their Pacific holdings yet WWII allowed the USA to grab Europe too.Except with the way that blocs worked, Nazi Germany were a threat because they provided such power to the Axis and Japan was a part of the axis. I didn't think I needed to go to so much detail.

Where did I say that US policy will always side with capitalists against communists? Where did I say US policy isn't based off American interests?"The US backed China because it was nothing like the SU, the SU was a workers state. China was always capitalist." seems to be saying that the distinction for US policy was in whether or not they could be classified as workers states.

Psy

27th April 2012, 02:14

Except with the way that blocs worked, Nazi Germany were a threat because they provided such power to the Axis and Japan was a part of the axis. I didn't think I needed to go to so much detail.

Yet the USA refused to fight Germany unless Britain turned over its empire to the USA.

Geiseric

27th April 2012, 02:48

Psy

27th April 2012, 03:33

Wait what? This is new, got any sources? I've never heard that before.

What did you think the US build up in the Pacific prior to Pearl Harbor was for?
What do you think the US was doing in Nationalist China?
Why do you think Winston Churchill had to fight a bitter factional split within his own party over allowing the US into the war?
Why do you think the British Empire was handed over to the USA after WWII?

KurtFF8

27th April 2012, 04:16

What did you think the US build up in the Pacific prior to Pearl Harbor was for?
What do you think the US was doing in Nationalist China?
Why do you think Winston Churchill had to fight a bitter factional split within his own party over allowing the US into the war?
Why do you think the British Empire was handed over to the USA after WWII?

None of those questions are answers to the request for a source about the claim.

I've also never heard that the US was actually considering going against the UK and/or France at that time.

commieathighnoon

27th April 2012, 04:18

Because then there'd really be no point to the PSL or WWP or other Marcyist/'pro-socialist camp' practice.

Psy

27th April 2012, 05:55

Ocean Seal

27th April 2012, 06:04

The US backed China because it was nothing like the SU, the SU was a workers state. China was always capitalist.

This is very well documented.
Lol, workers state, as in the workers worked really hard to build up capitalism?
My god, I understand how people can defend state-capitalism when it is difficult to economically tell it apart from socialism, but come on.
Hi there, Alexei_Kosygin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Kosygin)
How are the public companies doing?
It was open capitalism, none of this degenerate workers state bullshit, when property is privatized 50 years after the revolution, then you're doing it wrong.

seventeethdecember2016

27th April 2012, 07:23

Lol, workers state, as in the workers worked really hard to build up capitalism?
My god, I understand how people can defend state-capitalism when it is difficult to economically tell it apart from socialism, but come on.
Hi there, Alexei_Kosygin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Kosygin)
How are the public companies doing?
It was open capitalism, none of this degenerate workers state bullshit, when property is privatized 50 years after the revolution, then you're doing it wrong.
The Soviet Union approved of Private Property and Economy long before Khrushchev's thaw.

From the Soviet Constitution 1936,
ARTICLE 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labor and precluding the exploitation of the labor of others.
ARTICLE 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.

Anyway, your pointing out things that are relatively miniscule, like a FEW Private Enterprises, and claiming that they are completely representative of the Soviet Union. Why don't you look at the Public Property, which made up a vast majority of Property in the Soviet Union.

Rusty Shackleford

27th April 2012, 08:27

Because then there'd really be no point to the PSL or WWP or other Marcyist/'pro-socialist camp' practice.
siiiick burn. :lol:

really though, that hurt :crying:

Ocean Seal

27th April 2012, 16:04

The Soviet Union approved of Private Property and Economy long before Khrushchev's thaw.

From the Soviet Constitution 1936,
ARTICLE 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labor and precluding the exploitation of the labor of others.

Small peasant enterprises because collectivization was impossible.

ARTICLE 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.

Personal property =/= private property.

Anyway it wasn't socialist in 1936 either.

Anyway, your pointing out things that are relatively miniscule, like a FEW Private Enterprises, and claiming that they are completely representative of the Soviet Union. Why don't you look at the Public Property, which made up a vast majority of Property in the Soviet Union.
Again where did Marx and Engels talk about collectivizing 80%, or even 90% of the property. There are limitations, yes, its hard to destroy private property overnight, but re-privatizing property in times of stability is capitalism, no way around it.

Psy

27th April 2012, 16:06

None of those questions are answers to the request for a source about the claim.

I've also never heard that the US was actually considering going against the UK and/or France at that time.
I found it, it was the rainbow plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five#List_of_Color_Plans

To put this into context the US came out of WWI ahead, the Great Depression had balkanized trade while still leaving them in a growing crisis of capital. The US was facing the same economic crisis Italy, Germany and Japan were just to a lesser extent yet displacing their crisis to the colonies of France and Britain did cross the minds of the ruling class of the USA.

zimmerwald1915

27th April 2012, 16:07

None of those questions are answers to the request for a source about the claim.

I've also never heard that the US was actually considering going against the UK and/or France at that time.
The USA, then as now, and like most other great powers, had plans worked up to go to war against most other great powers. That does not necessarily speak to its determination to go to war against every other power in the world, but its leaders could envision the possibility.

seventeethdecember2016

28th April 2012, 05:53

Personal property =/= private property.

Anyway it wasn't socialist in 1936 either.

Perhaps it wasn't Socialist compared to the modern usage of the word, but back then it was very much Socialist in a Materialist sense.
If Socialism is the transition between Capitalism and Communism, as I recognize it, then the Soviet Union was a Socialist state.

Again where did Marx and Engels talk about collectivizing 80%, or even 90% of the property. There are limitations, yes, its hard to destroy private property overnight, but re-privatizing property in times of stability is capitalism, no way around it.
Were Marx and Engels at the helm of a country like Stalin? Were they to deal with massive societal changes in a large and precarious country? Even Stalin acknowledged that there were issues in Soviet Socialism. I believe he once said that if the Soviet Union were the size of the UK, they'd have achieved total Socialism, however that wouldn't meet satisfactory levels in a country as vast as the SU.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

28th April 2012, 06:16

Perhaps it wasn't Socialist compared to the modern usage of the word, but back then it was very much Socialist in a Materialist sense.
If Socialism is the transition between Capitalism and Communism, as I recognize it, then the Soviet Union was a Socialist state.

Were Marx and Engels at the helm of a country like Stalin? Were they to deal with massive societal changes in a large and precarious country? Even Stalin acknowledged that there were issues in Soviet Socialism. I believe he once said that if the Soviet Union were the size of the UK, they'd have achieved total Socialism, however that wouldn't meet satisfactory levels in a country as vast as the SU.

The problem in the history of 20th century "communism", is that the basic view was that public ownership of the MoP was Socialism or Private Property as always being Capitalism, apparently without thought to who actually decides over the workers' surplus at the workplace. No regard seems to have been given to abolishing capitalist relations at the workplace. Progress was measured by either solely the state control over production or increase of the productive forces, which are of course important, but seemingly no discussion or even imagination to workers' control. So long you have a money system, accumulation of capital, there will always be a need for a change from state capitalism to market capitalism, liberalisation, it seems to be a universal law of capital. For Capital to expand and grow, there needs to be liberalisation, and then it goes back to regulatory State-Monopolist capitalism; this idea is crytalising itself in the last 4 decades.

So, we all (Communists) agree that ultimately we need to collectivise, socialise and bring under democratic workers' control all the economy to ultimately have communism; but instead of looking at the progress towards communism as public control over the MoP, we should look at the relation of the worker to his production as the crucial progress within a socialist state.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 12:18

The US backed China because it was nothing like the SU, the SU was a workers state. China was always capitalist.

This is very well documented.

Er, no. Quite the contrary in fact.

After the Sino-Soviet split in the late '50s, the US was definitely on the Soviet side vs the Chinese for more than a decade. When Nixon flew to China in 1972, it shocked the world, and led fairly rapidly to the collapse of the Maoist movements worldwide, which until then had been very strong.

