one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the (sometimes excessively) pragmatic foreign policy, where they never actively support revolutionary movements elsewhere
this is often criticized by many communists, but as someone once said to me, the true meaning of "internationalism" in our current material conditions isn't really helping you cross the river, but standing on the other side to extend a hand when you cross it yourself
as a brazilian i 100% agree with this, our revolution is our own task, all i ask is for them to not leave us to the flies once we get there - by keeping commerce going with us regardless of sanctions, by sharing tech with us, by helping us build infrastructure, and so on
This was also a result of the Sino-Soviet split and the jockeying between USSR and PRC for "leader of the world revolution" which forced the USSR to spend a lot supporting revolutions abroad in order to avoid losing leadership of global communism to Mao's China.
Likely much better for the Soviet Union, much worse for the US and hard to say for China. But it's kind of pointless to speculate on hypotheticals like that, better to look at how things actually unfolded and draw what lessons can be drawn from the failure of the USSR and success of the PRC.
Mao definitely billed China and himself as the leaders of world Communism and particularly the example for Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to the revisionist Soviets.
They were scared. The SU openly talked of a nuclear attack on China in a CC meeting, and it got filtered back to Mao. That said, Deng was head of the negotiations and heavily favoured the split. After this, and more so after Nixon in China developed a detente with the US they began to do whatever they thought they had to to maintain their independent policy against the SU.
Khruschev undoubtedly was revisionist and a bad choice in many ways, but there's a saying Catholics have, "Better to be a heretic than a schismatic." Unless someone has gone full Pol Pot, don't fucking split.
the true meaning of “internationalism” in our current material conditions isn’t really helping you cross the river, but standing on the other side to extend a hand when you cross it yourself
all I want my government to do is figure out a humane system of healthcare before they bomb entire nations into rubble. Americans know that our societal model is shit, yet they still support their government in all of its wars.
the Chinese model of internationalism is one which respects sovereignty which is somehow a radical idea in America/Europe.
one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the (sometimes excessively) pragmatic foreign policy, where they never actively support revolutionary movements elsewhere
this is often criticized by many communists, but as someone once said to me, the true meaning of "internationalism" in our current material conditions isn't really helping you cross the river, but standing on the other side to extend a hand when you cross it yourself
as a brazilian i 100% agree with this, our revolution is our own task, all i ask is for them to not leave us to the flies once we get there - by keeping commerce going with us regardless of sanctions, by sharing tech with us, by helping us build infrastructure, and so on
deleted by creator
This was also a result of the Sino-Soviet split and the jockeying between USSR and PRC for "leader of the world revolution" which forced the USSR to spend a lot supporting revolutions abroad in order to avoid losing leadership of global communism to Mao's China.
Kind of wonder how things would've turned out without the Sino-Soviet split.
Likely much better for the Soviet Union, much worse for the US and hard to say for China. But it's kind of pointless to speculate on hypotheticals like that, better to look at how things actually unfolded and draw what lessons can be drawn from the failure of the USSR and success of the PRC.
Somebody please take the vodka bottle away from Zhdanov.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Mao definitely billed China and himself as the leaders of world Communism and particularly the example for Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to the revisionist Soviets.
They were scared. The SU openly talked of a nuclear attack on China in a CC meeting, and it got filtered back to Mao. That said, Deng was head of the negotiations and heavily favoured the split. After this, and more so after Nixon in China developed a detente with the US they began to do whatever they thought they had to to maintain their independent policy against the SU.
Khruschev undoubtedly was revisionist and a bad choice in many ways, but there's a saying Catholics have, "Better to be a heretic than a schismatic." Unless someone has gone full Pol Pot, don't fucking split.
I'm not sure, but I'll look into what their contemporary justification was if you specify which support specifically you are talking about?
Only thing I can think of would be if they were trying to curry favor with the Americans to eventually open up trade relations.
all I want my government to do is figure out a humane system of healthcare before they bomb entire nations into rubble. Americans know that our societal model is shit, yet they still support their government in all of its wars.
the Chinese model of internationalism is one which respects sovereignty which is somehow a radical idea in America/Europe.