I’m not really sure how siding with the US in Afghanistan and attacking Vietnam helped the PRC or socialists in the world.
Those were part of the broader proxy wars to crush the USSR.
A lot of this really just comes down to how politics work in the real world. None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
The photo that OP posted happened just a year after the Prague Spring when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, and months after the USSR and China clashed in a border skirmish in 1969. From China’s perspective, the Soviets are showing their imperialist ambitions and they have to be stopped at all cost.
None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
Also, I didn’t quite pay attention to this part in my previous reply.
This is an incredibly silly sentence. We are not arguing that the PRC should have sided with the ‘people the PRC liked’ as opposed to the ‘people the PRC didn’t like’. We are arguing about the PRC acting against the interests of the working class of the world while, I would argue, hurting itself in the long term (if you destroy your allies for the benefit of your enemy, you end up in a worse position - that is how politics work in the real world, and none of that wishy-washy ‘everything the PRC does is good and has the interests of the working class in mind’).
You’re arguing that the actions of the PRC state made the PRC state safer and more powerful.
Others are arguing that this was done at the expense of the power, well-being and lives of dozens of other communist parties and hundreds of millions of working people they represented. That the PRC may have gained power but Communists as a whole lost it and millions of workers were betrayed into abject poverty and left at the mercy of rapacious capitalist imperialists in the process.
Simply saying “but it worked the PRC state did get safer and more powerful by betraying hundreds of millions of workers to the depredations of capital” isn’t something any communist should be happy with.
Those were part of the broader proxy wars to crush the USSR
Cool. I guess destroying your allies on behalf of the worst empire of the world is a great strategy. I suppose, you would support another socialist project nuking the PRC to ‘play both sides’.
A lot of this really just comes down to how politics work in the real world. None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
Okay, so, do you suggest that the USSR should have abandoned helping anti-colonial liberation movements around the world and put effort into just allying with the US, liberalising its economy, and destroying the PRC, preferably before it even formed?
You are yet to actually explain how destroying your allies is helpful.
It is also rather clear that you aren’t exactly interested in international solidarity or in socialism prevailing in the world in general.
The photo that OP posted happened just a year after the Prague Spring when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, and months after the USSR and China clashed in a border skirmish in 1969. From China’s perspective, the Soviets are showing their imperialist ambitions and they have to be stopped at all cost.
So, the PRC helping the most prolific imperialist force in the world that is carrying out genocides even today, and which has been engaging in colonialism in general by destroying its own allies is completely fine realpolitik that everybody should engage in, but the USSR attempting to prevent liberalisation and potential alignment of a state with NATO is bad? I guess the USSR should have instead armed a pro-NATO militant org there instead.
Apparently, the imperialism of NATO shouldn’t have been stopped at all costs, if you are to be believed.
EDIT: It honestly feels like you are trying to just invent a way to present the PRC’s foreign policy at that time as some sort of masterful 10D chess strategy, when it was clearly a major misplay, whether you consider realpolitik or not.
This is especially silly if you consider that the USSR was helping other countries fight against colonialism, while the PRC both helped the premier imperialist force in the world to win in Afghanistan, and engaged in what could be argued to be imperialism against Vietnam.
By that logic, the USSR should have nuked the PRC the moment it took action against Vietnam to ‘play both sides’ and to fight against PRC’s imperialism/‘imperialism’.
Those were part of the broader proxy wars to crush the USSR.
A lot of this really just comes down to how politics work in the real world. None of that idealistic fantasy about siding with the people we like or don’t like.
The photo that OP posted happened just a year after the Prague Spring when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, and months after the USSR and China clashed in a border skirmish in 1969. From China’s perspective, the Soviets are showing their imperialist ambitions and they have to be stopped at all cost.
Also, I didn’t quite pay attention to this part in my previous reply.
This is an incredibly silly sentence. We are not arguing that the PRC should have sided with the ‘people the PRC liked’ as opposed to the ‘people the PRC didn’t like’. We are arguing about the PRC acting against the interests of the working class of the world while, I would argue, hurting itself in the long term (if you destroy your allies for the benefit of your enemy, you end up in a worse position - that is how politics work in the real world, and none of that wishy-washy ‘everything the PRC does is good and has the interests of the working class in mind’).
This is not a communist perspective.
This is just a national chauvinist perspective.
You’re arguing that the actions of the PRC state made the PRC state safer and more powerful.
Others are arguing that this was done at the expense of the power, well-being and lives of dozens of other communist parties and hundreds of millions of working people they represented. That the PRC may have gained power but Communists as a whole lost it and millions of workers were betrayed into abject poverty and left at the mercy of rapacious capitalist imperialists in the process.
Simply saying “but it worked the PRC state did get safer and more powerful by betraying hundreds of millions of workers to the depredations of capital” isn’t something any communist should be happy with.
Cool. I guess destroying your allies on behalf of the worst empire of the world is a great strategy. I suppose, you would support another socialist project nuking the PRC to ‘play both sides’.
Okay, so, do you suggest that the USSR should have abandoned helping anti-colonial liberation movements around the world and put effort into just allying with the US, liberalising its economy, and destroying the PRC, preferably before it even formed?
You are yet to actually explain how destroying your allies is helpful.
It is also rather clear that you aren’t exactly interested in international solidarity or in socialism prevailing in the world in general.
So, the PRC helping the most prolific imperialist force in the world that is carrying out genocides even today, and which has been engaging in colonialism in general by destroying its own allies is completely fine realpolitik that everybody should engage in, but the USSR attempting to prevent liberalisation and potential alignment of a state with NATO is bad? I guess the USSR should have instead armed a pro-NATO militant org there instead.
Apparently, the imperialism of NATO shouldn’t have been stopped at all costs, if you are to be believed.
EDIT: It honestly feels like you are trying to just invent a way to present the PRC’s foreign policy at that time as some sort of masterful 10D chess strategy, when it was clearly a major misplay, whether you consider realpolitik or not.
The best way to oppose social imperialism is to enthusiastically support regular imperialism
This is especially silly if you consider that the USSR was helping other countries fight against colonialism, while the PRC both helped the premier imperialist force in the world to win in Afghanistan, and engaged in what could be argued to be imperialism against Vietnam.
By that logic, the USSR should have nuked the PRC the moment it took action against Vietnam to ‘play both sides’ and to fight against PRC’s imperialism/‘imperialism’.
That was sarcasm, I think
That’s right
Oh, I do recognise that, and I am very much in agreement with the message the sarcastic remark seems to have been meant to communicate.