Chinese Tensions
- This topic has 427 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No, I don’t think Chiang and Mao were “buddies” at all
Look like ‘buddies’ to me…
Thomas More,
The works of Mao Tse Tung and Enver Hoxha ( I have read both ) confirm that they were buddies, and they made alliances, even more, Enver Hoxha said that Mao was the new Chinese Confucian. As I wrote before, the works of Mao Tse Tung were arranged by the publisher in a way to avoid showing the zig-zag of the Moaists, ad Mao Tse Tung.
I know what I am saying because I was involved with both movements for several years, and I spent several years with the Albanian tendency, and I read all the works of Enver Hoxha and the documents of the Labor Party of Albania, and all the articles of Albania Today
The Maoists made alliances with a bunch of reactionary governments including the government of Augusto Pinochet and they offered armaments to him, that alliance provoked a great division within the Maoist movement, and until now the Maoists are justifying that alliance with a government that participated in the killing of more than 30,000 human beings, and Peking Review also justified the support toward the Chilean government
They made a reluctant alliance in 1936. The arbiter of that alliance, Chang Hsueh-liang, was punished with lifelong house arrest on Taiwan.
Why take Hoxha, himself a tyrant, as an authority?
If George Bush says that the Iraq invasion was because of oil, are we going to reject that statement? Donald Trump said that the USA has had many criminal wars, Mc Namara said that the invasion of Vietnam was a mistake and was wrong, are we going to reject that statement? To understand Leninism you must read Lenin’s works, and to understand Maoism you must read Mao Tse Tung’s works, and to understand China in 1950 and now, it is also appropriate to read the works of Enver Hoxha. In this thread, we are publishing articles from different capitalist sources, from Anarchists, and leftwingers and we have said that they are reliable. Joseph Stalin described in one of his works the real principles of socialism/communism, are we going to reject that because Stalin was a brutal dictator? We must open the windows and doors of our minds, there is a wide world out there, and there are many different issues out there. We can not be like the boxer that is taking punches in his little corner
Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and many other dictators were buddies of the Western powers and their leaders, even more, we have an article that says that all dictators have been friends and allies of the Western powers, and we can also say that many dictators have been friends of the eastern powers. Capitalists have been making temporary alliances and friendships for many decades. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton made alliances with Mao Tse Tung, and the Chinese leadership and one Maoist group wrote: The working class movement has been sold on a red carpet when Nixon visited Peking, was he wrong according to his analysis because he was a Maoist and supporter of armed struggles? The USA and Saudi Arabia were buddies for many years and now there are contradictions among them, the USA is willing to reduce the tensions with Venezuela to buy oil from them and they are having secrets meeting, and they can become ‘buddies’ again
Does that picture show that they were enemies? Sometimes people are married for 50 years and then they become enemies. Before WW2 the real enemy of the USA was England and Canada, and then they became buddies, and England had to provide the military secret to the USA to protect England against the German, and the Nazis were buddies of all the Western corporations, even more, Roosevelt said that a system similar to the Nazis should have been implemented in the USA. The new government of Beasil at present time is making an alliance with China, and the old government was a buddy of the USA. Capitalists are like a clock pendulum, they oscillate from one alliance to another alliance
But this makes them as impervious to genuine amity as it does to genuine enmity.
As Voltaire says, crooks have accomplices, not friends. So I suppose it boils down to the definition of “buddy.”
In any case, Chiang and Mao were definitely on each other’s death list.
And please note, Movimiento, that we both have the same understanding of socialism, and I am quite well-read, starting from childhood.
By coincidence Imposs1904 has just posted on his blog the 50 years ago column from the April 2003 issue of then Socialist Standard, ie an article from 1953. It’s about Formosa (as Taiwan was still then known) in the context of the clash between China and the US. At the time the Korean War was still on.
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/04/50-years-ago-facing-facts-in-formosa.html
I don’t know if it is relevant but World War III didn’t happen ….
China was then in no position to fight the U.S., except in a proxy war like Korea. And Stalin, I think, would have left Mao on his own.
Chiang at that time was talking about the retaking of mainland China, which Taiwan today can’t possibly consider.
Also, KMT forces were launching forays from Burma.War is the last resource used by the capitalist class when they do not have any more choices to resolve their contradictions, even now, China is not ready to confront the USA, and the capitalists are not going to use atomic bombs right now, it is going to be their destruction too. The Soviet Union tried to compete with the USA in the production of weapons and they went belly up, at present the USA is spending more money on military hardware than Russia and China, and they have military bases all over the world
But China is approaching a pact with Russia, so they will be able to challenge the U.S.
And the gangsters may think they can get away with nuclear war by taking to their multi-billion dollar de luxe bunkers, which they all have. I mean, whoever said they were bright people?
But, despite all this, the DPP president of Taiwan herself has NOT proclaimed independence, and the US will advise her not to.
The Kuomintang are also mounting anti-independence marches, and that should satisfy China, which will nonetheless continue flexing its military might, as it has always done whenever independence is hinted at.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.