Max Parry's article is marred by willful naivete. He assumes that Mao, Stalin, and the like were ever motivated by something other than cynicism, egotism, and national interest. This isn't to deny that Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong were sincere communists, but when dealing with the outside world, ideology and principles mattered far less than the realpolitik of gangsterism, also true of so-called 'democracies'.
As American economic power continues to decline, a division has emerged within the U.S. political establishment as to which of its designated adversaries is to blame for the country’s woes — Russia, or China.
I'm not sure this has to do with 'decline'. After all, whether US power was on the incline or decline, it has always sought out enemies, the new Big Bad Wolf against whom to justify American hegemonism. During the Cold War, there was endless talk of how the Soviets were gaining at America's expense. No wonder that even as the Cold War had all but ended(with the US triumphant), some on the Right were insisting it was still on and as dangerous as ever.
After the total demise of the Soviet Union, the US was as aggressive as ever, in some ways even more so. It's boring to be the lone superpower even as the US insists on remaining just that. Not only lonesome but it poses to three problems for the superpower. Some people grow complacent in their country's dominance. Others, no longer fearful of foreign enemies, obsess about domestic failings; if the Greatest Generation was focused on evil Germany & Japan, the better-off Boomers often obsessed over America's own failings. Another problem is the lone superpower seems rather like a bully than a heroic underdog. This is why Mike Tyson's opponents had to be hyped up as worthy of tangling with Iron Mike. With Tyson steamrolling the opposition, it got to seeming cruel and vicious. So, even in the absence of The Great Enemy, the US needs to prop up New Hitlers and New Germanies.
The dispute came to a head during each of the last two presidential elections, with the Democratic Party first blaming Moscow for Hillary Clinton’s shocking defeat in 2016 over unproven “election meddling” by the Kremlin. After Joe Biden’s equally controversial victory over Donald Trump this past November, the GOP has retaliated by portraying the 46th president as “soft on China” just as their counterparts drew critical attention to Trump’s alleged ties to Russia — even though both men have taken tough stances toward each respective country.
Actually, it's misleading to say the 2020 election was 'equally controversial'. 2016 election wasn't controversial at all. Donald Trump ran not only against Hillary and the Democratic Party but much of the GOP establishment. All the media and the deep state were against him. The only 'controversy' was he won. He didn't win dirty as his side simply didn't have the ammo to do so. But he still won, and that was very upsetting to the Power. The whole Russia Thing was a fake controversy, made up out of whole cloth with total complicity of the big media and deep state. In contrast, the Power did everything to bury the REAL CONTROVERSY about the 2020 election. 2016 election was not controversial but made to seem so by the Power. 2020 was the most controversial election in US history and most certainly rigged, but the Power said there was NOTHING TO SEE, just go home, and forget about it. All speculations about election fraud were dismissed as 'baseless'. And the Jewish-run Media pulled a U-North(the villainous company in MICHAEL CLAYTON) about election fraud.
From MICHAEL CLAYTON - Tilda Swinton's character of Karen: "It has been and it remains the U/North position... that this lawsuit is baseless and without merit."
The Jewish media oligarchs didi it for tribal-supremacist power. The media minions, the hirelings and little people, collaborated with the Big Lie out of the vain conceit that they, the cosmo-globalists, are the 'adults in the room' and the on the right side of History, therefore any means are justified to take out Trump and the Deplorables. Their conceit allows for moral-nihilism.
As a result of this neo-McCarthyist political atmosphere, détente has been criminalized.
Isn't it time to bury this McCarthy nonsense? McCarthy was a tool. He was used by the Power but soon discarded when he probed into the US military. Also, even though anti-communism did sometimes get hysterical, the Soviet threat was not a fantasy(especially in Europe following WWII), and there were many spies and communist-sympathizers in key institutions. Also, so-called McCarthyism lasted a few years, and its crimes were nothing compared to wholesale 'internment' of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
It'd be more accurate to call the current climate Foxmanism after the sleazebag who ran ADL for a long spell. Foxman and other Jews have been at the forefront of censchwarzhip and deplatforming all across the US and the West in general. And unlike McCarthyism that faded away sooner than later and was almost universally denounced, Foxmanism seems to go on and on and on. And if most in the media and many in government did what they could to bring McCarthy down, the key institutions now all comply with Jewish demands with no end.
In order to understand what is driving this interwar between factions of the Anglo-American elite amid the rise of China and Russia on the world stage, a revisiting of the history of relations between the three nations is necessary.
Not really. History matters far less than 'Thistory'. As most people are ignorant of history, they don't know and don't care about all that happened in the past. And this goes for the elites as well. Most of history is inert and irrelevant. It's just stuff in books. What really matters is 'thistory', or this-history, which is how certain elements and aspects of history are selectively chosen, exaggerated, manipulated, and even fabricated into material to be used in the power game. Consider Afghanistan. For the longest time, most Americans had no idea where it was. But when the Soviet Union 'invaded', it was suddenly a noble tragic nation under Soviet tyranny. Afghans were lauded as a proud people who's resisted invasion for their entire existence. And the Mujahideen were heralded as heroic freedom-fighters whose values were comparable to those of the American Founders. But after the Soviets were gone and the Taliban took over, Afghanistan was soon forgotten. The former freedom-fighters were regarded as cave-dwelling barbarians with no use for modernity and vice versa.
When US and Japan were on good terms in the early 20th century, the latter was viewed rather positively as a progressive Asian nation of 'honorary whites', whereas China was seen as hopelessly backward and inept. But when US-Japanese relations became increasingly strained, the Chinese were the noble salt-of-the-earth(with the possibility of being converted to Christianity) whereas the Japanese because slanty-eyed nasty pagan buggers. But after WWII, Japan became the nice kindly nation of chrysanthemum-and-the-sword whereas China became the evil communist slave-state of the 'blue ants'. But when China was useful against the Soviet Union in the early 70s, there were many glowing reports of Mao's achievements. So, never mind History. What matters is Thistory.
Same goes for the American Past. American History, though relatively short, is deeply complex and complicated. But the current Thistory frames everything in terms of White Guilt and Black Nobility. Jewish History is also complicated, and there were as many cases of Jewish evil as well as Jewish goodness. But, Jews push their own Thistory that selects and arranges History to make themselves the innocent victims while all the blame goes to white goyim or Arab goyim.
From the first millennia until the 19th century, China was one of the world’s foremost economic powers.
But here's a key difference. However big China's economy may have been through much of history, China was never a world power because it never aspired to be one. Even at its peak, it was a self-contained power. With its population, it could have grabbed much of Siberia. But China didn't even try to take over Korea or Japan. If anything, it eventually got conquered by the semi-barbarian Manchus. It's been said China and Vietnam were at war for a thousand yrs, but Vietnam remained independent. The Asians who did aspire to be a world power were the Mongols, and they conquered China first. But rule by brutality lasts only so long.
In contrast to Chinese power, which was self-contained, European power truly became a world power, especially with the mastery of the seas, the conquest of the Americas, and power of science/technology. As such, it posed a challenge and threat to other peoples and civilizations. It also conceived of a new way of progress unknown to non-Western folks.
Unfortunately, the Western attitude toward China remains stuck in the ‘century of humiliation’ where from the mid-19th century until the Chinese Revolution in 1949, it was successively raped and plundered by the Western, Japanese, and Russian imperial powers.
This may be partly true in the sense that the West, so used to seeing China as a poor and backward nation, is unprepared and unwilling to deal with it on an equal basis. China seems especially unsettling because it has a combination of key advantages. It's a big country. Unlike any European nation, it can be seen as an empire unto itself. Even without overseas empires, China is a major power. Also, China has lots of people, indeed more than all of Europe and US combined. Also, China has lots of high-IQ folks. Furthermore, it's relatively homogeneous, thus united. Finally, its government, unlike that of Japan or Taiwan, is totally independent of the West. In contrast, Russia is larger than China and has more natural resources but has a much smaller population. Russians also lack the work ethic of East Asians. European nations are prosperous, but each on its own cannot constitute a world power. Even UK and France lost world power status following the loss of empires. There is the EU, but its authority is unclear and confused. As such, it functions as a satellite of the US that is, in turn, a colony of the Empire of Judea, currently the premier power in the world.
Anyway, it could be that the old perception of China as the 'Sick Man of Asia' prevents the West from respecting China's role on the world stage. In other words, the West is willing to accept China as a virtuous nation of simple peasant folks, like in THE GOOD EARTH, but not as citizens of a great power. It's like Americans were okay with Japanese growing rich by selling radios and motorbikes but unnerved by Tokyo's aspirations to take center stage as the economic capital of the world. (To be sure, Chinese would be smart to play up aspects of Pearl-Buckism. After all, overt display of power can be off-putting. This is why Jews, despite their great power, emphasize the narrative of poor helpless Jews hiding from the Nazis. And blacks play up their 'we was slaves' card as moral cover for their arrogance and megalomania. Thus, even as Jews exert tremendous power around the world, they are seen as a bunch of Anne Franks. And even as blacks burn down cities and commit all kinds of mayhem, they are regarded as 'victims of racism'. Strong Horse of power isn't enough. It needs to be combined with the Sacred Cow of victimhood.)
One reason for Western resistance to rising Chinese power could owe to the lack of visceral advantage among the Chinese, or yellows in general. Indeed, consider the distaste among white Americans in regards to Asian success even as they are totally approving of Jewish wealth & success and black fame & fortune. To whites, there can never be Too Many Jews in any industry or institution. And there can never be Too Many Blacks. If elite NY schools were dominated by Jews and blacks, no one would complain. But Too Many Asians in schools is a problem... though the problem is always said to be 'white privilege'.
Why are whites and Westerners in general open to total Jewish and black domination but disdainful of Asian success? It's due to 'viscerality', which operates on the individual-idolatrous level. Black individuals have made their mark as sports athletes, entertainers, dancers, studs, and orators. Thus, whites have come to idolize blacks as a special, even superior, race on the idolatrous level even as they ideologically mutter platitudes about 'equality'. Being so worshipful of blacks, whites consider it an honor to kneel at their feet and carry their jock-straps. So, companies scramble to get a black CEO. White women look to Michelle Obama as some demigoddess. Even the lowly punk George Floyd was eulogized to high heaven by Donald Trump.
Jews, though no good at sports, have also made their mark as individuals. They are funny, pushy, loud, brash, witty, feisty, and etc. While Mr. T. could whup Don Rickles' ass, the latter could outtalk anyone, and Jews have been the masters of gab. So, white folks, so often outwitted and 'owned' by Jews, feel it's their honorable duty to suck up to them. This is why even Dissident Rightist fools cling to the hope that Jews will ultimately be converted to siding with the White Race. People are wowed by 'leadership' qualities, and blacks dominate sports & entertainment, and Jews are visibly brilliant as lawyers, officials, academics, and pundits. So, whites have grown accustomed to serving under those two groups as the natural-leader races.
In contrast, Asian success and power are cumulative than individual. Asian power is lean on champion-like figures and operates more like a herd or hive. People prefer the individual champion qualities. It's like a lion gets more respect than a pack of hyenas. Or a bear gets more respect than a pack of dogs. When whites lost to blacks, it was a black individual like Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali beating up white palookas. It was like a bunch of white chimps lost to a big black gorilla. But when the US 'lost' in Vietnam, it was like whites finally gave up on dealing with so many Asian ants and mosquitos. A lone gorilla has a face and towers like King Kong on the phallic tower. But no matter how formidable ants or mosquitos can be, they are regarded as pests. Black power and Jewish Power have faces. But Asian Power is a faceless bloc of unity and cooperation. White people may kneel before the black gorilla or Jewish wolverine, but they don't want to kneel before the Chinese locusts. When the audience watched King Kong, they saw it as tragedy. But who cares about the bees in THE SWARM? Indeed, as if cognizant of these impressions, some Japanese guy made a anime movie TWILIGHT OF THE COCKROACHES where the Japanese are presented as bugs tolerated by US power(represented by humans).
By the way, Pearl Buck was very sympathetic toward China, and if anything, THE GOOD EARTH on balance did wonders for the Chinese in Western eyes. It humanized them, much like THE GRAPES OF WRATH did for the Okies and other poor white folks during the Great Depression.
The prevailing view of China among the 'conservatives' owe less to Pearl Buck than Pearl Harbor. Though Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Asia has long been seen as the Other by many in the West. So, 'Pearl Harbor' is like a metaphor. It could be Japan, it could be China. Or, it could be North Korea, what with ridiculous fantasies about the Norks nuking L.A., or the remake of RED DAWN that would have the audience believe that North Korea, with an economy 1/40th of South Korea, could invade whole swaths of American territory. Current view of China also owes more to FLASH GORDON. It's Ming-the-Merciless fantasy, with some Fu Manchu thrown in.
Another reason is actually due to cowardice. White America's 'courageous' stance toward China is actually the byproduct of its cravenness before Jews, blacks, and even homos. It's like what Ramzpaul says in this video:
CHINA IS NOT THE PROBLEM by RamzpaulWhites have been so instilled with 'white guilt' over 'antisemitism' and 'slavery'(and white fever for black badassness and Jewish genius) that they dare not mouth anything critical of the two groups that are doing the most harm to the white race. Blacks run amok, rape, riot, and loot, but White America bleats about 'systemic racism' and gushes about Magic Negroes. Jews push agendas to destroy the white race and the West, but every Western Nation grovels at the feet of Jews. Even after the BLM lunacy, the American 'conservative' idea of courage is to attack Democrats as the 'real racists', and even after Jews have done so much to harm the white race, the GOP's position is 'we stand for Israel more than Democrats do'.
In such a climate of chickenshit cowardice, whites can show their 'courage' only by attacking anything other than Jews, blacks, and homos(favored allies of Jews). And China is the perfect target because it is (1) big and growing more powerful (2) autocratic and repressive (3) relatively homogeneous (4) without power to affect discourse in the US (5) without protection of Jewish Power. Whereas Jewish Power will descend with fury on those who dare criticize Jewish Power, condemn black behavior, or denigrate homosexual activity, it tolerates most of the animus directed at China. Indeed, the Jewish-run media conglomerate signals approval for China-bashing. It's a clever way of making goyim do most of the bashing while keeping Jewish hands relatively clean so as to work with China.
Now, why would Jews who work with China, often against the interests of white America, allow white America to bash China? It's a way of killing two birds with one stone. By working with China, Jews further weaken white power in the West. But by allowing whites to vent their rage at China, the criticism is deflected from Jews. Now, the US has a sizable Chinese minority, so why don't they do something about this? Because yellows are lackluster as individuals and lack verbal fireworks. Also, with a sheepish and servile racial personality, they always look to serve the prevailing power. So, even as blacks attack yellows in Chinatowns in NY and SF, the yellows go with the approved narrative and blame 'white nationalism'. In a way, yellows and whites are becoming rather alike. Blacks beat yellows, and yellows blame whites. Jews and blacks beat on whites, and whites blame yellows. It's all kinda embarrassing.
Even at the peak of the Roman Empire, the Han dynasty where the ancient Silk Road began was vastly larger in territory and population.
But size isn't everything. In terms of quality, would anyone rate traditional China even at its peak higher than classic Athens or Northern Italy of the Renaissance? True, through a vast bureaucracy and complex organizations, China was able to carry out giant projects, but in doing so, it snuffed out much individual spark. Neither Athens nor Florence at its peak could match the sheer size of China but it created sparks that eventually allowed the West to burn brighter.
Soviet Union proved that vast state-run projects could produce awesome results. The steel factories, the giant dams, the missiles, and etc. But because Stalinism extinguished individual spark, the system gradually imploded under its own weight. Also, in an excessively unfree system, no one feels responsible to anything but higher authority. No one feels responsible on account of conscience or principle. This explains the hopeless rot of China in the 19th century and Soviet Union from the 60s onward. People had done things out of fear of authority, but once the authority grew corrupt, lax, and inefficient, people just became parasites looking out for themselves. Fear works when it's absolute. If you don't do as told, you will be punished harshly, even killed. So, you do it. Another way you might do something is out of freedom and reward. As you have no fear, you take chances to succeed in life. But Soviet Union from the 60s onward was a semi-fear state. There was just enough fear for people to keep their heads low and not take chances with freedom, but there wasn't enough fear to make people do what they were told. Imagine a slave state without the whip. The slaves are still punished if they try to run or rebel, BUT they're no longer whipped for acting lazy and hardly picking cotton. Most slaves will just pretend to work and do little as possible. So, if you want things to get done, there has to be real freedom or true fear.
The former Chinese Empire underwent its ‘hundred years of humiliation’ after suffering a series of military defeats in the Opium Wars which funded Western industrialization...
Chinese could have avoided all this with a humbler attitude. When the West initially arrived on friendly terms bearing gifts of superior technology, the Chinese could have shown curiosity and reacted with humility and admiration. Surely, a people who could build such ships, travel the seas, and make such gadgets must be doing something right. But the Chinese were arrogant and lazy in their chauvinism and missed their chance. Before the Opium Wars happened, China had racked up huge trade surpluses with the West. West bought lots of tea and silk whereas Chinese bought little. With that surplus, Chinese could have invested in technology. But they built stupid palaces for the lazy rich. Also, as China had fallen under the imperialist power of the Manchus(who eventually melded into China), it had already been under foreign rule for a few centuries before the British and others arrived. Indeed, it was Manchu domination that suppressed the emergence of genuine Chinese nationalism that could have more effectively dealt with the threat from the West.
Like Russia which lagged behind Europe after the Industrial Revolution until the Soviet centralized plans of the 1930s, China was able to transform its primarily agricultural economy into an industrial giant after its communist revolution in 1949.
But Russia made great strides in industrialization prior to the communist-takeover. It lagged behind Germany and UK but was fast catching up. If anything, the first decade of Bolshevism was a total economic disaster for Russia. And when Stalin finally got the ball rolling in the mid-30s, it was at huge human cost.
As for China, it's simply not true that industrialization came with Mao's revolution. Japan already proved that an Asian nation could industrialize without anything resembling communism. Japan followed the 19th century German model, and it served as the model for other Asian nations. If anything, communist China far lagged behind Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in industrialization. Even into the late 80s, most Chinese got around on foot or on bicycles called the 'flying pigeon'. Mao's Great Leap Forward was a massive leap backward. If Stalin's mass killings at least led to industrial development, Mao's disaster not only took tens of millions lives but set back China's industry. And then, there wasn't much economic advancement during the hellish years of the Cultural Revolution when agrarian reforms under Liu-Deng were turned back and when Chinese colleges were turned into centers of struggle sessions. Many educated Chinese at this time spent time on farms 'learning from the peasants'.
True industrial transformation for China came with Deng's reforms, and China looked to capitalist East Asian nations that were close to the US. Also, let's keep in mind that, unlike European imperialist powers that suppressed industrialization in their colonies, the US as new hegemon allowed industrialization in their satellite nations, most notably in East Asia. Of course, the Soviet Union also encouraged industrialization in Warsaw Pact nations and supplied them with raw materials while purchasing their products. Neo-Imperialism by US and USSR was more generous than the Old Imperialism of Europe. But then, whereas US and USSR were bountifully blessed with raw materials, much smaller Western European nations weren't.
The real turning point in Sino-Soviet relations came when... Khrushchev... began to discourage movements in the developing world living under Western-backed dictatorships from taking up arms in revolutionary struggle.
...China... accused the Soviet Union of “revisionism” for prioritizing world peace and preventing a nuclear war over support for national liberation movements, becoming the de facto leader of ‘Third Worldism’ against Western imperialism. Moscow reciprocated by freezing aid to China which greatly damaged its economy and relations soured between the world’s two biggest socialist countries, transforming the the Cold War into a tri-polar conflict already multifaceted with the Non-Aligned Movement led by Yugoslavia after Josep Broz Tito’s falling out with Stalin.
Not really. The way Max Parry explains it, it would seem governments are motivated more by ideology, principles, and dogma than by realpolitik. Especially when it comes to foreign affairs, regimes act like gangsters. Communist regimes practiced Machiavelli more than Marx on the world stage. Who can forget the Nazi-Soviet Pact?
