6 ms·

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet. > Mao: That is to say, I voted f

by the_af 3y ago

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet. > Mao: That is to say, I voted for you [Nixon] during your election. [...] I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [...] They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power. > Kissinger: [...] those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds. > Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you [Nixon]. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad. (I know this is just small talk and people don't always say what they mean, but...)

tumanian 3y ago
I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible. The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks. They wouldn’t even cooperate to prevent the far-right from coming to power (of course it’s not like they had a choice, moderate voters would have immediately shifted to the right if the socialists tried working with communists). So it’s not that surprising. Stalin had no issue working with Hitler and supplying Germany with raw material which were necessary for their conquest of France (during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi..) until all of that blew up in his face… Of course that was already quite different in the 60s and 70s after the Soviet were no longer as focused on ideological purity (and mass murder by extension).
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    > Stalin had no issue working with Hitler To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > also had a big trust issue Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..
      - gattilorenz 3y ago
        Sad as it may be, I don’t think this has ever been a real problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism. Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Weimar Germany was mostly dominated (to the extent that it could've been, being such a mess and of course they never had an outright majority) by the socialist party. They hated the bolsheviks as much as(if not more) anyone, even going as far to having them shot and thrown into canals... Arguably without Stalin and USSR supporting German communists most of their voters (~10% of the country) would've shifted to the Socialists party. Strengthening the Socialist-Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition and making it harder for far-right parties to take power. UK had a socialist government between 1929 and 1931 and the Labor prime minister continued running the government until 1935 supported by the Conservatives after the Labour party split (and unlike today the Labour party considered themselves to be actual socialists). Socialists also had significant influence in the French republic as well. > Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism Or rather the French and the British were much more preoccupied in dealing with their internal issues during the Great Depression to pay too much attention to what was happening in Germany. Also The British prime minister at the time when first came to power and for the 4-5 years after that was a self-avowed socialist. Which would have made it a bit weird if what you're saying was right. > In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism Why are you equating Bolshevism/Communism with Socialism? The bolsheviks overthrew a Socialist government to come to power after all and suppressed all socialist parties whenever and wherever they could.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
This is normal pragmatism and real-politik. Mao is looking after his and China's interests. The public are usually fed simplistic, emotional propaganda by their governments, all of them: good vs evil, right thing to do, freedom, whatever. But in fact policies are based on interests and cold calculations.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Mao is looking after [..] China's interests Yes, just like during the "Great Leap Forward" and the cultural revolution. Sure...
  - throw4847274 3y ago
    He was a complicated person and even in China people discuss his flaws. They see him similar to how we view George Washington. Washington shaped the nation, but also massacred Native Americans and didn't free his slaves until after his death. The Chinese see Mao as someone who gave them their pride back, but most of his socioeconomic policies were failures. I'm not trying to do a "whataboutism" here, just trying to bring some perspective of how the average Chinese person thinks of Mao.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      I don't think equating Washington and Mao makes even the tiniest bit of sense. Washington never aspired be an absolute ruler or to fundamentally transform the American society into something else by force. But yeah I get your point, it's unfortunate that China never had its Khrushchev moment.
      - swores 3y ago
        They were equating those two people in terms of how people look back at each of them and see positives despite acknowledging significant negatives. I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense, but your response is irrelevant because they weren't saying that Mao and Washington were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions.
woodpanel 3y ago
Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".
- kachnuv_ocasek 3y ago
  None of what you wrote makes any coherent sense in this world. I don't even know where to start…
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    The OP’s statement is perfectly coherent and sensible. A number of soixante-huitards who flirted with Maoism are now in favour of strong European defense against Russia. Moreover, Maoism deemphasized the individual, but today those ex-Maoists are more likely to support individualist things like gender self-selection.
- bequanna 3y ago
  > The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists" Please expand on that. The only thing that backing the Soviet Union and current day Russia seem to have in common is that they are both aggressive, authorities regimes. Maybe I’m missing some nuance here.
  - the_af 3y ago
    To clarify: it both makes no sense and also occurs. I've seen it in my country. Our Communist Party supports Russia in the current war, out of nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Does it make sense? None at all. Russia and the Soviet Union share nothing today. Putin likes to remember past military glories of the USSR but rebukes communism and his country is the land of oligarchs. Ideologically Russia and the USSR are nothing alike. I've not read anything from Maoists on Russia's current invasion, but I likewise can believe they oppose it, for the same broken thought process: if they identify Putin's Russia with their hated historical enemy, the Soviets, then of course they are against it! Completely bonkers, I know, but it has some bizarre logic.
irthomasthomas 3y ago
Not surprising given Marx's theory, that capitalism, unchecked, was bound to become centralised, and monopolised. Thus, creating the conditions for a revolutionary transition to totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. But leaping too soon to communism retards that process.
- the_af 3y ago
  I don't think "totalitarian" is part of Marx credo. Dictatorship is not used in that sense, and in any kind, according to Marx this dictatorship is transitional and must also end. Agreed about the "not leaping" too soon comment, though. In the end I think Mao simply saw the USSR as the more immediate threat, and faraway rightists in America were less of a concern -- and if they opposed the Russkies, so much the better!