Believing that China under Mao was capitalist, whereas the USSR was a workers state, is amazingly delusional. If anything, Mao's policies in the Cultural Revolution days were highly ultraleft, reminiscent of Stalinism in the early '30s, social fascism, compulsory collectivization and all that.

In fact, the Chinese were accusing Khrushchev and Brezhnev of "state capitalism," using arguments not that different from those of the current day "state cap" contingent here on Revleft.

-M.H.-

Blanquist

29th April 2012, 12:35

Er, no. Quite the contrary in fact.

After the Sino-Soviet split in the late '50s, the US was definitely on the Soviet side vs the Chinese for more than a decade. When Nixon flew to China in 1972, it shocked the world, and led fairly rapidly to the collapse of the Maoist movements worldwide, which until then had been very strong.

Believing that China under Mao was capitalist, whereas the USSR was a workers state, is amazingly delusional. If anything, Mao's policies in the Cultural Revolution days were highly ultraleft, reminiscent of Stalinism in the early '30s, social fascism, compulsory collectivization and all that.

In fact, the Chinese were accusing Khrushchev and Brezhnev of "state capitalism," using arguments not that different from those of the current day "state cap" contingent here on Revleft.

-M.H.-

Except that Mao's China had a class of capitalists.

KurtFF8

29th April 2012, 16:28

Because then there'd really be no point to the PSL or WWP or other Marcyist/'pro-socialist camp' practice.

What does that have to do with anything?

I suppose never miss an opportunity to throw in a cheap sectarian jab, right?

KurtFF8

29th April 2012, 16:31

I found it, it was the rainbow plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five#List_of_Color_Plans

To put this into context the US came out of WWI ahead, the Great Depression had balkanized trade while still leaving them in a growing crisis of capital. The US was facing the same economic crisis Italy, Germany and Japan were just to a lesser extent yet displacing their crisis to the colonies of France and Britain did cross the minds of the ruling class of the USA.

Thanks, although none of those plans listed mention war against GB or France, and one of the plans actually assumes an alliance with them.

Psy

29th April 2012, 17:00

Thanks, although none of those plans listed mention war against GB or France, and one of the plans actually assumes an alliance with them.
Go down to the color list

War Plan Red: War against Great Britain

War Plan Red-Orange: War against both Japan and Great Britain at the same time.

War Plan Gold: War against France

Like Germany and Japan, military planners in the USA looked at maps of how they could conquer to solve their crisis of capital as that was the only solution economists could come up with during the Great Depression, if a world war didn't drop into the US's laps the US ruling class would have to create one to defend their rate of profit. The only reason why the US reminded "neutral" during the first part of the war is they wanted to put Britain and France in a worse bargaining position, the British lost the war at Dunkirk and the US was loan sharking the British but the British had no where else to turn.

KurtFF8

29th April 2012, 19:47

Ah, my bad, although from the Wiki article on War Plan Red:

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red, also known as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], was a war plan by the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) in the event of war with British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) (the "Red" forces). The war was seen as "unlikely" and "highly improbable,

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 19:51

Except that Mao's China had a class of capitalists.

In the early fifties? Yes. Hell, the USSR had a class of capitalists too until 1929 or thereabouts, the NEPmen certainly, the kulaks arguably.

By the 1960s, there was hardly any capitalist class left in China. Certainly there was none left after the Cultural Revolution. The new rising capitalist class in China has little or no connection with the old capitalist class, all liquidated or fled to Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore and US Chinatowns.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 20:08

Go down to the color list

War Plan Red: War against Great Britain

War Plan Red-Orange: War against both Japan and Great Britain at the same time.

