Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Mao and Pinochet

POST REPLY
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 04 Jan 2014, 18:33
Would definitely make strange bedfellows, but as I understand it Mao was one of the first rulers to recognise the fascist junta in Chile.

I understand that he went further and even supported the regime with loans and did not give refuge in the Chinese embassy to left-wing opponents of the regime.

Now I understand that the Chinese were not alone in this, other countries refused to grant refuge too and many lives were lost due to this.

But why would Mao act like this? Why would you turn your back on communists trying to escape a fascist regime?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 04 Jan 2014, 18:54
Because Mao stroke a deal with the US in the 70s and China de facto sided with imperialism against the democratic block.
We've had threads that go in detail on that, search this forum a bit.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Nov 2011, 12:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 19 Jan 2014, 21:19
Mao went so ultra-left during the late-60s that he ended up full circle on the ultra-right in the 1970s
Soviet cogitations: 726
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 26 Jan 2014, 05:25
deeman1916 wrote:
Mao went so ultra-left during the late-60s that he ended up full circle on the ultra-right in the 1970s
Not really. Mao's "struggle" against the USSR had begun during the Stalin period, in opposition to Marxism-Leninism. Mao welcomed the rise of Khrushchev but fell out with him when the latter refused to help turn China into a competing superpower.

Even Soviet revisionist publications, at least during the Brezhnev period, ascribed Mao's "defense" of Stalin to opportunism rather than actual conviction.

The Albanians likewise held the view that Mao's "leftism" was fraudulent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Nov 2011, 12:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 30 Jan 2014, 13:05
Well yeah Mao was a total egomaniac and did have a recurring problem with Titoist tendencies, and his criticisms of Stalin are mostly related to that. However on the whole I think there is plenty of evidence throughout his writings that he did genuinely admire Stalin and mostly attempt to follow his guidance. I wouldn't take the "70-30" thing too seriously:
Quote:
A word in passing about our differences with the Soviet Union. First of all, there is a contradiction between us and Khrushchov on the question of Stalin. He has drawn such a black picture of Stalin, and we do not agree with him. He has made Stalin so terribly ugly! This then is no longer a matter that concerns his country alone, it concerns all countries. We have put Stalin's portrait up in Tien An Men Square. This accords with the wishes of the working people the world over and indicates our fundamental differences with Khrushchov. As for Stalin himself, you should at least give him a 70-30 evaluation, 70 for his achievements and 30 for his mistakes. This may not be entirely accurate, for his mistakes may be only 20 or even 10, or perhaps somewhat more than 30. All things considered, Stalin's achievements are primary and his shortcomings and mistakes are secondary. On this point we take a view different from Khrushchov's.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... wv5_67.htm

When talking about his ultra-leftism I meant the Cultural Revolution foreign policy analysis of the USSR being a "Hitlerian Neo-Tsarist Social-Fascist Imperialist Bourgeois Dictatorship" which logically necessitated an alliance with the "liberal democracies" of the west, which is where the ultra-rightism comes in. Now I know Albania had largely the same analysis of the USSR and didn't ally with the west, but that would be a result of Yugoslavia simultaneously being friends with both the USA and the USSR, so allying with either bloc would've meant allying with Tito which obviously Hoxha was never gonna do. If Tito had been purely pro-Soviet and anti-West though it may well have been a different story
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron