sino soviet split

anonymous asked:

Do you have anything I can read about the "active struggle to increase workers’ control over society and revolutionise the relations of production" in China under Mao?

As we are not a blog that focuses on reading communist literature or literature on the history of communism, we feel it is not adequate to answer this question with a simple reading list. However, the question of how there was an active struggle to increase workers control and revolutionize the relations of production is a pressing one, and deserves a thorough response.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) was a massive upheaval in social, economic, and political life in the People’s Republic. It was in this context that China saw a massive shift from the economic policies both capitalist states and the USSR (both in its socialist and capitalist periods).

In the factories, workers and local revolutionary committees maintained a strict political line and focused on the welfare of workers in their workplace. In Charles Bettelheim’s work, The Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China, textile workers interviewed on the changing of relations remarked on the welfare of workers achieved in the GPCR:

“We pay particular attention to working conditions and are guided in this by the Chinese Communist Party. We are concerned with the welfare of the workers and the preservation of human initiative. In the old society things were very different. The capitalists did not care about such matters. […] There are two additional fifteen minute breaks for physical exercises designed to prevent work-related disabilities. These are at the same time military exercises, for we must all be prepared in case of an imperialist invasion.

All doctors attached to the infirmary are required to make daily rounds of the shops. This reduces the need for a worker to consult a doctor elsewhere. […] There is no charge for consultation and medication. […] Of course, we do not claim that we have done enough to improve working conditions. We must make even greater efforts, for there are always new problems to be solved.”

Other factories in China operated on similar platforms, as well as paying wages regularly above the cost of living, providing special assistance to workers in extraordinary working conditions, and providing more assistance to working women and mothers. Many of the larger factories offered educational facilities for workers, teaching technical skills, engineering, and more. During the GPCR, workers struggled to replace the individualist idea of “professional advancement” with serving the people- using these more advanced skills and new responsibilities to be useful and for the benefit of the collective and the whole people.

Most industrial workplaces in China were attempting to “learn from Daqing,” a petroleum complex that, following the end of Soviet aid as a result of the Sino-Soviet split, necessitated massive effort of workers and administrators working together, not just to earn more money, but to expand China’s resources and provide for the revolution and the people. Daqing was upheld as a model to follow for the PRC because it ended the country’s reliance on foreign oil and maintained a proletarian political line.

In Daqing and other factories, problems were discussed collectively, and daily, and so solutions were formulated outside of a purely technical outlook. In the USSR and capitalist countries, factories had "economics in command”- meaning production was seen as primary, along with monetary incentives, specialists, profit, etc. The top-down method of Soviet leadership in the economy was abandoned as workers made a serious effort to include political cadre in production and themselves in management. Before the GPCR, the division between workers and management was stark, similar to the USSR. Management was appointed by central administration and the factory party committee, which focused almost entirely on production and technology without much (if any) conversation with the workers. The GPCR flipped this model, and put “politics in command.” Factory committees were completely dissolved and replaced with mass organizations such as management teams and revolutionary committees, with the revisionist line of management eliminated as the workers and masses rose up under the leadership of the Communist Party. Piece wage systems were abolished, individual and group bonuses were increasingly eliminated, and production teams took over much of the work of management. Some factories implemented yearly production goals after lengthy, factory-wide discussion, and production teams even deliberated on their own wages based on experience, skill, and attitude. Furthermore wages were set on a system that averaged wage differentials to 1:3. Management, political cadre, members of the revolutionary committees, and administrators all participated in production as the GPCR went on. “Triple combinations” of workers, administrators, and technicians were formed to solve technical problems and make innovations. Factory workers began focusing on the needs of the country as a whole, instead of just their workplace.

Political study of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other socialist thinkers was also common in factories, in order that workers would be more able to investigate and forge solutions to both economic and political issues.

When the Deng Xiaoping clique within the Party gained power, these achievements were all reversed, washed away and replaced with the all-too-familiar system where all authority was placed into the hands of factory managers.

This ask is already quite long, and we have really only touched on industrial production- but these achievements were deeply felt in the rural regions of China as well. During the GPCR, peasants in the countryside (who still made up 80% of the population) formed independent mass organizations in the People’s Communes, and directly confronted the bureaucratic methods of work by leadership and Party cadre. Production team leaders were elected and subject to recall. Village revolutionary committees were formed and exercised day-to-day leadership in villages and on Communes, similar to urban revolutionary committees did in city neighborhoods. Peasants began painting, writing, performing, and became involved with politics, and the expansion of education and healthcare brought immediate benefits to people who had never had access to it before. The rural Communes were advised to “learn from Dazhai,” which was a brigade of a Commune in Shanxi Province. Dazhai transformed its hills into fertile land, struggled against capitalist mentality in agriculture, and constructed new housing and community projects in villages. In the late 1970s, again with the rise of the Deng clique, the Communes were broken up, land was distributed to individual peasant households, and privatization brought an end to the collective healthcare system and “barefoot doctor” initiative.