Khrushchev's thaw with the US had little to do with Third World movements. It was almost entirely about Europe. Though the US(and UK) intended to neutralize German and Japanese military power indefinitely, the USSR feared that the West would rearm Germany against the USSR. Even as a puppet of the US, a militarized Germany could pose a threat to Russia, no small matter considering the horrors that befell the USSR in WWII. Also, even though US and USSR emerged as the two great victors of WWII, there really was no comparison. US was unscathed whereas USSR had to recover from utter devastation. Among young working adults, the Soviet population was 2/3 women because so many men had died. USSR was a republic of orphans. Also, despite obtaining the Bomb and all its bluffs, the USSR was woefully behind the US in missile gap. In an all-out nuclear war in the 1950s, the US would have won hands down. USSR could barely feed itself after the war, and besides, it had to take care of its satellite states in Eastern Europe. Its one advantage over the US was its proximity to Western Europe. In an all-out land invasion, the Soviet Union could conceivably overpower all of Europe, but then, it would lead to World World III that could very well involve nuclear weapons. So, the Soviet Union wanted to calm things down with the US. It needed to rebuild itself from the rubble of war. It needed to consolidate its grip over Eastern Europe that looked upon Soviet Union as oppressor than liberator. To the outside world, the Soviet Union presented itself as far more formidable than it actually was after WWII. Inside the USSR, people knew there were massive problems. Khrushchev knew of the disadvantages and vulnerabilities. He knew the uncensored truth from the inside. So, the proposed thaw with the West wasn't about ideological betrayal but bidding for time. Also, having served under Stalin, Khrushchev was well-aware of the human toll of communism and hoped there might be a more humane form of socialism that could co-exist with the capitalist world.
But Mao saw things differently, and it had less to do with principles or dogma than suspicion bordering on paranoia. After all, Mao's road to power had been grueling, strewn with so many double-crosses. And prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was one of the predatory powers over China. And even after the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin had tried numerous times to replace Mao with a Moscow-trained figure. USSR also swallowed up Mongolia as a satellite state and, prior to Mao's victory, willfully occupied territories in China much like the US does today in Syria. Of course, back then, it was to Mao's benefit that Russia violated China's territorial integrity and provided a haven for the Chinese communists from the clutches of the KMT. Still, Mao was well-aware of Sino-Russian History. Not good. And despite his fealty to Stalin, there was also a lot of bad blood.
So, even though Khrushchev didn't mean to betray China, Mao was super-suspicious because of both political and personal histories. Also, smarting from the Korean War where China won lots of prestige but at great cost, he was in no mood to deal with the US, not least because of the Taiwan issue. Furthermore, Mao greatly overestimated the power of the USSR. Being an outsider, he took a good deal of Soviet propaganda at face value. Why should a superpower like the USSR not be bolder with the US?
Khrushchev knew the reality from the inside and was well-aware of the weaknesses. US controlled all the seas. US had many more nukes. It was unscathed in WWII and had by far the biggest industry in the world and was the leader in science and technology. It had plenty of food and stuff. US also had the richest and most powerful European nations on its side. While the Soviet Union looked dominant on the map, most of Siberia was uninhabited. Eastern European nations were backward relative to the West. And huge areas of the USSR were still being rebuilt from war and deprivations caused under Stalin.
Khrushchev was trying to walk a fine line between superpower bluff and cautious pragmatism. He knew Soviet prestige depended on show of power and pride. Communist propaganda tirelessly featured images of marching soldiers, tanks & airplanes, and endless fields of wheat. In reality, the Soviet system was just barely providing basic necessities to its citizens. Khrushchev himself embodied these contradictions. He could be awfully proud and tempestuous. A volatile figure, he could harangue the West along with the best of them. But he was also a survivor and, in trying to buy time to create a more humane form of socialism, he tried to negotiate with the US, especially over Germany. But it wasn't easy because he couldn't resist sticking it to the US when the opportunity arose, like with the U2 incident that was deeply humiliating to Eisenhower's administration.
By the mid-50s, Khrushchev had already experienced nearly 40 yrs of communist rule in the Soviet Union. He knew what the revolution had done to the elites and the people. He'd witnessed the casualties as well as the gains of the revolution. He'd seen so many of his comrades crushed by Stalin, and he'd also taken part in this bloodbath out of zeal or to survive. Also, prior to Stalin's death, he'd always played the role of flunky. So, he understood the danger of absolute power. He lived under it, was humiliated by it, and survived it.
In contrast, Mao had been the top figure in Chinese communism once it took hold in the countryside. Mao was used to ordering others around, not being ordered around. Also, Chinese communists came to power in 1949, 32 years after the Russian Revolution. In 1955, he'd been the supreme leader of China for only 6 yrs. So, his enthusiasm level was much greater. He was flush with dreams of great things. Thus, he had a bolder approach to the West, though his talk about atom bomb being a 'paper tiger' was mostly bluff.
At any rate, Mao could talk this way, that is recklessly, because if it came to World War III, the Soviet Union would have to do most of the fighting and bear the brunt of US's main nuclear attack. It's easier to talk tough from behind. In contrast, Khrushchev was face to face with the US(and things later got really dangerous with the Cuban Missile Crisis). Maybe for Mao, it was revenge for what the USSR put him through during the Korean War when China was ill-equipped to face off against the biggest industrial power in the world.
But all said and done, Mao feared that Russia as a white power was inching closer to the US as a white power to stab yellow China in the back. It was unfounded fear on Mao's part, but given the history of white imperialism in Asia, surely understandable. So, Mao threw whatever monkey wrench he could find at the notion of 'peaceful co-existence' with the West. Likewise, hawks and hardline anti-communist elements in the US made did all they could to undermine any peace deal with Russia and Red China. Mao worded his concerns in terms of ideology and world revolution, but he was really concerned with China and his rule over it. Besides, most anti-imperialist movements weren't communist, and some were staunchly anti-communist. It wasn't a cut-and-dry affair of leftist Third World vs rightist capitalist West. If anything, by promoting communist insurgencies around the world, the USSR faced the danger of alienating Third World nations that resisted Western Imperialism but weren't partial to communism. So, the Soviet Union had to be flexible, even delicate, in forming alliances, especially in the Muslim World that wasn't so keen on secular radicalism.
As to why Soviet ended aid to China, it had to do with Mao's increasing megalomania and recklessness both at home and before the world community. Notwithstanding the partial re-militarization of Japan, tensions over Taiwan, and the aftershocks of the Korean War, China was not the main target in America's crosshairs. It was the Soviet Union, which wasn't prepared for an all-out war. Even if Soviets could take most of Europe, it'd be more trouble than its worth as Soviets would have to rule over and take care of entire nations that would seethe with resentment and hatred. Indeed, the great paradox of communism was that the biggest true believers were found in non-communist nations. There, the useful idiots could fantasize about Workers' Paradise when, in fact, conditions under communism weren't so great for the daily worker. Consider the French movie EAST-WEST where a bunch of naive Western Intellectuals emigrate to the Soviet Union to live in utopia only to be met with brutal repression. Indeed, the Soviets were loathe to take in defectors who'd finally get a glimpse of the REAL LIFE under communism and discover it made the capitalist West, for all its faults, seem like paradise.
