Why did USSR fight China

[MaximMK]

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?

[khad]

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.

[Zutroy]

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.

[tuwix]

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?

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

[Ace High]

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.

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

[khad]

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

If fighting Soviet "imperialism" means backing Apartheid and invading Vietnam, then sign me up to be an imperial stormtrooper any day of the week.

You people would be silly if you weren't so worthless.

[tuwix]

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".

[TheEmancipator]

Because ultimately they cared more about their borders than their proletariats.

China invading Vietnam, which had had its own revolution (under the Indochinese days) and USSR being openly hostile to Yugoslavia, and later Albania, as they rejected Bolshevist centralism, are classic examples of why the two regimes should be regarded as imperialist themselves.

But its ok though, their flag has some hammer and sickles and stars and shit, so really they were doing it for the good of the proletariat. Right.

[Sasha]

Bourgeoisie nationalist capitalist states squabbling about stuff bourgeois nationalist capitalist care about and killing for it... The fact that these where "red" states is irrelevant, maybe a bit of ironic embarrassment at best...

[Comrade Jacob]

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

[Geiseric]

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.

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

[Zutroy]

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

I recall reading about it in a Montefiore book , but it's was also referenced on another thread a couple of years ago. Search for Mao Tse-Tung never read Capital? in the Learning forum.

[Ismail]

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

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

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

Molotov recalled in his memoirs (and he actually admired the man somewhat) that Mao admitted he never read Capital. Also he requested Soviet assistance in editing some of his early works to be more in conformity with Marxism-Leninism.

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".

Soviet imperialism was a fact, as the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan demonstrated. And yet the Albanians never declared NATO a "defensive" alliance as the Chinese revisionists did, and explicitly condemned efforts to ally with Mobutu and Pinochet in the name of "opposing Soviet social-imperialism" whereas, of course, the Chinese did just that. The Chinese even denounced the Iranian Revolution as a result of Soviet intrigue and praised the Shah for his "anti-hegemonic" (i.e. anti-Soviet) foreign policy. And most importantly, the Albanians noted that American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism constituted equal threats to humanity, whereas the Chinese in so many words argued that it was the Soviets who were the main threat.

[Brutus]

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!

[Ismail]

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

Yep, and he tried to court Khrushchev's Polish lackey Gomułka as well. Mao even admitted that Stalin saw him as a "Tito-type" figure.

In 1949 Stalin presciently criticized a CPC delegation in the following way:

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.

[Old Bolshie]

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

That's a very interesting document from that you can clearly see the difference between Lenin's peaceful coexistence and khrushchev's one.

What is not so clearly though is the difference between Stalin's or Mao's peaceful coexistence and khrushchev's.

That document refers that Khruschev's peaceful coexistence renounces proletarian internationalism. The same can be said about Stalin or Mao. Both renounced to proletarian internationalism in the same degree khrushchev did.

It also says that khrushchev's peaceful coexistence seeks to replace international class struggle for international class collaboration. Once again the same can be said about Stalin or Mao.

Finally, it states that "khrushchev's stretches peaceful coexistence into the general line of foreign policy for the socialist countries and even further into the general line for all Communist Parties" but already in 1949 the Cominform claimed that peace "should now become the pivot of the entire activity of the Communist Parties" and in the next year adopted a resolution which stated that "The Communist and Workers' Parties must utilize all means of struggle to secure a stable and lasting peace, subordinating their entire activity to this".

[Ismail]

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:

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.

By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

[TheEmancipator]

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

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

Continue to attack revisionists, etc,which i agree with but you still have a knack of avoiding uncomfortable questions about Stalin that don't amount to you quoting from memoirs, memoirs which I take with a massive pinch of salt since it is ultimately a tool to secure ones legacy rather than an honest account of ones self.

[Ismail]

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

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

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?

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:

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.

[TheEmancipator]

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

Interesting, then why did he not let Tito get on with his own revolution like he did with the Chinese? Oh right, because Yugoslavia should be controlled from Moscow.

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.

By communist parties I assume you mean "Communist Parties" of the early 20th century, who essentially Bolshevist organs that attracted left-wing voters who still thought the Bolshevik regime was some kind of utopia, and subsequently subjugated all its party members into the bolshevist grinding machine.

Some examples of Comintern (which by then was under full Bolshevist control) policy :

- Asking to create Popular Fronts with liberals once Stalin realised Fascism might well be a threat.
- Asking subsequent Popular Fronts to halt revolutionary measures in Catalonia and France because Uncle Joe was getting jealous of, wait for it, actual revolutionary measures from anarchists, trotskyists, Left Comms, etc.
- Withdrawing support from the Spanish Republicans (under a Popular Front which the PCE had to ask permission from Uncle Joe to form first) coincidently after the Germano-Soviet pact. Hmmm...
- Total abandonment of the Greek Communist Party during the Civil War after a deal done with Churchill.

These are not true communist parties but slaves to centralised Bolshevist rule.

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

His advice, but they never took orders from him.

When Tito, Mao and other legitemate revolutionary bodies around the world refused to take orders from Stalin and the Comintern/Cominform, he threw a paddy. Some exporter of socialism, this guy. What about all the Satellite states in Eastern Europe? Are you denying they weren't under direct Bolshevist control?