War Plan Gold: War against France

Like Germany and Japan, military planners in the USA looked at maps of how they could conquer to solve their crisis of capital as that was the only solution economists could come up with during the Great Depression, if a world war didn't drop into the US's laps the US ruling class would have to create one to defend their rate of profit. The only reason why the US reminded "neutral" during the first part of the war is they wanted to put Britain and France in a worse bargaining position, the British lost the war at Dunkirk and the US was loan sharking the British but the British had no where else to turn.

Staffers always make all sorts of plans, that's what they are paid for. Don't necessarily mean anything.

The US/English "special alliance" basically goes back to the 1890s, when the US decided to launch its imperialist career by taking out what was left of the Spanish empire rather than fighting over Latin America with the Brits as per the Monroe doctrine, which almost happened over the Venezuela crisis of the early 1890s. Strengthened during WWI, when a fundamental strategic choice was made of allying with England vs. Germany.

You had potential conflict between the US and England during the 1920s for world dominion, with Germany temporarily out of the picture. But the naval agreement of the 1920s, in which the Brits agreed to let the US have the biggest navy in the world, basically prevented that.

The basic US conflict leading up to WWII was with Japan, over control of the Pacific. Once Britain and Japan fell out, there was no basis for US conflict with Britain.

And Germany's revival under Hitler naturally recreated a US alliance with Britain vs. Germany again.

The US was neutral at first during WWII because of overwhelming popular opposition to US involvement in another world war. Roosevelt, who by then definitely did want to go to war with both Germany and Japan, did everything possible to overcome that. Pearl Harbor was a gift to him.

It's not so much that Roosevelt saw war as a solution to the Great Depression, though in fact that is what happened. Roosevelt was not quite enough of a Keynesian to be convinced that deficit war spending would be a magic cure. Actually, Roosevelt was a believer in balanced budgets, who only ran deficits out of desperation.

It was rather that Japan was taking over Asia and Hitler was taking over Europe, thereby blocking US capitalism, the strongest and healthiest capitalist power, from economic control of the world.

Which the US did more or less gain out of WWII, except for the Soviet bloc, which is why the war benefitted the US economy so much.

All that war spending would have been economically disastrous and just reinforced the Great Depression, had the US not won the war and destroyed the Third Reich and Imperial Japan (with a lot of help from the Soviet Union of course, especially in Europe).

-M.H.-

Psy

29th April 2012, 20:37

Staffers always make all sorts of plans, that's what they are paid for. Don't necessarily mean anything.

The US/English "special alliance" basically goes back to the 1890s, when the US decided to launch its imperialist career by taking out what was left of the Spanish empire rather than fighting over Latin America with the Brits as per the Monroe doctrine, which almost happened over the Venezuela crisis of the early 1890s. Strengthened during WWI, when a fundamental strategic choice was made of allying with England vs. Germany.

You had potential conflict between the US and England during the 1920s for world dominion, with Germany temporarily out of the picture. But the naval agreement of the 1920s, in which the Brits agreed to let the US have the biggest navy in the world, basically prevented that.

The basic US conflict leading up to WWII was with Japan, over control of the Pacific. Once Britain and Japan fell out, there was no basis for US conflict with Britain.

And Germany's revival under Hitler naturally recreated a US alliance with Britain vs. Germany again.

The US was neutral at first during WWII because of overwhelming popular opposition to US involvement in another world war. Roosevelt, who by then definitely did want to go to war with both Germany and Japan, did everything possible to overcome that. Pearl Harbor was a gift to him.

It's not so much that Roosevelt saw war as a solution to the Great Depression, though in fact that is what happened. Roosevelt was not quite enough of a Keynesian to be convinced that deficit war spending would be a magic cure. Actually, Roosevelt was a believer in balanced budgets, who only ran deficits out of desperation.

It was rather that Japan was taking over Asia and Hitler was taking over Europe, thereby blocking US capitalism, the strongest and healthiest capitalist power, from economic control of the world.

Which the US did more or less gain out of WWII, except for the Soviet bloc, which is why the war benefitted the US economy so much.

All that war spending would have been economically disastrous and just reinforced the Great Depression, had the US not won the war and destroyed the Third Reich and Imperial Japan (with a lot of help from the Soviet Union of course, especially in Europe).

-M.H.-

The problem is the USA loan sharked the British, if the US really saw the Nazi's as a serious threat they wouldn't have demanded so much from Britain and seen them more as an ally rather then a patsy to be swindled out of their Empire.

Also the US military (along with Britain and France) was already involved in combat in China prior to WWII. This is what caused ruling class of Japan to internally freak out, all these imperial armies where marching through China destabilizing the region and Japan didn't like other imperial powers playing in what it saw was Japan's backyard. Japan expanded its war goals when the US blocked trade with Japan, the Japanese ruling class saw this as an act of war and decided they had to expand the war to all of the Pacific to make Japan self-sufficient and for a buffer zone to protect mainland Japan from US forces.

So the idea that the US didn't go to war because it was too isolationist is a myth, the US was already fighting in China.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 21:32

The problem is the USA loan sharked the British, if the US really saw the Nazi's as a serious threat they wouldn't have demanded so much from Britain and seen them more as an ally rather then a patsy to be swindled out of their Empire.

Also the US military (along with Britain and France) was already involved in combat in China prior to WWII. This is what caused ruling class of Japan to internally freak out, all these imperial armies where marching through China destabilizing the region and Japan didn't like other imperial powers playing in what it saw was Japan's backyard. Japan expanded its war goals when the US blocked trade with Japan, the Japanese ruling class saw this as an act of war and decided they had to expand the war to all of the Pacific to make Japan self-sufficient and for a buffer zone to protect mainland Japan from US forces.

So the idea that the US didn't go to war because it was too isolationist is a myth, the US was already fighting in China.

Certainly the US "loan sharked" Churchill. The USA was hardly going to rescue England for free. Why should it have, from Roosevelt's POV? Churchill was certainly in no position to argue the point.

That way, the US not only helped defeat what was looking then like the main US rival for world dominion, but got what was left of the British Empire into the bargain. Killing two birds with one stone.

Was the US isolationist before WWII? Yes, though that's certainly not what Roosevelt wanted. The ruling class is not all powerful.

US army in China? The US army during the '30s was microscopic. If there were a straggling handful of US soldiers somewhere in China during the '30s, something I was unaware of, they didn't matter one bit. What did matter was the US navy dominating the Pacific.

The biggest foreign possible rival of Japan with military involvement in China during the 1930s was -- Germany, with whom Chiang Kai-Shek was closely allied. German advisors were training his army, and Chiang wanted to reform his KMT on the Nazi Party model. Until the fullblown Japanese invasion started in 1937, at which point Hitler abandoned his political cothinker Chiang so as not to queer the German-Japanese alliance.

Nor were there any significant other "western" military forces in China in the 1930s. The British in Hong Kong were a declining force, not that important militarily. It was the growing US economic involvement in China that the Japanese wanted to get rid of, not foreign military forces.

China was to be the linchpin of the Japanese "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere," and foreign US investors were definitely not wanted.

-M.H.-

Psy

29th April 2012, 22:15

Certainly the US "loan sharked" Churchill. The USA was hardly going to rescue England for free. Why should it have, from Roosevelt's POV? Churchill was certainly in no position to argue the point.

That way, the US not only helped defeat what was looking then like the main US rival for world dominion, but got what was left of the British Empire into the bargain. Killing two birds with one stone.

The problem in the British ruling class seriously considered negotiating with the Axis powers given the cost of US help, the only major stumbling block is they couldn't trust Hitler to honor a pact between them and Britain.

Was the US isolationist before WWII? Yes, though that's certainly not what Roosevelt wanted. The ruling class is not all powerful.

US army in China? The US army during the '30s was microscopic. If there were a straggling handful of US soldiers somewhere in China during the '30s, something I was unaware of, they didn't matter one bit. What did matter was the US navy dominating the Pacific.

The US ground forces were in Nanking this is why the communists in the 1920's had a problem taking Nanking as US troops were defending the city.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 22:43

The problem in the British ruling class seriously considered negotiating with the Axis powers given the cost of US help, the only major stumbling block is they couldn't trust Hitler to honor a pact between them and Britain.

The US ground forces were in Nanking this is why the communists in the 1920's had a problem taking Nanking as US troops were defending the city.

They were? That's interesting, but I'm sure this was on a fairly small scale, as the US army was pretty small in the '20s and mostly in the Caribbean and Central America. And the revolutionary forced did take Nanking, didn't they?

And by the 1930s I am sure they were long gone from Nanking, as during the Great Depression the army got even smaller, as the US government couldn't afford a big army, or at least that was the thought at the time.

The British ruling class was split, with Chamberlain wanting to make a deal with the Nazis and Churchill feeling differently.

Whe Hitler violated the Munich agreement Chamberlain was discredited and Churchill came to the fore.

-M.H.-

Paul Cockshott

29th April 2012, 22:52

That and a single state probably wouldn't be a good idea, all they needed that was needed to be done is get the two to work together.

It would have been a good idea, but think about it, what consitutional form would it have adopted?

Given the nature of the communist parties which sought to rule and had purely national organisations, it would have given rise to incredible problems as to which party would have been dominant - which would have nominated the majority of the government and selected the head of the government?

On population grounds it should obviously have been the Chinese, but Could the CPSU have agreed that?

Even if you were to imagine that the communist parties could have abdicated direct rule and instituted some form of mass democracy, who would have been entitled to vote? Everyone, only industrial workers and poor peasants ?
Who would have been entitled to stand for election?

If only communist candidates were allowed to stand, then again you would have had a situation where in effect the CPC ended up ruling both the USSR and China.

If they had allowed any party to stand, the other big party that would have emerged was the KMT , was it conceivable that the Chinese Communists would have granted political rights to that body which they had just defeated in war.

Lenina Rosenweg

29th April 2012, 23:06

Not sure if this was mentioned but its my understanding that there actually never was such a thing as the "Brezhnev Doctrine", analogous to the US "Monroe Doctrine". The term was made up by US journalists after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviets did feel they had to guard their flanks against US subversion.

Blanquist

30th April 2012, 06:11

In the early fifties? Yes. Hell, the USSR had a class of capitalists too until 1929 or thereabouts, the NEPmen certainly, the kulaks arguably.

By the 1960s, there was hardly any capitalist class left in China. Certainly there was none left after the Cultural Revolution. The new rising capitalist class in China has little or no connection with the old capitalist class, all liquidated or fled to Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore and US Chinatowns.

-M.H.-

You are very wrong, capitalists got compensated and then became 'directors' of the same property, then they got it back and then some.

Saying all capitalists fled is simply not true, very many of them supported Mao and they got rewarded very handsomely.

Psy

30th April 2012, 19:18

It would have been a good idea, but think about it, what consitutional form would it have adopted?

Like the Warsaw Pact but giving China more autonomy, where they agree to come to each other's aid in times of war.

As for economic relations, the USSR industrializing China rather then China's great leap forward. The USSR simply using its superior engineering to modernize China as fast as they realistically can, the USSR had no shortages of qualified engineers so sending some of them to China along with heavy equipment wouldn't have put too much of a strain on USSR's economy.

Paul Cockshott

30th April 2012, 19:51

Like the Warsaw Pact but giving China more autonomy, where they agree to come to each other's aid in times of war.

As for economic relations, the USSR industrializing China rather then China's great leap forward. The USSR simply using its superior engineering to modernize China as fast as they realistically can, the USSR had no shortages of qualified engineers so sending some of them to China along with heavy equipment wouldn't have put too much of a strain on USSR's economy.

That is pretty close to what happened in the 50s, with a very significant part of soviet industrial output going in aid to China, but the existence of two nation states meant that when disputes arose these took national rather than class form.

