China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world.
While this isn’t a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.
The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.
Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.
It’s not so clear as that, I think. The USSR and the PRC both exported revolution / aided decolonial revolutions to some extent, but the USSR also attempted a policy of peaceful coexistence and in many cases was probably not as proactive as they could or should have been, often only reacting to the most egregious of aggressions from the U.S.
The USSR’s “peaceful coexistence” during the Cold War was simply them trying to avoid WW3 with the US, especially after how much WW2 devastated Soviet society and how far it set them back in their economic goals.
It wasn’t an incorrect position to take given the US still had an immense amount of production capital before the neoliberal turn and, if the USSR were to hypothetically enter a hot war with America, they would likely lose it solely because the US would be able to outproduce them.
And even before WW2, the USSR was already doing peaceful coexistence with capital from their policy of ‘Socialism in one country’, because they realized after the failure of socialist uprisings in other European countries in the 1920’s, they were alone in the world and surrounded by the enemy.
Trying to be more ‘proactive’, which is what the Trotskyists wanted, would have been tantamount to self-destruction.
The PRC and the rest of the Marxist-Leninist states today continue the same doctrine, because it works for them today as it did for the Soviets back then.
It should also be noted that some of the interventions that the USSR did undertake ended up eliciting resentment from the local populations towards Soviet Communism.
The Soviet-Afghan War is a prime example, but it can also be seen in their suppression of protests and politicians that didn’t toe Moscow’s line closely enough in Eastern European SSRs (which, while understandable, did create a big impression from the people that the USSR was an occupier getting in the way of self-determination).
Mao’s criticism of the USSR conducting ‘social imperialism’ during the Cold War was an apt one when, in the cases I noted beforehand, it was very much the Soviets trying to impose their will and ideological line on foreign peoples, instead of allowing left-wing movements to grow and develop organically.
I personally believe the Belt and Road Initiative is China’s way of allowing the latter idea to occur, but it’s not without its faults, and it remains to be seen if it will succeed.
Let’s not forget the PRC themselves made several mistakes in their attempts to export Socialism abroad too; backing the genocidal Khmer Rouge, sending the PLA into Vietnam to “teach them a lesson” for removing the Khmer Rouge, and the Sino-Soviet Split itself causing a massive rift in the International left that greatly stunted the ability to organize against global capital.
Again, I’m not trying to argue that it’s wrong to try and instigate revolution abroad and back anti-colonial movements (DPRK indirectly supplying weapons to Palestinians is based), but that there is a lot more historical nuance behind the modern geopolitical strategies of AES.
If I may ask, what do you believe the USSR should have been more proactive in in regard to their interventions abroad?
I’m not really well informed enough but my understanding is that after Afghan communists took power, the Soviets had very little at all to do with supporting that government until they sent troops like a full 6 months after the CIA began arming, organizing and funding reactionary forces in the country, something which a US official famously admitted, boasting about provoking the “invasion”. Maybe a more proactive approach by the Soviets could have been more effective than going in only after the government was already beset by well armed forces of reaction. I don’t know though, it’s just a thought. I wasn’t trying to say you’re wrong, I just think it isn’t so black and white as to say they did the opposite of non-interference.
My general reading of the Cold War is that the USSR as opposed to how they were painted by western propaganda as this scheming force trying to install communism everywhere is that they were actually highly conciliatory and as you said trying to avoid WW3, whereas the U.S. was the truly aggressive and belligerent actor across the globe. The USSR mostly restrained itself to supporting causes that solicited their help and only then when they had already taken state power or were close to doing so. As you said they were like this even before WW2, telling the Chinese communists to continue working the KMT is another example.
Post WW2 they were highly conciliatory giving half of Berlin to the capitalists, allowing the U.S. to occupy half of Korea and only begrudgingly aiding the DPRK military campaign after Kim took action to end that occupation. The U.S. was far more aggressive in places like Greece, and later places like Indonesia where the U.S. was actively bombing parts of the country and provided support to the anti-communist military forces allowing them to kill a million people and destroy what was a large well organized communist party in one of the world’s most populous countries. I can imagine an alternate history where the communists in Indonesia armed themselves with the aid of the PRC or USSR and that huge win for the forces of reaction never happens (actually, Mao warned the Indonesian communists to arm up and they chose not to so it’s not a criticism of China or USSR, more so just illustrative of how sometimes choosing to not act or bide your time can be disastrous in general).
But I mostly agree with you, and I think China has been served well by following a strict non-interference policy during this particular historic moment. I was only quibbling with the characterization of the USSR’s policy as the opposite of that, their actions were somewhere in between. There may have been times they got involved unnecessarily but I think there were also times where they could have been served well by doing a bit more.
China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world. While this isn’t a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.
The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.
Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.
It’s not so clear as that, I think. The USSR and the PRC both exported revolution / aided decolonial revolutions to some extent, but the USSR also attempted a policy of peaceful coexistence and in many cases was probably not as proactive as they could or should have been, often only reacting to the most egregious of aggressions from the U.S.
The USSR’s “peaceful coexistence” during the Cold War was simply them trying to avoid WW3 with the US, especially after how much WW2 devastated Soviet society and how far it set them back in their economic goals. It wasn’t an incorrect position to take given the US still had an immense amount of production capital before the neoliberal turn and, if the USSR were to hypothetically enter a hot war with America, they would likely lose it solely because the US would be able to outproduce them.
And even before WW2, the USSR was already doing peaceful coexistence with capital from their policy of ‘Socialism in one country’, because they realized after the failure of socialist uprisings in other European countries in the 1920’s, they were alone in the world and surrounded by the enemy. Trying to be more ‘proactive’, which is what the Trotskyists wanted, would have been tantamount to self-destruction.
The PRC and the rest of the Marxist-Leninist states today continue the same doctrine, because it works for them today as it did for the Soviets back then.
It should also be noted that some of the interventions that the USSR did undertake ended up eliciting resentment from the local populations towards Soviet Communism. The Soviet-Afghan War is a prime example, but it can also be seen in their suppression of protests and politicians that didn’t toe Moscow’s line closely enough in Eastern European SSRs (which, while understandable, did create a big impression from the people that the USSR was an occupier getting in the way of self-determination).
Mao’s criticism of the USSR conducting ‘social imperialism’ during the Cold War was an apt one when, in the cases I noted beforehand, it was very much the Soviets trying to impose their will and ideological line on foreign peoples, instead of allowing left-wing movements to grow and develop organically. I personally believe the Belt and Road Initiative is China’s way of allowing the latter idea to occur, but it’s not without its faults, and it remains to be seen if it will succeed.
Let’s not forget the PRC themselves made several mistakes in their attempts to export Socialism abroad too; backing the genocidal Khmer Rouge, sending the PLA into Vietnam to “teach them a lesson” for removing the Khmer Rouge, and the Sino-Soviet Split itself causing a massive rift in the International left that greatly stunted the ability to organize against global capital.
Again, I’m not trying to argue that it’s wrong to try and instigate revolution abroad and back anti-colonial movements (DPRK indirectly supplying weapons to Palestinians is based), but that there is a lot more historical nuance behind the modern geopolitical strategies of AES.
If I may ask, what do you believe the USSR should have been more proactive in in regard to their interventions abroad?
I’m not really well informed enough but my understanding is that after Afghan communists took power, the Soviets had very little at all to do with supporting that government until they sent troops like a full 6 months after the CIA began arming, organizing and funding reactionary forces in the country, something which a US official famously admitted, boasting about provoking the “invasion”. Maybe a more proactive approach by the Soviets could have been more effective than going in only after the government was already beset by well armed forces of reaction. I don’t know though, it’s just a thought. I wasn’t trying to say you’re wrong, I just think it isn’t so black and white as to say they did the opposite of non-interference.
My general reading of the Cold War is that the USSR as opposed to how they were painted by western propaganda as this scheming force trying to install communism everywhere is that they were actually highly conciliatory and as you said trying to avoid WW3, whereas the U.S. was the truly aggressive and belligerent actor across the globe. The USSR mostly restrained itself to supporting causes that solicited their help and only then when they had already taken state power or were close to doing so. As you said they were like this even before WW2, telling the Chinese communists to continue working the KMT is another example.
Post WW2 they were highly conciliatory giving half of Berlin to the capitalists, allowing the U.S. to occupy half of Korea and only begrudgingly aiding the DPRK military campaign after Kim took action to end that occupation. The U.S. was far more aggressive in places like Greece, and later places like Indonesia where the U.S. was actively bombing parts of the country and provided support to the anti-communist military forces allowing them to kill a million people and destroy what was a large well organized communist party in one of the world’s most populous countries. I can imagine an alternate history where the communists in Indonesia armed themselves with the aid of the PRC or USSR and that huge win for the forces of reaction never happens (actually, Mao warned the Indonesian communists to arm up and they chose not to so it’s not a criticism of China or USSR, more so just illustrative of how sometimes choosing to not act or bide your time can be disastrous in general).
But I mostly agree with you, and I think China has been served well by following a strict non-interference policy during this particular historic moment. I was only quibbling with the characterization of the USSR’s policy as the opposite of that, their actions were somewhere in between. There may have been times they got involved unnecessarily but I think there were also times where they could have been served well by doing a bit more.