by the_af 3y ago

tumanian 3y ago

I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible. The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks. They wouldn’t even cooperate to prevent the far-right from coming to power (of course it’s not like they had a choice, moderate voters would have immediately shifted to the right if the socialists tried working with communists). So it’s not that surprising. Stalin had no issue working with Hitler and supplying Germany with raw material which were necessary for their conquest of France (during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi..) until all of that blew up in his face… Of course that was already quite different in the 60s and 70s after the Soviet were no longer as focused on ideological purity (and mass murder by extension).
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  > Stalin had no issue working with Hitler To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > also had a big trust issue Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..
    - gattilorenz 3y ago
      Sad as it may be, I don’t think this has ever been a real problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism. Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        Weimar Germany was mostly dominated (to the extent that it could've been, being such a mess and of course they never had an outright majority) by the socialist party. They hated the bolsheviks as much as(if not more) anyone, even going as far to having them shot and thrown into canals... Arguably without Stalin and USSR supporting German communists most of their voters (~10% of the country) would've shifted to the Socialists party. Strengthening the Socialist-Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition and making it harder for far-right parties to take power. UK had a socialist government between 1929 and 1931 and the Labor prime minister continued running the government until 1935 supported by the Conservatives after the Labour party split (and unlike today the Labour party considered themselves to be actual socialists). Socialists also had significant influence in the French republic as well. > Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism Or rather the French and the British were much more preoccupied in dealing with their internal issues during the Great Depression to pay too much attention to what was happening in Germany. Also The British prime minister at the time when first came to power and for the 4-5 years after that was a self-avowed socialist. Which would have made it a bit weird if what you're saying was right. > In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism Why are you equating Bolshevism/Communism with Socialism? The bolsheviks overthrew a Socialist government to come to power after all and suppressed all socialist parties whenever and wherever they could.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

This is normal pragmatism and real-politik. Mao is looking after his and China's interests. The public are usually fed simplistic, emotional propaganda by their governments, all of them: good vs evil, right thing to do, freedom, whatever. But in fact policies are based on interests and cold calculations.

qwytw 3y ago
> Mao is looking after [..] China's interests Yes, just like during the "Great Leap Forward" and the cultural revolution. Sure...
- throw4847274 3y ago
  He was a complicated person and even in China people discuss his flaws. They see him similar to how we view George Washington. Washington shaped the nation, but also massacred Native Americans and didn't free his slaves until after his death. The Chinese see Mao as someone who gave them their pride back, but most of his socioeconomic policies were failures. I'm not trying to do a "whataboutism" here, just trying to bring some perspective of how the average Chinese person thinks of Mao.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    I don't think equating Washington and Mao makes even the tiniest bit of sense. Washington never aspired be an absolute ruler or to fundamentally transform the American society into something else by force. But yeah I get your point, it's unfortunate that China never had its Khrushchev moment.
    - swores 3y ago
      They were equating those two people in terms of how people look back at each of them and see positives despite acknowledging significant negatives. I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense, but your response is irrelevant because they weren't saying that Mao and Washington were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions.

woodpanel 3y ago

Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".

kachnuv_ocasek 3y ago
None of what you wrote makes any coherent sense in this world. I don't even know where to start…
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  The OP’s statement is perfectly coherent and sensible. A number of soixante-huitards who flirted with Maoism are now in favour of strong European defense against Russia. Moreover, Maoism deemphasized the individual, but today those ex-Maoists are more likely to support individualist things like gender self-selection.
bequanna 3y ago
> The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists" Please expand on that. The only thing that backing the Soviet Union and current day Russia seem to have in common is that they are both aggressive, authorities regimes. Maybe I’m missing some nuance here.
- the_af 3y ago
  To clarify: it both makes no sense and also occurs. I've seen it in my country. Our Communist Party supports Russia in the current war, out of nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Does it make sense? None at all. Russia and the Soviet Union share nothing today. Putin likes to remember past military glories of the USSR but rebukes communism and his country is the land of oligarchs. Ideologically Russia and the USSR are nothing alike. I've not read anything from Maoists on Russia's current invasion, but I likewise can believe they oppose it, for the same broken thought process: if they identify Putin's Russia with their hated historical enemy, the Soviets, then of course they are against it! Completely bonkers, I know, but it has some bizarre logic.

irthomasthomas 3y ago

Not surprising given Marx's theory, that capitalism, unchecked, was bound to become centralised, and monopolised. Thus, creating the conditions for a revolutionary transition to totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. But leaping too soon to communism retards that process.

the_af 3y ago
I don't think "totalitarian" is part of Marx credo. Dictatorship is not used in that sense, and in any kind, according to Marx this dictatorship is transitional and must also end. Agreed about the "not leaping" too soon comment, though. In the end I think Mao simply saw the USSR as the more immediate threat, and faraway rightists in America were less of a concern -- and if they opposed the Russkies, so much the better!