The propaganda war was a far more daunting challenge for the Soviet Union. China merely needed to play the Third World card whereas Soviets had to play both First World and Third World cards. It was well-understood around the world that China was a poor country. If anything, its poverty was a point of solidarity with the Third World. In contrast, the Soviet Union had to present itself as a First World competitor with the US. In other words, it wasn't only the land of the proles and champion of the oppressed around the world BUT a system that could compete with the West in providing modernity and prosperity. This is why Richard Nixon made much of America's dominance in TV's, refrigerators, and automobiles. USSR spoke a lot about the Worker, but was the average wage-earner better off under communism or capitalism? As Red China was just getting started, it wasn't in competition with the West in the living-standards and consumer goods department. In contrast, when Khrushchev said, "We will bury you", he meant not only in great power terms but in mass production of goods and services. In truth, however, the Soviet Union had a bigger refrigerator gap than the missile gap with the West. And Khrushchev, having worked in the communist economy, knew of its problems and limitations.
This is why the Soviets urged Mao to go slow and be pragmatic so as not to repeat the mistakes of the USSR. You can't turn earth into heaven into one fell swoop. Soviets provided aid and experts to facilitate development in China, but Mao the peasant-dreamer just wouldn't listen. He threw caution to the winds and embarked on the disastrous Great Leap Forward with boasts of how China would leap over not only UK but the US in so many years.
Also, Mao made adventurist claims about Soviet achievements that irritated Russians to no end. While the Soviets were awfully proud of their head start in the space race, they knew the US had more ammo in the long haul. For the Soviets, the competition was a matter of inches. But when Soviets sent up a satellite, Mao proclaimed the East is prevailing over the West. It was beyond bluff. It was guff.
But worst of all, it was a matter of personalities. Though Khrushchev was erratic, he was not without human qualities and something like a conscience. Also, he began as a prole and made his mark through hard work. As such, he didn't despise the common man and, if anything, was saddened by the great loss of life under Stalinism... though he too had plenty of blood on his hands. In contrast, Mao grew up despising the peasantry. He fancied himself a thinker, poet, philosopher. He regarded himself as made for great things. Like Hitler, he saw himself as a man of destiny. As such, people were mere tools and pawns. He was like a communist Harry Lime(of THE THIRD MAN). He found communism useful as an insta-hammer of history. Capitalism, good or bad, took time to develop — it's like it took capitalist Jews longer to take power in the US than it took for communist Jews in Russia, but then, capitalism proved to be far more useful to Jews, just like capitalism is finally pushing China ever higher, perhaps to the top. In contrast, Leninism meant ruthless organization, revolutionary will, and power with guns & force. For Mao, communism was a tool of using the masses, not serving them. They were expendable. As 'Mao' says to 'Nixon' in Oliver Stone's film, "The evil is within us; history is a symptom of our disease."
The person in the CCP who was most like Khrushchev was Peng Dehuai who, alone among prominent figures during the Great Leap Forward, blamed Mao for the disaster. Granted, Khrushchev had no such courage during Stalin's reign, but the Secret Speech, for all its faults and omissions, was a means to come to terms with the great crimes committed under Stalin. This is where Mao and Khrushchev could never see eye to eye. Mao was a monstrous god-man whereas Khrushchev, for all his bluster and arrogance, wasn't without human qualities and something resembling conscience.
Indeed, the seeds of the eventual fallout between Mao and Khrushchev were planted right after Stalin died because Khrushchev tried to be the good guy. Customarily, Mao should paid Khrushchev a visit after Stalin's death because USSR was the premier power. But Khrushchev decided to go see Mao. Also, he understood that Stalin had abused his position with Mao and wanted to right those wrongs. He adjusted policy so that China would feel more on equal terms with the USSR. Now, if Mao had some human qualities, he would have appreciated the gestures and reciprocated, but just like Hitler, he regarded decency in others as weakness to exploit and trample on. He began to put on airs, show disdain toward Khrushchev, bait the USSR over trifles, ramp up unnecessary tensions with the West, and ignore all advice on economic matters. Anyone with half-a-sense would have known the Great Leap would be a total disaster. Also, Mao began to act like he's the new Stalin, the new god of communism. At some point, Khrushchev had just about enough. While not blameless, 80-90% of the Soviet rift must be blamed on Mao's impetuosity and megalomania, which would soon bring about the Cultural Revolution as if China didn't suffer enough already. Mao was a wrecker alright.
By the way, the fact that the Chinese economy dramatically improved right after the Great Leap was abandoned and limited market reforms were implemented goes to show that the massive suffering from 1958 to 1961 owed mostly to Mao's craziness than Soviet withdrawal of aid. China was soon able to feed itself again once the Great Leap ended even though Soviet aid and experts didn't return.
As the PRC continued to break from... USSR’s deviation from Marxism-Leninism, China... took the anti-Soviet policies a step further by condemning the USSR as “social imperialist”... This led to several huge missteps in foreign policy and a complete betrayal of internationalism, as China aligned with the U.S. in support of UNITA against the MPLA in the Angolan civil war, the CIA-backed Khmer Rouge genocidaires in Cambodia against Vietnam, and the fascist Augusto Pinochet regime in Chile... Richard Nixon and his war criminal Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were received as guests in 1972. Despite the initial reasons for the Sino-Soviet split, it was ironically the Soviet Union which ended up carrying the mantle of national liberation as the USSR backed numerous socialist revolutions in the global south while China sided with imperialism.
This is a cartoon view of history. It's not as if the world was made up of evil US, good USSR, and noble Third World struggling for justice. Soviet Union constituted an imperialism in its own right. Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs certainly thought so. Baltic states felt imprisoned in the Soviet Union. And communist exports led to repression and even mass killings on an unprecedented scale. It was certainly true in Mao's China. It's true enough the US did horrible things and supported regimes that carried out mass killings. But so did the USSR. And despite the puppet-status of nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they offered more freedom and opportunity for their own peoples than communist nations like China, North Korea, and Mongolia.
Also, opportunism was part of Chinese foreign policy from day one. Though ideologically favoring communists the world over, China was friendly with non- and even anti-communist nations as long as they shared common interests. But in the end, the main reason why USSR took the lead in 'world revolution' was it had a bigger economy and had more to offer. China under Mao was poor and backward. All it could offer was some rice, cabbage, and AK-47s. Even Third World nations that identified more with China were better off siding with the more advanced Soviet Union. Cuban economy did pretty well with Soviet aid, but what could China offer? Little more than rhetoric and the Little Red Book.