The key achievement both in industry and agriculture towards revolutionizing social relations was in putting politics in command. By putting politics in command, the PRC was able to transform enterprises into interrelated political units, dramatically changing the relationship between workers and managers, between city and countryside, and further advancing the class struggle and demonstrating, especially considering the reversal of these achievements, that a proletarian political line is essential to the development of socialism and of communist transformation. 


The speech by Premier Zhou Enlai was focused primarily on the situation in Czechoslovakia. He said that the Soviet Union committed ‘a violent crime against the Czechoslovak people,’ that this type of behavior is 'the most shameless, typical example of behavior by a fascist power,’ and that the Chinese government and Chinese people 'condemn this crime of aggression’ and are behind the Czechoslovak people. Comparing what was happening in Czechoslovakia with what Hitler did in that country, and what the US did in Vietnam, Premier Zhou Enlai stressed that 'Soviet revisionism degenerated into Social[ist]- Imperialism and Social[ist]-Fascism,’ and that the US and the Soviet Union are trying to divide the world [among themselves].

Excerpt from A series of three telegrams reporting on a reception held at the Romanian Embassy in Beijing on August 23, 1968. Premier Zhou Enlai attended the event and gave a speech condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Text available via the Wilson Center Archives.


I got a request to cover some of the “Cold War” era as it happened in Asia (outside the U.S.) Americans are often taught the Cold War through a rather binary lens, in a strictly East-West/Soviet-U.S./Communist-Capitalist divide.

Of course, things are more nuanced than that. This is a snippet of a telegram report from 1968 which sheds light on the ups and downs of international diplomacy.

Here, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai criticizes the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia which had happened three days earlier on August 20, 1968. The Soviet Union had led Warsaw Pact troops into Prague, with the intent to crack down on reformist trends. These troops had been gathered from the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and Bulgaria under the guise of Warsaw Pact military exercises. Instead of exercises, however, the Warsaw Pact troops overtook Prague.

Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia was quick, and Soviet leaders justified the action under the “Brezhnev Doctrine” - claiming the Moscow could invoke the right to intervene wherever a country’s Communist government had been threatened. These actions furthered what is known at the Sino-Soviet split, a conflict developed over diverging USSR and PRC (China) interests and interpretations of communism.

The introduction of the Brezhnev doctrine in this way sparked concerns in Beijing that with time, the USSR would use it as a way to justify either interfering in Chinese communist affairs or invading China.

anonymous asked:

what are your opinions of the ddr?

It was a pseudo-socialist state led by a revisionist party much like the rest of the eastern bloc and yugoslavia. they took the soviets side in the sino-soviet split, crushed maoist (pro-china) organizations that sprung up in the country, and ran their economy based on capitalist models of profitability. it was thoroughly revisionist.

that being said they were genuinely anti-fascist after the war, unlike the west, and they had to pay the majority of war reparations to the USSR (the reparations to be paid by the west were cancelled by the US iirc). that, combined with the fact that eastern germany was far more damaged than western germany and the fact that the soviet union didn’t have the financial capabilities to aid the development of industry in the country like the allied powers did to the west, makes the myth of “communism and capitalism compared” with respect to east and west germany, where they compare differences in commodity productions as “proof communism fails”, a total capitalist mystification that ignores actual history. it had (like most eastern bloc countries, despite their faux socialism) affordable and quality housing, education, and healthcare. the idea that these countries like the GDR were drab, impoverished, and far worse off and more conservative than the capitalist west is a complete fabrication.


All of the following are Marxist tendencies. A more thorough explanation of Marxism itself, as well as brief biographies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels will be incoming if I can actually manage to write them.

This post will likely be added to and changed for inaccuracies.

There are dozens more tendencies not included here.


Marxism as applied and developed by Vladimir Lenin and later Joseph Stalin. Can be put under the broader label “Leninism”.

Some features of Marxism-Leninism include:

  • The idea that revolutions will occur first where the chains of imperialist Capitalism are weakest, not necessarily where the productive forces have been strongest, as has usually been held. Basically, revolution is more likely to occur first in poor, colonised countries.
  • The vanguard party - the idea that a disciplined organization of the most advanced members of the proletariat should train, lead, organize and steer the proletariat towards revolution.
  • The idea of a proletarian socialist state, used to suppress the bourgeoise and act as the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp - this will be defined hopefully in an upcoming post) and build Socialism and the path to Communism.
  • Heavy emphasis on anti-imperialism.
  • Emphasis on developing productive forces in poor or backwards countries.


