China as a Model for the Revival of the Soviet Union under Russian Guise

The main reason for the Sino-Soviet split was the 1956 CPSU 20th Party Congress in which Khrushchev denounced Stalin and proposed the revisionist policies of "Peaceful Co-existence" and "Party and State of the Whole People" The CPC, under the leadership of Chairman Mao, took exception to these policies and formulations and saw them as a betrayal of the vanguard role of the working class and a power grab by a new bourgeoisie within the Party.

At the time China and the Soviet Union were at very different stages of socialist develop and both were pursuing different policies, based to a large extent on the exigencies of the times and the challenge of US Imperialism which through the mechanism of the Cold War was trying by every means possible to contain and rollback the victorious march of socialism and the anti-colonial national liberation struggles after WW2.

China was emerging from a century of Western and Japanese domination which had destroyed the foundations of the nation and reduced it to the “sick man of Asia.” It desperately needed to rebuild its infrastructure and secure the people's livelihood. This could only be done by an intense period of war communism in which all the material and human resources of the country were mobilized in a military fashion to rebuild China through socialist construction. This was the heroic period of China's socialist revolution and required charismatic leadership and a national esprit de corps, similar to what prevailed in the US during WW2 and the Soviet Union in the 1930s and the Great Patriotic War under Stalin's leadership. The denunciation of Stalin was seen by the Chinese as a tacit denunciation of Mao, and the political line of the CPC.

The Soviet Union on the other hand saw itself as a developed socialist society in which the draconian measures employed under Stalin were no longer necessary. They also saw the need to redress the glaring examples of unlawful practices that had occurred under Stalin's rule, including illegal persecutions and prosecutions of innocent Communists and non-party individuals, as well as instances of unlawful collective punishment. The CPSU however did this in such a way as to demoralize Communists throughout the world and throw the Communist movement into disarray.

China in a similar situation after the death of Mao in 1976 refused to throw Mao under the bus. Many of his policies during the various mass campaigns up to and including the Cultural Revolution were severely criticized but Mao was recognized as the great and indispensable leader of the Chinese Revolution and the Chinese nation. His legacy was evaluated as 70/30. 70% correct, 30% incorrect and he is still today a revered figure throughout China. The CPC never reversed the verdict on Mao, even though the vast majority of persecuted Communists were rehabilitated after the overthrow of the Gang of Four. Even the victims of Stalin's purges, the great Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, Kamarov, Zinoviev and yes Trotsky are well evaluated in Baiku, the Chinese version of Wikipedia.

The Chinese have clearly stated in recent analyzes of the fall of the Soviet Union that the de-Stalinization campaigns initiated by Khrushchev and reinforced and expanded by Gorbachev 30 years later were crucial components of the ideological collapse that directly led to the Soviet Union's downfall. China has not done that and recognizes the fundamental need to maintain the mythos and ethos of Communist ideology under the leadership of the CPC. All the talk about China turning its bacl on Marxism-Leninism and Maoism is Western disinformation and propaganda meant to delegitimize the CPC and its leading role in China's socialist development.

What about “Peaceful Co-existence?” Isn't that a policy that the Chinese are currently pursuing? Hasn't the CPC embraced this concept under the post-Mao leadership? The answer is no. But some may say hasn't China pursued the policy of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence ever since the Bandung Conference of non-aligned nations in 1955? Yes and quite appropriately, but the essence of the Chinese concept of peaceful-coexistence is totally different than that of the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union the idea of peaceful-coexistence meant that the two blocs, the socialist bloc and the capitalist bloc should co-exist and divide the world between them. They could battle it out in proxy wars and even send troops across borders to maintain or extend their spheres of influence, they could stage manage coups and support opposition forces in various countries that were in the throes of de-colonization, but it was all done in the context of the Cold War division of the Post-war world.

China's concept of peaceful co-existence was the polar opposite. It was based on non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and developing relations based on the principles of mutual aid and mutual benefit. This was and is a very different formulation than the Soviet idea of peaceful-co-existence which the Chinese saw as giving the US and Soviet blocs carte blanche to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations and impose their model of development on recalcitrant client states. China would have no part in that as it was seen to infringe on their own national sovereignty.

What about the formulation of the Party and State of the Whole People? Article 1, Chapter 1 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution states that “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.” No mention of the leading role of the working class, just the assertion that their will and interests would be expressed. In contrast the 1982 Chinese Constitution, as amended in 2004 states in Article 1, Chapter 1 that, “The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.” While some may say this is merely rhetorical and that China is not even a socialist state, they are profoundly wrong. Read both Constitutions and see how they differ and how the Chinese Constitution clearly reflects the primary stage of socialism the Chinese acknowledge themselves to be operating under.

So how does this all relate to the question at hand? First it must be noted that Gorbachev clearly stated that he was a “child” of the 20^th Party Congress and that he wanted to follow its reforms through to the end. That is he thought Khrushchev's reforms were half measures and that the malaise of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was that the measures Khrushchev initiated were not thorough going enough, hence Glasnost and Perestroika. But what this meant was the complete deconstruction of the Soviet Union and it's conversion into a bourgeois social democratic republic. Whatever Gorbachev's motives may have been, as is often said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Glasnost and Perestroika were a total surrender to the West and took de-Stalinization to its logical conclusion the complete and utter collapse of the Soviet Union and the states under its immediate hegemony. De-Stalinization became a coded phrase for de-Sovietization and the deconstruction of socialism.

China on the other hand never abandoned its roots, but built on them. The leadership re-evaluated domestic economic relations and the state of the world and opted for a greatly expanded NEP based on the objective conditions of China's domestic needs and the world balance of forces. It maintained its socialist legacy, and its sovereignty and pursued an independent developmental trajectory of its own choosing based on a combination of its rich cultural and historical legacy, an appreciation of the need to integrate into the global marketplace and the necessity of allowing certain capitalistic relations of production to take root in order to quickly develop the means of production so that China could accelerate its socialist construction, which in the era of US Financial Capitalism and US Imperialism was and is absolutely essential.

My thesis is that Soviet Union could have done the same, but its always easy to criticize from hindsight. The dynamic in the Soviet Union was very different than in China for a multitude of historic and cultural reasons. Nonetheless Russia can now get on the same track as Chinas. There used to be talk of convergence between the East (Soviet Communism) and the West (US Capitalism). Now maybe there needs to be talk of convergence between Russia and China, or perhaps more to the point Russia beginning to emulate more of the Chinese model of economic development. Actually, the Soviet Union continues on in the PRC, many of the PRCs practices can be easily adopted and adapted to Russian reality. China for instance has shied away from Maoist totalitarianism and pays homage to its rich cultural legacy, reinterpreted to met its contemporary ideological needs. Much the same can occur in Russia. For instance China talks about the need to develop “socialist spiritual civilization” and “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

The West's abandonment of Russia, it's refusal to see Russia half way, the turning of its back on Russia's attempts to integrate with the West and the West's attempts to denigrate and stigmatize Russia and its civilization may be an unintended gift. It may free Russia to regain its identity and pick up where it left off in 1991. So its not a question of Red (socialism) or White (traditionalism) its a question of merging the two into a new dynamic whole.