Also, Mao nursed territorial grievances with the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia had taken whole chunks of China and they weren't returned under communism. Also, the vast borderlands between the two nations made both deeply nervous, and hostilities broke out. As the Soviets had overwhelming technological advantage, China usually got the worst of the exchange, and this made Mao angrier. So, it all became very personal. It's not so much that China 'betrayed' the world revolution as the Sino-Soviet rift rippled across the world stage. As China regarded Russia as the imperialist threat, it was resolved to undermine Soviet influence anywhere in the world. China also worried that Vietnam would grow closer to Russia. Even though China provided the most aid to Vietnam in the war against the US, it feared that Vietnam would lean toward the Soviets that could offer more in terms of technological knowhow, and these fears were soon realized upon the unification of Vietnam. As for the Khmer Rouge working with the CIA, that happened AFTER the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Initially, the Khmer Rouge came to power against the CIA-backed Lon Nol regime. Mao gave them his blessing as true revolutionaries. But the Khmer Rouge were not only insane ultra-communists but ultra-zealous nationalists who wanted to take back territories lost to Vietnam centuries ago. This led to border conflicts with Vietnam and then eventual invasion by Vietnam. It was only then that the Khmer Rouge began to work with the CIA on the basis of 'enemy of your enemy is your friend', but that's always been the case. As for Pinochet, he was no fascist but a mere reactionary puppet of the propertied class. He lacked the vision of Mussolini and Hitler. Not that Mussolini and Hitler were good fascists. Mussolini was about Ridiculous Fascism, and Hitler was about Ludicrous Fascism. Neither was about True Fascism based on National Humanism, and so they failed. At any rate, Pinochet was just one of the many run-of-the-mill third-rate dictators around the world. Were they all 'fascists'? Or, is someone a 'fascist' if he comes to power by taking out a leftist or Marxist? At any rate, how many did Pinochet kill? A few thousand? And to his credit, he paved the way for successful economic recovery and return to democracy. He was less repressive and murderous than most tyrants, and the only reason he came to be so loathed was because Allende was a darling of the Western Left when the hated Nixon was president.
While it's true that Nixon and Kissinger have blood on their hands, how else do you fight a war? Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries also had blood on their hands. Che Guevara welcomed the cleansing fire of WWIII and wanted the Cuban Missile Crisis to escalate into a nuclear war.
The fact is Nixon and Kissinger, like Johnson and McNamara, inherited a conflict in Vietnam because Dwight Eisenhower meddled there when the French were on the ropes. Though Vietnamese were justified in in struggling to reunify their country, the US couldn't simply walk away from an ally during the height of the Cold War. Likewise, once the Soviets went all in on Afghanistan, it was difficult to pull out and risk looking weak, defeated by a bunch of cave-dwelling nomads.
As for Soviet involvement in Africa, what a disaster. As Che Guevara soon discovered during his African tour, blacks can't be taken seriously. All that Soviet aid in Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia did no good. They were all wasted. Also, whereas US foreign aid was based on surplus and over-abundance — every year, even during the Great Depression, the problem was in the US was over-production — , the Soviet Union with empty shelves could ill-afford foreign aid, especially with basketcase parts of the world. Of course, the US supported cutthroat bandits to attack and undermine those regimes, but the regimes themselves were utterly rotten.
Indeed, communism would have done better with a healthy dose of rational race-ism. Then, Russians would have realized that not all peoples are alike or interchangeable. Blacks have their own way of doing things. All the aid poured into Africa was lost. But then, the West discovered the same thing, though it keeps making the same mistakes. Tons of aid and the same misery.
Ultimately, mistakes were made by both sides that are recognized by the two countries today, as can be seen in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation’s negative historical view of Khrushchev and the denunciation of the Cultural Revolution and Gang of Four by the CPC (not “CCP”).
Blaming Khrushchev for the demise of the USSR is foolish. His reign was short-lived, and the long decline happened under those who ousted him. At the very least, Khrushchev tried to do something different. It caused problems but also created possibilities. But that spark was lost under the long mummified tenure of Brezhnev and co.
As for the Gang of Four, they were mere tools of Mao. They never had much power, just like Antifa is little more than street enforcers of the Jews. The so-called Gang of Four was only as powerful as Mao needed it to be. When no longer useful, they were tossed aside. It was Mao all along. Blaming the Gang of Four is like blaming the Rosato Brothers than Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Mao ruined relations with the Soviet Union. Mao had Zhou En-Lai call in Nixon. But because Mao has such a godly presence in CCP lore, it's convenient to scapegoat the Gang of Four. The Gang was loathsome but wielded power only with Mao's approval.
China has since even apologized to Angola for its support of Jonas Savimbi.
Again, pure realpolitik. It has nothing to do with principles. It's just mouthing the necessary platitudes to do business. Had Savimbi prevailed in Angola, Chinese would be making nice with him or his successors. Reading anything other than opportunism into 99% of foreign policy is a fool's game.
...the break in political relations with Moscow also set the process in motion for China to develop its own interpretation of Marxism-Leninism that diverged from the Soviet model and eventually allowed a level of private enterprise which never occurred under the USSR...
It had nothing to do with ideology. Chinese turn to capitalism didn't flow from an alternative interpretation of Marxism but from pure exhaustion, desperation, and pragmatism. After the two whammies of the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese were burnt out on ideology. They just about had enough, not least the Red Guards themselves as many of them had been sent off to work on farms. And historians now think Deng followed than led, i.e. as systems of control deteriorated during the Cultural Revolution and the economy got so bad, peasants took the initiative and began to work their own plots of land and sell their surplus. It had nothing to do with ideology but Chinese small-business enterprise spirit. CCP could have clamped down on this but decided to run with it as a last ditch effort to revive the economy. Also, China came to eye Singapore with special interest: An autocratic system that balanced socialism and capitalism and grew rich. And of course, China couldn't help but notice the economic gains of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and etc. Of course, CCP rationalized the new policy in Marxist-sounding terms, but it had nothing to do with Marxism one way or another. It's likely that when Lee Kuan Yew met with Deng and others, he had private conversations to set them straight along the lines of, "We Chinese smart people. We good at math and work hard. Communism no make good use of big talent in China. Smart people better to make computer than shovel dung." The cat need not be red. Any colored cat is useful if it catches mice. Of course, CCP talks the talk about 'social justice', but it probably got some pointers about race realism from the likes of Lee.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, the tentative US–China alliance effectively ended and Sino-Russian rapprochement began. But what prevented the PRC from going the same route as the Eastern Bloc? Why did Deng succeed and Gorbachev fail?
Several factors explain this. Precisely because China was far poorer than the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Chinese had far lower expectations and did anything to survive and earn whatever they could. The scrounged, scratched, and struggled. They took nothing for granted and appreciated every tiny opportunity and every last morsel. Thus, Chinese made the most of their newfound freedoms, limited as they were.