Marxism as applied and developed by Leon Trotsky and followers. Can be put under the broader label “Leninism”.

Some features of Trotskyism include:

  • The vangaurd party and the proletarian socialist state, as in Marxism-Leninism.
  • The idea of permanent revolution - that, especially in underdeveloped countries, revolution should be exported, especially to the more advanced capitalist countries before Socialism has a chance to be built.
  • The “broadly-based” mass party. The idea that the party should be more open to people joining and support a larger, more variant membership with ranging ideas, similar to Western political parties.
  • Strong opposition to Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, which is often called “Stalinism” by Trotskyists.
  • Support of revolution in “Stalinist” states.


Marxism (and sometimes not Marxism) as described by people who were opposed to Leninism and consider themselves to the “left” of Leninism (Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism).

Features of Left-Communism include:

  • Emphasis on directly democratic workers councils.
  • Rejection of the idea of a Vanguard Party.
  • The idea that the dictatorship of the proletariat will not be a literal state but the revolution itself.
  • Rejection of party-based or otherwise hierarchiel organization.
  • (Often) Opposition to workers unions, which are seen as having become bourgeous tools.
  • Emphasis on revolution in advanced, capitalist countries.


A type of Marxism-Leninism, Maoism is Marxism-Leninism as applied and developed by Mao Zedong and others during the Chinese Revolution and followers since then.

Two types of modern Maoism are “Mao Zedong Thought (MZT)” and “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM)”. Explanations for what these are are out of the scope of this page, but hopefully will be written in the future.

Some features of Maoism include:

  • Emphasis on anti-revisionism. Maoists see the Soviet Union post-Stalin and China post-Mao as having abandoned Socialism and Marxism-Leninism and become “revisionist”.
  • Siding with China and Albania in the Sino-Soviet and Sino-Albanian split.
  • Cultural Revolution: The idea that bourgeois elements of society will have to be purged through occasional mass, popular revolutions of the common people against party beaurocracy and capitalist elements withing the party and government.
  • Heavy emphasis in general on mass movements of common people.


Pronounced Ho-ja-ism, Hoxhaism is anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism as applied and developed by Enver Hoxha.

Hoxhaists rarely call themselves Hoxhaists, usually just “Marxist-Leninists”.

Some features of Hoxhaism include:

  • Heavy emphasis on anti-revisionism, Hoxhaists tend to see the only Socialists states as having been the pre-Krueschev Soviet Union and Albania under Enver Hoxha.
  • Siding with China and Albania in the Sino-Soviet and Sino-Albanian split.
  • Rejection of Maoism as being revisionist.

Summary: Alfred thinks he’s figured out the perfect way to put the squeeze on Ivan in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split. By making nice with Yao—what else? Because ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is tried and tested and completely foolproof, you bet.

Or: In which the world’s youngest empire has a conversation with one of the oldest. 

Notes: historical!hetalia. basically- the backdrop of Nixon Goes to China, and the Sino-Soviet split. not really shippyish, more like hard-nosed ‘what’s in it for me’ talk. takes place in the same continuity as the boy king.

1972, Beijing 

“Shit- I don’t get you at all—just think how much money you’d rake in from the tourists if you went and stopped being a hermit and threw your doors open tomorrow.”

And he wasn’t even being hyperbolic. The view was amazing; the way the ancient fortifications snaked across the undulating hills and mountains, a great stone dragon dozing amidst the snow-speckled landscape for miles and miles and miles—

“You have quite the one track mind,” Yao observes drily, “And you are very…cheerful today.”

Alfred grins broadly. He is in a good mood, and it’s not just the fine weather, or the boisterous atmosphere from the gaggle of reporters, government aides and other hangers-on around them.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

why do you ship hte rochu


Well, first of all, they have very good dynamics; I think Yao’s energetic personality could really fit Ivan’s shy one well, and that they’d pretty much complete each other.  Like, for example, Yao standing up for Ivan, and I could see Ivan as being a clingy person(since he’s been lonely most of his life and all), so he could be a jealous type.

SECOND, look at all that history there. Of course they don’t have their good moments, like that Sino-Soviet split, but all-in-all they have been pretty much buddy-buddy throughout history.  They had even made the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance, Friendship, and Mutual Assurance(which is not still going anymore BUT IT DID, the “anniversary” for it was on Valentine’s Day).  There was also some war(I believe WWII) where people were taking his land, but Russia was giving land back to China that he had claimed which I thought was hella.
And I really like that headcanon where China had met Russia during Mongolian rule and China basically watched him grow up, but since that’s not anything canon I guess it doesn’t really count.

