this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
93 points (87.8% liked)
memes
23650 readers
401 users here now
dank memes
Rules:
-
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
-
No unedited webcomics.
-
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop
-
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
-
Follow the code of conduct.
-
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
-
Recent reposts might be removed.
-
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Soviets did have a lot of cause and fault in the origin of the split, but saying China didnât do some dirty dealing later on is crazy.
They cut deals with the Americans to ally against the Soviets, gaining recognition for themselves, while burning the other socialist superpower. I donât know how you can view positively stuff like Chinaâs long term support of Pol Pot, their funding and arming of Afghan guerrilla groups, and invading Vietnam.
All of those actions were objectively horrid.
Yeah, The USSR can be revisionist, and China's response to that (re: relations with Vietnam and Cambodia, siding with the US in Afghanistan etc.) Can also be stupid as shit
I can understand why someone would think Vietnam invading Cambodia was a good action. Although I strongly disagree that training counter-revolutionary Afghan guerillas was a strategic mistake by China. I think the context is important. Consider Vogel:
Sure, I would say that in hindsight the invasion of Vietnam and the support of Pol Pot didn't help much since the USSR dissolved a decade later. Call it "objectively horrid" or "dirty dealing" as a moral argument, but I don't consider the decisions illogical given the information available at the time. I think it's unrealistic to say that China shouldn't have done anything against the USSR as every single bordering country (except Nepal and Bhutan if I'm not forgetting any?), Mongolia, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan, were friendly with the Soviets. I think most would say that China saw cooperating with the US as optimal since they were subjectively not as much as an immediate threat as the USSR, nothing more than that.
I think its important to emphasis that Deng said "The Soviet Union [...] is now stronger than the United States and Western Europe combined", as in China really saw the USSR as a greater threat than the US. Outside of moral arguments, I still believe the decisions taken given incomplete information were the logically correct actions in China's interests.
Bolded emphasis mine
Yeah, so that's how the cookie crumbles, huh? Proletarian internationalism sacrificed on the altar of national "self-interest". No wonder they continue to do business with the genocidal Zionist Entity today. It echoes this support of genociders in the past in service of "China's interests".
Stalin, despite at times having also done things that arguably made him one that was throwing stones in a glass house, really seems to have hit the nail on the head when in 1949 he said:
Source: https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv16n1/china.htm
As far as I know China mainly cited Soviet hegemony after Stalin died. I would argue it would be more accurate to change "CPSU and Stalin" to just "CPSU".
Take how Deng defined MZD thought in the Fallaci interview:
If you're to believe Deng's definitions, I think it defines MZD thought to be completely compliant with with taking "consideration the specific features of a particular country".
Stalin continues:
I can see arguments that China accomplished all 7 points. (Although 2 and 4 are arguably partially rolled back for reform and opening up)
Haven't read Lenin's works on this yet so could be somewhat ignorant. "Bourgeois", which I understand to mean that it's used to promote national unity instead of class struggle. After 1981, sure one could say that class struggle was deprioritized and any nationalism used could be considered Bourgeois (although I personally see no evidence), but I believe at the time in 1979, just 3 years after the GPCR it would be hard to argue China didn't focus on class struggle. If anything, I think most would believe the GPCR went too far with class struggle. I don't think nationalism itself is bad if it's used in the interests of communism. For example Lenin supported anti-colonial nationalism, and during the Great Patriotic War I'm sure that nationalist propaganda was used, and I assume the same was done in China as there few resources and literacy rates were low.
I can understand one believing this up till ~2010 but China now seems to be the main opponent of America which I think refutes America ever having controlled China. The governments just happened to ally because of common interests.
China arguably proportional to it's economy helped Vietnam during the war more than the Warsaw Pact did, ~$20 billion in aid. By 1979 many didn't consider the USSR to be lead by a communist party at that point. Deng's views in the Fallaci interview again:
From their point of view, China was a communist country fighting against an imperialist country. I think it would be hard to argue from their perspective it's harming proletarian internationalism even if many disagree. It was 600 million proletariat in China against ~350 million in the Warsaw pact? plus ~50 mil in Vietnam. If you count total number of proletariat (which yeah I think is pretty flawed) I could see an argument that it was the Warsaw Pact against internationalism by stationing ships and missiles in Vietnam targeting China, and Vietnam for allowing the Warsaw Pact to do so.
I get where you're coming from, but in my opinion by showing that China is willing to trade with anyone, even if they commit genocide, it gives Russia and Iran confidence that they can have a reliable trading partner when NATO countries sanction them. I would argue that Russia and Iran's economy would be much worse off if they didn't think China was reliable. I disagree with China on complying with the UN sanctions on Korea because of this. I don't know much about supply chains but imo sanctioning the Zionists probably wouldn't have that big of a practical effect as seen that Russia is mostly doing fine despite being targeted by the NATO economies. Imo NATO countries would likely supply the Zionists anything they need, both civilian and military (and arguably already do). Imo the increased confidence of Iran having arguably the most reliable trading partner to back up their economy, and the confidence to give supplies to (nationalist?) liberation movements in like Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, and Iraq, is more important than "moral superiority" China would gain over sanctioning Israel. I'm sure the many appreciate Iranian ballistic missile production and the Hezbollah artillery duals. I could even see an argument that those actions hurt the Zionist economy more than Chinese sanctions would (although they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).