In contrast, even though life in the Soviet Union was impoverished by Western standards, its citizens had a reasonably comfortable existence. They took jobs, wages, housing, and other amenities for granted. So, they were less desperate and had less fight/struggle in them. When Gorbachev came along and experimented with reforms, many thought communism/socialism would be replaced with instant prosperity of market economies in the West. Or, communism would make way for functional social-democracy. What they saw of the West was freedom and consumerism. Russians thought freedom = good life. But in fact, the West was richer not simply due to more freedom but lots of hard work. (If it took Soviet painters two weeks to paint a house, it took two days for those in the West.) The real formula was freedom + work ethic. Mere freedom leads to anarchy or lethargy. Freedom has to be contained and used properly. It's like Northern Italians make better use of freedom than Southern Italians. When Minnesota was almost all white and largely Scandinavian, it made good use of freedom. But when lots of blacks ended up there, freedom was used for criminality or parasitism. Russians thought freedom would lead to riches falling from the sky. They failed to understand that freedom meant they would have to take individual responsibility and work harder.
Under the Soviet System, things got built under Stalin because he used the whip. He ruled by fear, and those who failed to deliver could end up in the Gulag or worse. But once the Soviet Union loosened up, there was less tyranny to force people to work but not enough incentives to make people work harder. The result was a kind of stalemate, often described as "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Everyone did the bare minimum while expecting all the benefits due to the Proletariat as promised under communism. Why work harder when no one else did and when it was forbidden to become rich? The Soviet Union became like one big corrupt labor union. Imagine an entire society not only led by Jimmy Hoffa but managed by his team. It became difficult to fire anyone, and mediocrities were promoted for loyalty than ability. Still, there was just enough to maintain a decent comfortable life for most people as long as their expectations were modest. Also, the steadiness of the Soviet Union after Stalin's death led to a culture where everyone expected everything to remain the same. So, when the reforms came, people were more concerned with what they might lose than what they might gain. They didn't have much but still had enough in terms of wages and benefits to live a modern life.
In contrast, the Chinese were willing to take risks because they had nothing to lose. After Mao's rule, most Chinese had pretty much NOTHING. Even the iron rice bowl became a myth during the Great Leap. And in the 1970s, Mao came up with another hare-brained scheme of making everyone grow nothing but wheat or rice. So, people were deprived of fruits and veggies.
If you have something, you might fret to lose it even if it's not much. It's still something, which is better than nothing. That was the Soviet situation. But if you got nothing, what do you care about taking risks as you can only gain as you got nothing to lose. So, paradoxically, China was better positioned to take advantage of freedoms in the 1980s because it was like a nation of beggars. It's like a starving dog let loose will hunt for food whereas a half-fed dog, though not full, will stick with its regular doggy-bowl than hunt for food.
But there was also a cultural factor. Chinese have work ethic, Russians don't. It's like Germans have work ethic, the Spanish not so much. This made a huge difference. Culture matters. Chinese are like rodents always collecting and hoarding stuff. Russians are like bears that lumber around; when a bear is fed, it goes to sleep. Generally throughout history, Russians worked hard when forced under tyranny or by circumstances. When times are good or tolerable, Russians don't apply themselves. People with real work ethic work hard even when they don't have to. They feel guilty about not using their time constructively.
Also, Asians are more conformist and servile, and therefore they make better workers on the assembly line. There's less cuss and fuss about them. As China has had many poor people willing to work diligently for low wages for long hours, it was very useful to the Western elites who could then bypass national labor with its unions, demands, and legal protections.
Indeed, the economic success of free-wheeling Hong Kong proves that statism was not the main reason for China's economic rise. Taiwan and Hong Kong had already made great gains minus the statism.
Where statism is useful is in safeguarding and enforcing the noble fascist mythos of a nation. But this is so ONLY IF the regime has a proper fascist understanding of history and power. If the order is anti-fascist and anti-nationalist, the statist forces will push for racial demise and cultural decay. We see this in the West. The state has grown ever larger in both the US and EU, but why are they different from Russia and China? Because Western statism is managed by cuck-maggots who take their marching orders from Jewish Supremacist hegemonists. So, instead of proper national-humanist true fascism, there is gangster-fascism of arrogant elites and their comprador quislings. Statism is like the gun described by the hero in SHANE. Just like the gun is only as good as the person using it, the state or statism is only as good as the people controlling it. The problem with libertarians is they see the state itself as the enemy. Others see statism itself as the solution. In truth, it all depends on who controls the statism. It's like the gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is totally different from a gun in the hands of a crazed criminal. When Mao ruled the state, the CCP was like the most terrifying thing. But when the Chinese state came under control by men of pragmatism, China did much better.
At any rate, there needs to be a strong nationalist regime with proper fascist credentials. Without strong political power independent of the business class, the government(democratic or otherwise) simply turns into a tool of soulless plutocrats. In search of a 'soul', the plutocrats form a pact with faddish 'radicals' who provide the 'meaning' with their bogus theory of justice. The synthesis of big money and big mouth is what we have today, the kind of 'woke radicalism' that is rich-friendly, decadent, and obsessed over meaningless trivialities and idolatry. It's where Mayday turns into Gayday because homos are favored as standard-bearers of 'progress' because they are so catering to the rich and privileged. Or, it's the idolatry of the Negro because blacks dominate sports and pop music. As Jews are the richest people, most of 'progressive' politics in the West comes down to "Is it good for Jews?" It's about Jeff Bezos working with ADL, BLM, and tutti-fruity to gain 'wokemon' points for himself and his super-rich class.
Though the militarist regime in Japan committed serious crimes and the South Korean military dictatorship in the 70s could be brutal, they were still nationalist forces that kept the business class in line. But in the absence of nationalist-statist checks, the business class has taken over everything and bought up all politicians in Japan and South Korea. As the rich class are soulless and seek validation by status-conscious conformity to whatever is fashionable and faddish, moral values have gone down the toilet in both nations. In contrast, despite the problems of the CCP, it does have the power to rein in the excesses of the business class that is willing to sell anything to gain more in wealth and status.
