Why did USSR fight China

I just found out about the Soviet-Chinese border conflict in 1969 and according to wikipedia that China supported the anti soviet forces alongside with the USA in the Afghanistan war and the Angolan civil war. Why did the Chinese side with the anti soviet forces and US?

Mao wasn't much of a Marxist, so I doubt it mattered to him who his army was shooting at. Supposedly, during a heated dialogue with Stalin in the early 1950s, Mao had to admit he never actually read Capital.

China didn't want to give up themselves to Soviet state imperialism then conflict was inevitable.

Zhenbao Dao, or Damansky Island (where the border clashes took place), was in the process of being turned over to the Chinese in negotiations in the early 60s. However, Mao basically poisoned the talks, effectively stalling the process.

It was petty revanchism mixed in with opportunistic political posturing.

I mean, the split originally occurred over Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin and his "peaceful coexistence" doctrine--the obvious Chinese solution to this apparent Soviet betrayal of international proletarian struggle was to jump into bed with Nixon and co.

Yeah, sure, the CPC put out a bunch of political pronouncements to justify the twists and turns of their foreign policy, but the simple fact of the matter is that they pissed away so much of their good will in the socialist world that even the Albanians were distancing themselves from them, leaving them few alternatives apart from pimping themselves as wage slaves and mercenaries to the American empire.

Well that's just embarrassing. I definitely wasn't a fan of Mao to begin with, but that, wow.

Incorrect, Stalin is the one who first coined the term peaceful coexistance.

Well that's just embarrassing. I definitely wasn't a fan of Mao to begin with, but that, wow.

Any arguments besides insults?

Soviet imperialism was fact. If you haven't heard about it, anybody can sign you to category of "silly" or "worthless" "any day of the week".

Because the USSR was revisionist by 1969 he thought Stalin was the last true Marxist to rule the USSR.

It's funny how Mao originally supported Khruschev. Just like Mao's unwavering stance on Tito!

You speak of Sinified socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist socialism. It is another thing, that in the building of socialism it is necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a particular country. Socialism is a science, necessarily having, like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and the building of socialism is destined to failure.

What are these general laws of building of socialism?

1. Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history, the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.

2. Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.

3. Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.

4. The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.

5. Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

6. Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.

7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.

These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such. If you understand this everything with the building of socialism in China will be fine. If you won’t you will do great harm to the international communist movement. As far as I know in the CPC there is a thin layer of the proletariat and the nationalist sentiments are very strong and if you will not conduct genuinely Marxist-Leninist class policies and not conduct struggle against bourgeois nationalism, the nationalists will strangle you. Then not only will socialist construction be terminated, China may become a dangerous toy in the hands of American imperialists. In the building of socialism in China I strongly recommend you to fully utilise Lenin’s splendid work ‘The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power’. This would assure success.

Which makes you wonder why Khrushchev attacked it as "dogmatic," "sectarian" and "unacceptable" to a world with nuclear weapons.

I mean Stalin popularized the concept of non-capitalist development too, basing himself, as with peaceful coexistence, on the doctrines of Lenin. Countries like Mongolia and Albania were considered examples of societies transitioning from feudal structures to socialism. Then Khrushchev came to the fore and argued that India under the INC, Burma under Ne Win, Egypt under Nasser, etc. were also pursuing non-capitalist development without the proletarian party. Again Stalin's formulations were criticized as "dogmatic," "sectarian," etc.

On the difference of the policy of peaceful coexistence between Lenin and Stalin on one hand, and Khrushchev and his successors on the other see: http://www.marxists.org/subject/chin...c/peaceful.htm

It is said that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful popular forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another world war. That is not true.

The object of the present-day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently, the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace. In this respect, the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into civil war, since the latter movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.

It is possible that in a definite conjuncture of circumstances the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.

What is most likely is that the present-day peace movement, as a movement for the preservation of peace, will, if it succeeds, result in preventing a particular war, in its temporary postponement, in the temporary preservation of a particular peace, in the resignation of a bellicose government and its supersession by another that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even very good. But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force - and, consequently, the inevitability of wars will also continue in force.

To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.

This is all well and good, Ismael, but what gives Stalin the right to dictate other people's methods in achieving communism?

The Chinese delegation declares that the Communist Party of China will submit to the decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. To us, this seems odd. The party of one state submitting to a party from another state. It has never happened and is impermissible. It is true both the parties must be accountable before their respective peoples, must confer with each other on certain questions, help each other, and in difficulty unite both the parties. So today's meeting of the Politbureau with your participation serves as one of the forms of association between our parties. And it must be so.

We are very grateful for such an honour, but some ideas are not acceptable and we want to point them out. It is like an advice from a friend. It is so not only in words but in deed too. We may give you advice, but cannot give orders as we are insufficiently informed about the situation in China, cannot even compare ourselves with you in the knowledge of all the nuances of the situation, but above all we cannot give orders because the affairs of China must be fully resolved by you. We cannot resolve them for you.

You have to understand the importance of your position and that the mission that you have taken upon yourself has an historical significance unsurpassed before in history. And this is not meant to be just a compliment. This just goes to show how great is your responsibility and the historical significance of your mission.

Exchange of views between our two parties is essential, but our view should never be interpreted as an order. The communist parties of other countries may reject our suggestions. We too may not accept the suggestions of the communist parties of other countries.

Is he some kind of Pope figure that all revolutionaries had to consult before engaging in their own revolutions?

Some might ask what importance small Albania's solidarity to Korea has. Or they might also ask what difference it would make if Albania were not on Korea's side. But we, thinking as Marxists, say that this is of immense importance. It is better to have a small but faithful and resolute friend even if thousands of miles away, than to have a pseudo friend close by across the border... Of course that this is your own internal matter, but we, as internationalists, consider your issues our own, as our matters are yours at the same time, and that is why we express to you every opinion we have openly and in a friendly way.

We do not attempt to give advice to any party because that would not be in accordance with the modest Marxist-Leninist attitude that each party should demonstrate be it a small or a large party. Yet, as a Marxist-Leninist party, it is our right to draw conclusions and this is a right that no one can take away from us, though there have always been and still are forces that try to take it away. Everyone knows full well what the Khrushchevites, the Titoites, Gomulka and the rest have done against us. We have had plenty of, though bitter, experience in such matters, but we have always followed our correct course with cool heads and patience and life has shown that our course has been and still is correct.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that in order to prove whether a theory is right or wrong it must be done so in practice. And life has proven that the stance of the Khrushchevite revisionists toward the socialist Albania is antagonistic and anti-Marxist. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have also taught us that all positions must be proven in practice whether they are correct or not. This is important on a national level, but it is also important at the level of the international communist movement. To say in words only that you are an internationalist toward the Korean brothers and then to act in complete contradiction is not according to our theory; it does not work. So should someone try to argue to the PLA that the Khrushchevites are not traitors of Marxism-Leninism, they will not be successful because facts are stubborn and they will not work on the side of those that still hold hope for the Khrushchevites.

He wasn't dictating. In fact in that same meeting he said the following:

Stalin was the head of the world's first socialist state which had been ushered in by the world's second proletarian dictatorship. The CCP and virtually every other communist party (the Communist Party of Albania was probably the sole significant exception) had been founded on the basis of Comintern initiative.

Plenty of communist leaders from across the world met with Lenin and solicited his advice. There's nothing wrong with this.