Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » People's Republic of China » Shino-Soviet split [ Go to page ][ 1, 2 ][ Next ]
 10 Jan 2010, 06:06
Not to discuss it in "How come is Pol Pot communist" anymore.
What if there were no Shino-Soviet Split ? The Big Three in the 22nd century :
 An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ? 
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 12 Jan 2010, 01:55
China probably wouldn't be Market-Socialist, and the USSR might not have fallen. De-stalinisation might not have happened either, and the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Korean governments would be stronger.
 12 Jan 2010, 09:17
Quote: What the, a Soviet Socialist ? Quote: Yes, with China by their side the USSR might stand for some much longer time. Quote: How come ? The Big Three in the 22nd century :
An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ? 13 Jan 2010, 00:28
For the split not to have occurred, and for China to have a Soviet-style economy, Mao would have had to lose his power somehow. First of all, there's the already discussed issue of his ego and desire to represent the communist world. Then there was his peasant support base. Mao and his allies fought against those bureaucrats and party cadre that sought to industrialize China via the Soviet method, because it was against his own interests and supposedly against the interests of preserving the independence of China -since the Soviets would have to provide techical know-how, training, and material aid.
Khrushchev's slander of Stalin and his hot temper, big mouth, and erratic/impulsive style of leadership sped up the split, although even with a stable and pragmatic leadership such as that like Brezhnev-Kosigin in the 1960s-70s probably wouldn't be enough to save the countries from splitting with Mao in power. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 2162
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17 Ideology: Other Forum Commissar 13 Jan 2010, 03:04
In what sense were the Soviet and Chinese economies different?
Happiness is in your ability to love others. - Leo Tolstoy
13 Jan 2010, 06:41
To summarize the PSL position on the split, after the Chinese Revolution 2/5 of the worlds population lived under developing socialism. That scared the shit out of imperialists. Within 32 years (not bad because Marxist theory talks about the development of private property over the course of ~5,000 years) 2/5 of the worlds population became socialist.
As for the split not to happen the USSR would not of been able to have the policy of co-existance. They would of had to be involved more in the Korean War which would have escalated.  "Don't hate on me bro" - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 13 Jan 2010, 21:52
Nikita Rafirudov wrote: No...market socialism Here Quote: Because the front would have been more united. The Warsaw states might have prevented the UN from splitting Korea against Korea's wishes and Vietnam could have been positively supported by the two socialist powerhouses, and Pol Pot might have been taken out by the USSR or Chinese governments. 13 Jan 2010, 22:01
Yeah. Hell, every socialist country should have joined the USSR. That was its purpose anyway. One invincible union of Socialist republics stretching from Berlin to Beijing, with an outpost in Cuba. JFK would have shit his pants - probably in the literal sense.
13 Jan 2010, 22:08
[quote=Mabool]Yeah. Hell, every socialist country should have joined the USSR. That was its purpose anyway. One invincible union of Socialist republics stretching from Berlin to Beijing, with an outpost in Cuba. JFK would have shit his pants - probably in the literal sense.[/quote] This could be good, as it can prevent Russification by the Soviet Russianand actually encourage international solidarity throughout the USSR.
14 Jan 2010, 01:24
A single socialist union would not be practical though, at least not in the age of nations. An EU style union could be formed over time I suppose -but a single state with a single currency, military, and foreign policy? Seems impractical.
Political Interest: The difference between the Soviet and Chinese economies was their models of development. The Soviets favoured the Stalinist model, a highly centralized, industrialization-focused model. The Chinese model from the Great Leap Forward was decentralized, down to local communes (into which most of the peasantry was organized). Small 'backyard' industry was supposed to provide agriculture with all the tools and machinery needed. As a result of this model, along with the other upheavals of the Mao era, the country remained poor and underdeveloped, with the turn to a market solution begun in the early 1980s based ostensibly on the need to develop the country. ... Regarding peaceful coexistence and Mao's alternative visions, here's a quote from Gromyko's memoirs (I've been wanting to post it for a while): Quote: "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 14 Jan 2010, 20:36
soviet78 wrote: Plus the fact that the Peasants were encouraged to melt down their metal tools, which didn't work. The Chinese economy was a huge waste of time 15 Jan 2010, 11:17
So the Shino Soviet split was unavoidable ?
Are there any advantage for the Soviet Union from this spilt ? (Not to mention China's advantage, because I think, China had gone to the cliff and only a capitalisted reform like Deng's could save China then.) The Big Three in the 22nd century :
An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ? 
Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 15 Jan 2010, 15:11
Excuse me for being a spelling Nazi, but the correct spelling for Shino is Sino.
16 Jan 2010, 05:20
I would had liked to see the USSR go to war over it and have a China SSR. The USSR would still be here as a result. The massive size of the nation alone would make people gawk. At least China would be less capitalist today if that was the case.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
-Vladamir Lenin 16 Jan 2010, 13:15
Aha.
300 million country attacking a 700 million country. Imagine the consequent destruction of a war like that,not to mention total erosion of Communism's prestige and attractiveness in the world. 16 Jan 2010, 15:45
Quote: Some confusion with Japanese and Chinese, thanks a lot. Quote: You got 2 points. - The Sino-Soviet split worsen the image of communism somehow, and it itself cracked the communism world from deep inside. - A war between the USSR and China will surely cause a unnecessary bloodshed, which will weaken the top 2 of the communism world, and who knows, the United States of American Empires may use that as a chance to launch an attack to the USSR... a World War III, perhaps ? The Big Three in the 22nd century :
An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ? 16 Jan 2010, 15:50
That war would have been a total catastrophe for both the USSR and China,not to mention world communism,even without USA intervention
16 Jan 2010, 16:33
But the USA will surely use the war. The Eastern Bloc, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba... will be really badly effected. Communism world would end sooner, perhaps.
The Big Three in the 22nd century :
An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ?
Soviet cogitations: 2162
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17 Ideology: Other Forum Commissar 19 Jan 2010, 15:51
Thank you for answering my question, Soviet78, however, from what I know of history, were Maoist economics not as stringent as those in the Soviet Union? When you think about it, during the height of the Great Leap Forward, was it not the case that the peasants lived on communes where on paper they were entitled to housing, health care, food and all this free but without any salary? Many peasants were unhappy about this and could you not say this was an example of a rigid top-down system? Similarly, did the Chinese state not direct industrial production, that is to say, it chose where to build and what to build? How was Mao Zedong's economic policy any different from that of the one practiced in the USSR? To me, it was more in the method of application, i.e. using peasants and basic tools as opposed to specialised workers and machines.
Happiness is in your ability to love others. - Leo Tolstoy
20 Jan 2010, 07:57
Mao Zedong's biggest difference from the USSR's, is that the farmers are the main force and therefore argriculture must be focused more than industry, which is such a huge revision to Marxism.
The Big Three in the 22nd century :
An East-Asian must be patriotic, don't you think ? |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » People's Republic of China » Shino-Soviet split [ Go to page ][ 1, 2 ][ Next ]
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