One area where Russia may have an advantage over China is it has come to an honest terms with its history. The Russian case, though painful, proved that Russia is bigger than any single ideology or political party. Russia is the totality of Russian culture and history. Russian communism had its triumphs but also its tragedies. Russia was right to reject the gangster-capitalism of the 1990s but also right to honestly face the crimes of communism. Thus, Putin's Russia is on firm moral grounds. Its main foundation is nationalism, culture, and history, not ideology. And indeed, any great order must be built on something deeper and stronger than ideology. So, while the fall of the Soviet Union was very painful for Russia, the long-term effects are that Russians are truly free in their relation with history. They admire the achievements of the Soviet era but also have come to terms with its criminality and evils. In contrast, even though the CCP has remained and achieved amazing things, current Chinese system is founded on a lie and has yet to face its past honestly. Because Russia is free of ideology, it can honestly work with both capitalism and socialism. In contrast, China seems dishonest because it practices capitalism while still pretending to stand for communism. (In the long run, for any nation to survive, it must come to a reckoning with the fascist laws of history. After all, the best and the most noble things about current Russia and China are fascist: Reverence for the past, revolutionary in spirit, nationalist, open to socialism and capitalism, keen understanding of real power, and etc. There is no reason to believe that fascism must always be associated with Hitler and Nazism. That was only one kind of fascism, one that failed. Rejecting all of fascism because of Nazism is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Take the idea of 'empowerment'. Suppose someone empowers himself and does bad things with power. Does that mean we should reject the whole concept of empowerment and power? No, we need only to reject the misuse of power. Also, what political system hasn't misused its power? So-called 'liberal democracy' of the US committed 'genocide' against the natives and used slavery. Does that invalidate everything about democracy? So, instead of denouncing fascism, Russia and China would do better to formulate a better kind of fascism, the only truly honest theory of power. Then, the foundations of their power would truly be honest.)
Max Parry is correct that a people's reckoning with their dark past must NOT be outsourced to others who feign sympathy. The globalist Jews who took part in the creation of New Russia after communism had only one thing in mind: Loot Russia for Jewish Power. They were bad faith actors. Still, that doesn't mean it was wrong for Russians to honestly face up to the dark facts about the Soviet period. The thing is one must do it on one's own terms. It's like it was good of Germans to face up to their Nazi past but very foolish to outsource so much of it to Jews who will never forgive and are hellbent on destroying Germany for all eternity.
One day, if China is to be a genuinely decent nation, it must honestly face up to Mao's great crimes. True greatness isn't only about money and power but truth and honesty. But China should never allow outsiders to define and dictate the good and the bad of Chinese history. It must find its own voice. And the Chinese should especially not allow Jews to control the narrative. While there have been decent Jewish scholars and historians on China with good will, most Jews in the Western media and deep state are just snakes and weasels looking for vulnerabilities in order to take over.
Take White America for instance. US history is full of greatness and darkness. So much was achieved but at great costs. So, it was right of White America to come to terms with its dark chapters of history. But it foolishly outsourced this endeavor to Jews who merely exploited it to fill whites with 'white guilt' so as to control them as emotional sheeple of Jewish supremacism.
Khrushchev cannot be faulted on this account because he didn't outsource Soviet self-criticism to the outside world. He was for Soviets learning to criticize themselves, at least for awhile. Mikhail Gorbachev, a decent man, was more trusting of the West, and perhaps things would have turned out better if the reforms in Russia continued in cooperation with the West ruled by the likes of Nixon and Reagan. For all their faults, I don't see Reagan and Nixon as the kind of people who'd kick a bear when it's down. When Russia tried to move away from communism, there were good-faith actors willing to help. But by the 1990s, the boomer-Jewish takeover of the West was complete, and the kind of Western experts sent into New Russia were some of the most venal Jews that ever lived. They did to Russia what World Jewry did to Germany during the Weimar Period. They stripped it of everything and raped it raw. It's like how Neocons came over to the GOP to exploit it and squeeze it to its last drop of service to Israel and its wars. It's the difference between the Christian mentality and Jewish mentality. The tragedy of post-communist Russia was it underwent transformation to capitalism when Jews came to dominate foreign policy.
At any rate, ideology is never enough for a rich and complex civilization like Russia or China. This is why fascism is ideal. It appreciates tradition and heritage as well as the need for change and modernity. It has uses for capitalism and socialism. It also understands that man isn't simply a rational and materialist creature but a spiritual, mythic, and creative one. True Fascism can work if it rejects the Ridiculous Fascism of Mussolini and Ludicrous Fascism of Hitler.
Because Russia rid itself of communist ideology, it can truly be based on a civilizational foundation. Russia can freely draw from its deep history while also crediting achievements under the Soviet era. It is free to choose from its vast pool of history.
In contrast, as long as China remains chained to CCP ideology, it cannot properly appreciate all aspects of Chinese history. Mao must always be the great helmsman, and terrible lies must be perpetuated to further the myth. Also, much of Chinese history must be ignored or vilified because it doesn't sit well with the current ideology. It'd be much better if China moves away from CCP ideology and embraces a national humanist fascism.
In Russia, people can admire both the Whites who fought for Tsar & tradition and the Reds who fought for what they believed at the time to be justice and progress. People are free to see the good and bad of all sides. People can note the grave failures of Tsar Nicholas while also acknowledging he wasn't an evil man and meant well for his country. Russians can come to terms with Stalin's crimes while also praising him as the strong leader who led Russia to victory in the greatest of wars. It's a civilizational view. The US used to have it too. After the Civil War, when the dust settled, the victorious North gave the South its due. Southerners also fought for what they believed to be right, and they fought with courage and honor. Robert E. Lee was much respected. How richer the US was when it was free of ideology.
But now, with Jewish Power and its idolatry of the Noble Negro and its demonization of Evil Whitey, US history cannot be approached as a rich and complex web of triumphs and tragedies. It's all about good vs evil. Ideology is the idolatry of certain ideas over reality, and it impoverishes the mind.
China during the Cultural Revolution demonstrated the dangers of ideology. Just about any aspect of Chinese culture, history, heritage, and customs came under attacked and was destroyed because it didn't jibe with the prevailing ideology. So much art and culture was lost.
In the end, China is bigger than the CCP, and so, if the CCP is to really secure the future, it must move away from ideology and formulate a larger sense of what it means to be Chinese. That way, even Chiang Kai-Shek and KMT can be given their due as patriots in their own right than as permanent ideological villains. That way, Chinese no longer need to think in terms of 'left' vs 'right', a mindset that is downright toxic in the West.
Despite the fact that the report by the Soviet leader contained demonstrable falsehoods such as the absurd claim that Stalin, one of Russia’s most formidable bank robbers as a revolutionary, was a coward deathly afraid of the Nazi invasion as it neared Moscow during WWII, the self-serving speech split the international communist movement and laid the internal groundwork for the USSR’s eventual downfall.
Robbery isn't an act of courage. A duel takes courage as it's about an armed man vs an armed man. Robbery is an act of ambush on the unarmed. Stalin was a lowlife bandit when he robbed those ill-guarded banks. Also, it's been well-established that Stalin was in a state of utter gloom and despair when Germany invaded. He wasn't even sure his henchmen would stick by his side. I'd say his reaction was all-too-human and understandable. And what Russian in Moscow was not deathly afraid of the advancing Nazis?
Also, if some speech led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, maybe the whole edifice was flimsy to begin with. What kind of a system is shaken to its core by a stinking speech? One would think the USSR was just a house of cards crumbling from a sneeze. Speech or no speech, Soviet Union was bound to suffer from arterial sclerosis because its state was at once too repressive for enterprise and too lax for coercion.
No comments:
Post a Comment