Psy

30th April 2012, 21:07

That is pretty close to what happened in the 50s, with a very significant part of soviet industrial output going in aid to China, but the existence of two nation states meant that when disputes arose these took national rather than class form.

Have a more integrated military and industry would have made it harder for China and the USSR to split for example having the Military Transport Aviation branch of the Red Air Force already stationed all throughout China and Chinese forces totally dependent on the USSR military for logistics till China industrializes and the Red Air Force supplying the Chinese in the Korean war so Chinese troops view the Red Air Force as their life line and Chinese officers becoming unable see the Chinese army able to fight without the Red Air Force on their side.

A Marxist Historian

1st May 2012, 04:05

You are very wrong, capitalists got compensated and then became 'directors' of the same property, then they got it back and then some.

Saying all capitalists fled is simply not true, very many of them supported Mao and they got rewarded very handsomely.

There was some of that, especially in the brief "hundred flowers bloom" period. And some of them doubtless got kept on longterm as directors for the simple reason that they were good at it and the regime needed experienced people.

But most of these directors who were former capitalists, including quite a few who were totally apolitical, good at their jobs, reconciled to the loss of their property and just wanted to serve their country, ended up humiliated and outright murdered during the Cultural Revolution, if not earlier.

In itself proof that China under Mao wasn't capitalist, as you can't take a whole ruling class and parade them around in dunce caps and send them out to carry manure with the peasants, usually after severe beatings quite frequently beatings to death, and see it as a "ruling class."

But you can do this with factory managers if you want, 'cuz they don't own the factories, they are merely bureaucrats not capitalists. Whether it's a good idea or not, that's another story.

-M.H.-

Blanquist

2nd May 2012, 16:59

There was some of that, especially in the brief "hundred flowers bloom" period. And some of them doubtless got kept on longterm as directors for the simple reason that they were good at it and the regime needed experienced people.

But most of these directors who were former capitalists, including quite a few who were totally apolitical, good at their jobs, reconciled to the loss of their property and just wanted to serve their country, ended up humiliated and outright murdered during the Cultural Revolution, if not earlier.

In itself proof that China under Mao wasn't capitalist, as you can't take a whole ruling class and parade them around in dunce caps and send them out to carry manure with the peasants, usually after severe beatings quite frequently beatings to death, and see it as a "ruling class."

But you can do this with factory managers if you want, 'cuz they don't own the factories, they are merely bureaucrats not capitalists. Whether it's a good idea or not, that's another story.

-M.H.-

You obviously don't know the Cultural Revolution very well, so I don't understand why you keep sourcing it. There were capitalists who were protected during it. And after it they regained their riches, and then some.

A Marxist Historian

3rd May 2012, 00:37

You obviously don't know the Cultural Revolution very well, so I don't understand why you keep sourcing it. There were capitalists who were protected during it. And after it they regained their riches, and then some.

China, then and now, has the largest population on earth. It's huge. And the Cultural Revolution was a huge, complex, chaotic reactionary event.

I have no doubt that you could a few capitalists here and there protected during it, maybe 'cuz they had a friend or relative in the local dominating Red Guard faction. A tiny drop in the vast Chinese sea.

The fact is that the new Chinese capitalist class that started arising under Deng has zero connection or continuity with the old Chinese capitalist class, which was destroyed with great thoroughness.

You got any sources for your eccentric allegations?

-M.H.-

Blanquist

3rd May 2012, 00:48

China, then and now, has the largest population on earth. It's huge. And the Cultural Revolution was a huge, complex, chaotic reactionary event.

I have no doubt that you could a few capitalists here and there protected during it, maybe 'cuz they had a friend or relative in the local dominating Red Guard faction. A tiny drop in the vast Chinese sea.

The fact is that the new Chinese capitalist class that started arising under Deng has zero connection or continuity with the old Chinese capitalist class, which was destroyed with great thoroughness.

You got any sources for your eccentric allegations?

-M.H.-

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-did-mao-t171070/index.html