There is also, of course, communism, but I think the best part relating to this is America’s “fear” of them and the domino effect and stuff, like really if you go googling Russia and China you don’t come across bad stuff, on the American google it’s all basically “scared of their alliance”.  And I got curious and checked it on the other language googles to see if they thought the same(for their good relations) and I can confirm it is good.

THIRD, their relationship Hetalia-wise.  There’s a strip where the other three Allies are arguing over something meaningless while China and Russia are just chillin’, holding donuts in their shirts and eating them while watching as though it was a movie(I wish I could find the strip).  They’re like ‘lmao front seat movie’ and I think it is beautiful.

There’s also the fact that they care for each other’s health.  Like whenever Japan went and slashed China’s back and they were in the bar, Russia was the only person there comforting him(which is pretty sad if you think about it, like no siblings, no buds, just him) and telling him everything would be fine.  And then there’s China who cared for Russia’s health whenever he had a cold and offered him medicine(and then the extremely gay part when Russia thought China was flirting with him or something and winked at him).

Then we have the G8 strip where Russia keeps saying they’re missing China and, in the English dub, England replies with “It’s not China, Russia, you just want it to be!” and wow

ok but then there’s the part where Russia was just chilling in China’s house and just smiling, eating his food with chopsticks while China’s like “WHAT THE FUCK”
And here’s a good explanation that made it even better

Then there’s Russia dressing up as a damn panda for christs sake like he’s just visiting China, dressing up as a panda which China seems to hug a lot and tell a lot of his problems to.

And I’m just going to bring the post interview in, where they described what they looked for in a person.  Here was Russia’s:

And then here is China’s:



And then we have the Boxer Rebellion strip, where China got his ass kicked and he’s talking with England, France, and Russia.  At first they’re like “sure China nbd we’ll help ya!”  And then they started claiming areas that were theres and China’s like “WHAT NO FUCK OFF” and then Russia’s like:

“Live with me China :)”

And trust me there’s plenty more I may have overlooked, but yeah this is most of my reasoning.



Communist Party of New Zealand

After the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was crushed by Soviet forces, most of the intellectuals the CPNZ had attracted left the party while some erstwhile supporters founded new journals such as New Zealand Monthly Review, Comment, Socialist Forum and Here & Now.

Next, in the early 1960s, the party experienced more internal strife due to the Sino-Soviet split. The party was divided between supporters of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev and those who claimed Khrushchev was a “revisionist” and chose instead to follow China under Mao Zedong. Subsequently, the CPNZ became the first official communist party in the First World to side with Mao. The majority of the party and its newspaper The People’s Voice adopted Maoism, while supporters of Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (mainly Auckland trade unionists) split off to form the Socialist Unity Party.

Later, when Mao died and Deng Xiaoping began to reform the Chinese system, the Communist Party of New Zealand began to follow the lead of Enver Hoxha’s Albania, which they considered to be the last truly Communist country in the world. Members of the CPNZ national leadership who continued to uphold the line of the post-Mao Chinese Communist Party, including Vic Wilcox, Alec Ostler and Don Ross were expelled, and formed the Preparatory Committee for the Formation of the Communist Party of New Zealand (Marxist–Leninist).

Meanwhile, other former members of the CPNZ in Wellington, where the party branch had been expelled en masse in 1970, founded the Wellington Marxist Leninist Organisation, which in 1980 merged with the Northern Communist Organisation to form the Workers Communist League (WCL).

After the collapse of Communism in Albania, the Communist Party of New Zealand gradually changed its views, renouncing its former support of Stalinism, Maoism, and Hoxhaism. Instead, under the leadership of its last General Secretary, Grant Morgan, it developed a State Capitalist analysis of the Stalinist states. The party now believed that the Soviet Union had never been socialist at all, not even in Stalin’s time. Opponents of this change departed, and established the Communist Party of Aotearoa (a Maoist group) and the Marxist–Leninist Collective (a pro-Hoxha group). The Communist Party of New Zealand eventually merged with the neo-Trotskyist International Socialist Organization in 1994.

Honestly the entire Cold War WAS kind of a 1984-ish in that it did have the whole ‘Oceania is at war with Eastasia - No Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia.’ and the switching back and forth regarding the US, USSR and China.

Just look at the US-China ties falling apart when the Communists won the civil war, then the Sino-Soviet split, US-Soviet detente, then later US-China rapprochement…

Hell it kind of carries on to the modern day depending on whether it’s the Iran nuclear talks, the economy, eastern european countries joining NATO, or NKorea. Orwell was pretty prescient no?…like the US, Russia and China are pretty much Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia