Why did USSR fight China

[Old Bolshie]

Ismail referenced the quote. Are you questioning the existence of the quote simply because Ismail didn't directly put it into his reply. Your whole argument is predicated on the notion that the quote exists and is allegedly a continuation of Stalin's line, so what difference does it make where it is on this thread?

The difference is that I said

First off, Ismail didn't quote Khrushchev.

And you replied.

Yes he did, on the first page.

So if Ismail quoted Khrushchev as you said he did I would like to know where he did it.

No, that's according to your logic, because you insist that Khrushchev and Stalin were referring to the same thing. According to my argument, Khrushchev was so full of shit that his eyes were brown. We just established that Stalin was referring to world wars and Khrushchev was referring to imperialist wars in general (and Khrushchev made no distinction between global and local wars, so it should be quite clear that he was referring to something different than Stalin).

You said that Stalin could only be referring to a world war because an imperialistic war was going on when he said that another war was not inevitable.

Now, when Khrushchev said the same thing an imperialistic war was also going on.

So, if Stalin was referring to a global war and not an imperialistic war because such war was going on the same can be applied to Khrushchev because when he spoke about it an imperialistic war was going on.

Understood?

He most certainly didn't. We should have cleared up by now the fact that he was referring to different things for a different duration of time than Stalin.

So first the difference was that he was speaking of local wars, now the difference is about the period of duration. Tell me where both Stalin and Khrushchev made such distinction of period.

This is the proper context of that quote:

The point made by myself and Ismail is that Stalin was referring to temporary co-existence, not permanent co-existence. Stalin is on record repeatedly insisting that permanent co-existence is impossible---in particular, during the XIX Party Congress. If you insist, I can dredge those quotes up as well. The point, though, is that in the full context of the quote, we see that Stalin doesn't explicitly state to Stassen that he's referring to a permanent state of affairs. Since he doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume he's referring to a temporary co-existence as he always had before? Or, are you so insistent on projecting Khrushchev's line onto Stalin that it doesn't matter what the context is?

Stalin also doesn't speak of a temporary coexistence so we can also assume that who could be refer to something not temporary.

Show me where Khrushchev says that capitalism and socialism will coexist permanently.

The other thing the context reveals is that Stalin makes the distinction that the West must be a willing partner for co-existence to occur. He never just blatantly asserts that the West will cooperate, nor does he imply that it's even likely.

And Khrushchev says blatantly that the West will cooperate?

Given his constant pronouncements in other settings that contradictions make permanent co-existence impossible, we must assume he is adroitly humoring the interviewer. Stalin further establishes a link between his line and Lenin's. Lenin did in fact make similar statements to Stalin with regard to cooperation, and he similarly worded them so as not to contradict his own repeated, well-documented assertions that capitalism and socialism cannot permanently coexist. Do you acknowledge that Lenin made such statements in the aforementioned manner, or do I have to dredge them up as well? If you do, then doesn't the logic of your argument imply that Lenin and Stalin were making the same preposterous claims about co-existence that Khrushchev was?

The issue here is not the similarity between Lenin and Khrushchev but of Stalin and Khrushchev. But since you spoke about it the difference between Lenin and the other two:

Lenin spoke of it during the earlier days of revolution when the Bolsheviks were completely isolated internationally, had just finished a war against 15 different countries and had no allies.

Stalin and Khrushchev's context was already different. USSR was no longer completely isolated from the world (it was even part of the UN) and had allies.

Another important difference was the approach to the international communist movement.

While he spoke for peaceful coexistence between countries, Lenin was enforcing the spread of the revolution to another parts of the world through the Comintern, mainly in Germany. The Comintern enjoyed great influence during Lenin's years and reunited every year.

Stalin was the soviet leader who adopted Socialism in One Country and dismantled the Comintern assuming a new posture towards the spread of the revolution. The international communist movement was diverted from the goal of world revolution to the goal of strengthening the Soviet Union. Khrushchev didn't change this policy so the same can be applied to him.

[Fred]

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.

There's a 1966 conversation between Hoxha and the North Korean ambassador to Albania which has been recently unearthed from the Albanian archives. After noting Albania's support for Korean reunification and opposition to the continued stationing of US troops and the neo-colonial regime in South Korea, he continues:

Come on, comrade. Quoting Stalin about the need for national Communist Parties to be independent is mostly a laugh riot. Many a comrade was shot for not carrying out Stalin's exact orders abroad. Okay for that matter, many a comrade was shot for carrying out Stalin's exact orders abroad . Well, now that I think about it, many a comrade was shot for simply having been abroad.

To the OP: The reason that the Chinese and Soviet bureaucracies could get into these fights rested on their nationalist non-Marxist/Lenininst character. That is the core problem (along with the crushing of internal party debate) with Stalinism.

Don't mind the comrades who rail about Soviet or Chinese imperialism -- they are full of baloney. They are just using the word, "imperialism" as an epithet. If the latter day USSR was imperialist, it had a very strange relationship to the nations it held say over. For example, the standard of living was higher in the Baltic States and East Germany than in the USSR proper by 1970s. The USSR did not massively exploit the East-Bloc nations. Yes, the USSR played a counter-revolutionary role in Hungary in 1956, and a negative role in 1968 in Czecholslovakia, but calling their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 imperialist and siding with the Mullahs and the CIA is pretty crazy, no? Sometimes progress DOES get carried on bayonets. That was one of those times. Of course, the most radical Gorbachev put an end to that. And look how well that worked.

So, the Chinese used more radical verbiage than the USSR in the sixties, but ultimately pursued an even more rotten bloc with US imperialism. Yes that was Mao clinking toasts with Henry Kissinger while Hanoi was being bombed. And that was China supporting the Mullahs in Afghanistan, and UNITA in Angola. Because Stalinists are always willing to carry out betrayals of the international working class for a small advantage to their nation.

[The real Fabians]

Time to take GCSE history knowledge even further!

The USSR supported the communists in China as they wanted an ally against America, America was actually supporting the Nationalists before and after they fled to Taiwan and didn't even until the 1970's recognize the communists as the representatives of China at the UN.

There was a 5 year plan of industrialization in the early 1950s of China in which around 10,000 soviet engineers and advisers were sent to China to assisting this process and the USSR and China got along swimmingly.

However Mao soon believed that China didn't need the help of the Soviet Union and wasn't afraid of a nuclear war describing the nuclear weapons as "paper tigers" as though that China due to its huge population would survive a nuclear war. When China developed its own nuclear bomb and hydrogen bomb it no longer needed the USSR.

There was a differing of opinion between the two on how communism should be expanded across the world and China during the Cuban missile crisis actually criticized the USSR. Furthermore under Nixon America sought to try and split apart China and the USSR by being more diplomatic with China and China did not complain as it wanted more trade with the powerful economy that was the USA as the result of the second five year plan and the cultural revolution had wrecked the Chinese economy.

That is a very brief summary but do ask questions for further details as I may remember them and apologies if it was poorly written as i could give a far more detailed account if i could go over my revision notes.

[Ismail]

Come on, comrade. Quoting Stalin about the need for national Communist Parties to be independent is mostly a laugh riot. Many a comrade was shot for not carrying out Stalin's exact orders abroad. Okay for that matter, many a comrade was shot for carrying out Stalin's exact orders abroad . Well, now that I think about it, many a comrade was shot for simply having been abroad.

In other words, they were shot for suspected ties to foreign governments, not because Stalin didn't recognize the importance of local initiative and equal relations. Stalin's critiques of the CPC obviously hit a nerve, considering that Mao was precisely at the head of the nationalists within that party. The same with Tito in regards to the CPY.

If the latter day USSR was imperialist, it had a very strange relationship to the nations it held say over. For example, the standard of living was higher in the Baltic States and East Germany than in the USSR proper by 1970s.

This is indeed a very strange definition of imperialism, equating living standards with exploitation or lack thereof. Thankfully that is not how the analysis of social-imperialism (or just plain ol' undisguised imperialism) is made.

The Soviet revisionists undermined the development of the Central Asian republics to the benefit of the Russian SFSR. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...ve/sovnatq.htm

As for the export of capital, see the chapter "Soviet Economic Relations with India and Other Third World Countries" in: http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2...mperialist.pdf

The USSR did not massively exploit the East-Bloc nations. Yes, the USSR played a counter-revolutionary role in Hungary in 1956, and a negative role in 1968 in Czecholslovakia, but calling their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 imperialist and siding with the Mullahs and the CIA is pretty crazy, no?

Again, there are a number of reads on the Soviet revisionist exploitation of Eastern Europe through Comecon. See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...albeconint.htm

Sometimes progress DOES get carried on bayonets. That was one of those times.

Indeed, when the Soviet social-imperialists invaded Afghanistan the populace rose up in armed struggle against the invaders. That this populace did not have a vanguard as the PDPA had duly sullied the name of socialism in the country, and that it was manipulated by the CIA and Pakistan's ISI as a result, does not change the character of the struggle. As Hoxha wrote at the time, "The Albanian people express the profound conviction that the courageous people of Afghanistan will deal crushing blows to the Soviet social-imperialist aggressors and will oust them from their homeland."

Likewise when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia using quasi-fascist pretexts, the Albanians and Chinese pointed out that it was precisely Dubček's revisionism, his "socialism with a human face" being in reality a fear of socialism, that was shown to the world when he capitulated to the aggressors instead of rallying the population for armed resistance.

Of course, the most radical Gorbachev put an end to that. And look how well that worked.

He stepped up the Soviet war effort upon taking office. Only when that failed (and due to Soviet citizens being increasingly opposed to continued occupation) did he withdraw.